Synthesis & Battle Cards
After ALL waves complete (6 agents), synthesize the raw findings into polished deliverables. This step creates the real analytical value — it connects dots across data sources to surface opportunities that individual research pieces can't reveal on their own.
Synthesis Protocol
Before Writing
- Read ALL raw files in
{project-name}/raw/before writing anything - Look for patterns across sources — what themes repeat?
- Identify contradictions between sources and explain which you trust more
- Connect the dots: pricing gaps + customer complaints + hiring signals = opportunities
Cross-Wave Connections to Look For
These are the high-value insights that come from combining data:
- Complaint + Pricing = Opportunity: Customers complain about a feature AND the competitor charges a premium for it → undercut with better value
- Hiring + Product Direction = Threat: Competitor hiring AI engineers + recent AI mentions in changelog → they're coming for that space
- Churn Signal + Switching Cost = Wedge: People want to leave but data portability is hard → build easy migration as a differentiator
- Content Gap + Search Volume = Quick Win: Nobody ranks for a high-volume term → own it early
- Review Pattern + Missing Feature = MVP Feature: Multiple competitors lack something customers want → build it first
- Funding + Team Size = Reality Check: Well-funded competitor with 100+ engineers → don't compete on features, compete on focus
Confidence Rating
Rate every major claim:
- High: Multiple Tier 1/2 sources agree, recent data
- Medium: Some evidence but gaps, or sources partially disagree
- Low: Limited data, mostly inferred, or data older than 12 months
Output File: competitors-report.md
Structure:
# Competitive Intelligence Report: {market/product}
*Skill: startup-competitors | Generated: {date}*
## Executive Summary
{5 sentences max: market concentration, key finding, biggest opportunity, biggest risk, overall assessment}
## Market Concentration
- **Structure:** fragmented / consolidating / dominated
- **Number of active players:** {count}
- **Funding concentration:** {is money flowing in or drying up?}
- **Entry barriers:** low / medium / high — {why}
## Key Players at a Glance
| Competitor | Stage | Funding | Strength | Weakness | Threat |
|-----------|-------|---------|----------|----------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | H/M/L |
## Adjacent Solutions & Substitutes
{Broader platforms, manual alternatives, and tools from neighboring categories that compete for the same budget or job. Include: what job they solve, why buyers consider them, and how they compare to direct competitors.}
## Strategic Opportunities
For each opportunity:
### Opportunity: {name}
- **What:** {description}
- **Evidence:** {data points from research}
- **Confidence:** High / Medium / Low
- **How to exploit:** {specific recommendation}
## Strategic Risks
For each risk:
### Risk: {name}
- **What:** {description}
- **Evidence:** {data points}
- **Severity:** High / Medium / Low
- **Mitigation:** {how to protect against it}
## Competitive Moat Assessment
Evaluate the market on 5 moat dimensions:
| Moat Type | Present in Market? | Who Has It | Strength |
|----------|-------------------|-----------|----------|
| Network effects | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
| Switching costs | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
| Data moat | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
| Brand/trust | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
| Economies of scale | yes / no | {who} | strong / weak |
{Paragraph explaining what this means for a new entrant}
## Data Gaps & Research Limitations
Aggregate all data gaps from raw research files into a single section. For each gap:
- What data is missing
- Why it matters for decision-making
- How to fill it (specific actions the founder can take)
This section is mandatory — every competitive analysis has blind spots. Being explicit about them builds trust and prevents false confidence.
