{"id":"borghei-competitive-teardown","name":"competitive-teardown","summary":"製品の分解、12次元スコアリングルーブリック、特徴比較マトリックス、SWOT分析、価格モデルの解体、UX監査、ステークホルダープレゼンテーションテンプレートを用いた戦略的行動計画を含む体系的な競合他社分析。","body":"# Competitive Teardown\n\nProduction-grade competitor analysis framework covering systematic data collection across 6 intelligence sources, a 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audit methodology, and strategic action plans. Produces battle-card-ready output and stakeholder presentation templates.\n\n---\n\n## Table of Contents\n\n- [When to Use](#when-to-use)\n- [Teardown Workflow](#teardown-workflow)\n- [Data Collection Framework](#data-collection-framework)\n- [12-Dimension Scoring Rubric](#12-dimension-scoring-rubric)\n- [Feature Comparison Matrix](#feature-comparison-matrix)\n- [Pricing Analysis Framework](#pricing-analysis-framework)\n- [SWOT Analysis Template](#swot-analysis-template)\n- [UX Audit Methodology](#ux-audit-methodology)\n- [Positioning Map](#positioning-map)\n- [Action Plan Framework](#action-plan-framework)\n- [Battle Card Template](#battle-card-template)\n- [Stakeholder Presentation](#stakeholder-presentation)\n- [Output Artifacts](#output-artifacts)\n- [Related Skills](#related-skills)\n\n---\n\n## When to Use\n\n| Trigger | Teardown Scope |\n|---------|---------------|\n| Before product strategy or roadmap session | Full teardown (2-4 competitors) |\n| Competitor launches major feature or pricing change | Focused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only) |\n| Quarterly competitive review | Update existing teardowns + trend analysis |\n| Before a sales pitch (battle card needed) | Single-competitor battle card |\n| Entering a new market segment | Full teardown of segment incumbents |\n\n---\n\n## Clarify First\n\nBefore running the teardown, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:\n\n- [ ] **Competitors + primary focus** — the 2-4 names and which is the main threat (sets scorecard columns and depth)\n- [ ] **Your own product baseline** — so the 12-dimension scorecard and feature matrix have a \"you\" column to compare against\n- [ ] **Decision this feeds** — roadmap session, sales battle card, or new-market entry (determines full teardown vs single battle card vs segment incumbents)\n- [ ] **Available data sources** — pricing pages, 50+ reviews, product access (the rubric needs evidence; thin data caps which dimensions are scorable)\n\nStop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says \"just draft it,\" proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the teardown.\n\n## Teardown Workflow\n\n### Step-by-Step Process\n\n1. **Define competitors** -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.\n2. **Collect data** -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.\n3. **Score using rubric** -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.\n4. **Generate comparison outputs** -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.\n5. **Build action plan** -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.\n6. **Package for stakeholders** -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.\n\n### Validation Checkpoints\n\n- Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data\n- Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence\n- Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point\n\n---\n\n## Data Collection Framework\n\n### Source 1: Website and Product Analysis\n\n| Data Point | Where to Find | What It Signals |\n|-----------|--------------|-----------------|\n| Pricing tiers and price points | Pricing page | Market positioning, target segment |\n| Feature lists per tier | Pricing + feature pages | Packaging strategy |\n| Primary CTA and messaging | Homepage hero | Positioning and ICP |\n| Case studies and customer logos | Case study page, homepage | Target segments, social proof |\n| Integration partnerships | Integrations page | Ecosystem strategy |\n| Trust signals | Footer, security page | Enterprise readiness |\n| Job postings | Careers page, LinkedIn | Growth direction, tech stack |\n\n### Source 2: User Reviews\n\n**Platforms:** G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt\n\n| Category | What to Track | Strategic Value |\n|----------|-------------|-----------------|\n| Praise themes | What users love (top 5 themes) | Their defensible strengths |\n| Complaint themes | What users hate (top 5 themes) | Your opportunities |\n| Feature requests | What users want but do not have | Product roadmap gaps |\n| Switching mentions | Why users left competitors | Competitive migration paths |\n| Rating trends | Quarter-over-quarter rating change | Improving or declining |\n\n**Sample size target:** 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.\n\n### Source 3: Job Postings\n\n| Signal | What It Means |\n|--------|--------------|\n| High engineering hiring | Product investment, scaling |\n| AI/ML roles | AI features coming |\n| Sales team expansion | Moving upmarket or expanding geographically |\n| Customer success roles | Retention focus, enterprise motion |\n| Compliance/legal roles | Regulatory expansion |\n| Reduced postings | Cost cutting, potential contraction |\n\n### Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis\n\n| Metric | Tool | Strategic Value |\n|--------|------|-----------------|\n| Top 20 organic keywords | Ahrefs, SEMrush, GSC | Content strategy and targeting |\n| Domain authority | Ahrefs, Moz | Brand strength |\n| Blog publishing cadence | Manual check | Content investment level |\n| Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs) | Ahrefs | Traffic composition |\n\n### Source 5: Social Media and Community\n\n| Platform | What to Track |\n|----------|-------------|\n| Twitter/X | Product announcements, customer praise, complaints |\n| Reddit | Honest reviews, comparison threads |\n| LinkedIn | Thought leadership, hiring signals, employee count |\n| Community forums | Feature requests, workarounds, power user patterns |\n| Discord/Slack | Community size, engagement level |\n\n### Source 6: Financial and Market Data\n\n| Source | Data Available |\n|-------|---------------|\n| Crunchbase | Funding, valuation, investors, employee count |\n| LinkedIn | Employee count trend (growth proxy) |\n| Public filings (if public) | Revenue, growth rate, churn |\n| Industry reports | Market share estimates |\n\n---\n\n## 12-Dimension Scoring Rubric\n\nScore each competitor (and your own product) on a 1-5 scale with evidence notes.\n\n| # | Dimension | 1 (Weak) | 3 (Average) | 5 (Best-in-class) |\n|---|-----------|----------|-------------|-------------------|\n| 1 | Features | Core only, many gaps | Solid coverage | Comprehensive + unique capabilities |\n| 2 | Pricing | Confusing or overpriced | Market-rate, clear | Transparent, flexible, fair |\n| 3 | UX / Design | Confusing, high friction | Functional, adequate | Delightful, minimal friction |\n| 4 | Performance | Slow, unreliable | Acceptable | Fast, high uptime, responsive |\n| 5 | Documentation | Sparse, outdated | Decent coverage | Comprehensive, searchable, with examples |\n| 6 | Support | Email only, slow response | Chat + email, reasonable SLA | 24/7, multiple channels, fast |\n| 7 | Integrations | 0-5 native integrations | 6-25 integrations | 26+ or deep ecosystem (API + marketplace) |\n| 8 | Security | No mentions | SOC2 claimed | SOC2 Type II + ISO 27001 + GDPR |\n| 9 | Scalability | No enterprise tier | Mid-market ready | Enterprise-grade (SSO, SCIM, SLA) |\n| 10 | Brand | Generic, unmemorable | Decent positioning | Strong, differentiated, recognized |\n| 11 | Community | None | Forum or Slack exists | Active, vibrant, user-generated content |\n| 12 | Innovation | No releases in 6+ months | Quarterly releases | Frequent, meaningful, well-communicated |\n\n### Scoring Output Format\n\n| Dimension | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C |\n|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|\n| Features | 4 | 3