## Red Flags
- {flag 1 — things that should worry the founder}
- {flag 2}
## Yellow Flags
- {flag 1 — things to watch}
- {flag 2}Output File: competitive-matrix.md
# Competitive Feature Matrix: {market}
## Feature Comparison
| Feature | {Your Product} | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} |
|---------|---------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| {feature 1} | {rating} | {rating} | ... | ... | ... |
| {feature 2} | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Rating scale: Strong / Adequate / Weak / Missing / Unknown
## Gap Analysis
Features where no competitor excels (all Weak or Missing):
- {gap 1} — {opportunity implication}
- {gap 2} — {opportunity implication}
## Differentiation Opportunities
Based on the matrix, the clearest paths to differentiation:
1. {opportunity — what to build and why}
2. {opportunity}
3. {opportunity}Output File: pricing-landscape.md
# Pricing Landscape: {market}
## Market Pricing Overview
- **Dominant value metric:** {what most charge for}
- **Price range:** {lowest — highest for comparable tiers}
- **Median price point:** {for standard tier}
- **Free tier prevalence:** {X of Y competitors offer free}
## Tier-by-Tier Comparison
| | {Comp 1} | {Comp 2} | {Comp 3} | {Comp 4} |
|---|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Free tier | {what's included} | ... | ... | ... |
| Entry tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... |
| Mid tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... |
| Top tier | ${price} — {limits} | ... | ... | ... |
| Enterprise | {custom?} | ... | ... | ... |
## Value Metric Analysis
| Competitor | Value Metric | Why It Works/Doesn't | Impact on Scaling |
|-----------|-------------|---------------------|-------------------|
| ... | per seat | {analysis} | {how costs grow} |
## Pricing Psychology in Use
| Tactic | Used By | How |
|--------|---------|-----|
| Anchoring | {who} | {details} |
| Decoy tier | {who} | {details} |
| Charm pricing | {who} | {details} |
| Annual lock-in | {who} | {discount %} |
## Switching Cost Matrix
| Competitor | Technical Cost | Contractual Cost | Emotional Cost | Overall |
|-----------|---------------|-----------------|----------------|---------|
| ... | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L | H/M/L |
## Pricing Whitespace
{Where there's room to position on price — underserved segments, untried models, price points nobody occupies}
## Recommendations
- **If competing on price:** {strategy}
- **If competing on value:** {strategy}
- **If competing on model:** {alternative pricing approach that no competitor uses}Post-Synthesis Verification
After writing all deliverables and battle cards, run the Verification Agent protocol. See references/verification-agent.md for the full process. The verification step checks all deliverables for unlabeled claims, internal contradictions, confidence rating consistency, and startup-competitors-specific coherence (battle card vs. report consistency, matrix vs. profiles alignment, pricing landscape vs. profiles consistency, cross-deliverable opportunity/risk traceability).
Output File: battle-cards/{competitor-name}.md
One battle card per competitor. Keep each to ONE page — these are reference tools for quick use, not deep research docs.
# Battle Card: {Competitor Name}
*Last updated: {date}*
## At a Glance
- **What they do:** {one sentence}
- **Founded:** {year} | **Funding:** {total} | **Team:** ~{size}
- **Price:** {range} | **Model:** {value metric}
- **Best for:** {their ideal customer}
## Their Strengths (be honest)
- {strength 1 — with evidence}
- {strength 2}
- {strength 3}
## Their Weaknesses (your openings)
- {weakness 1 — with evidence from reviews/forums}
- {weakness 2}
- {weakness 3}
## How to Win Against Them
Specific talking points when a prospect is evaluating both:
- **When they say "{objection},"** respond: {counter with evidence}
- **When they say "{objection},"** respond: {counter}
- **Lead with:** {your strongest differentiator vs. this specific competitor}
## When They Win Over You
Be honest about when the competitor is the better choice:
- {scenario 1 — e.g., "Enterprise teams needing SSO and audit logs"}
- {scenario 2}
## Their Customers' Top Complaint
"{verbatim quote from review}" — {source}
This matters because: {strategic implication}
## Key Vulnerability
{The single biggest weakness you can exploit — with evidence}
## Churn Signals
Why their customers leave:
- {reason 1} — frequency: common / occasional
- {reason 2}
## Watch For
{What this competitor is likely to do next based on strategic signals}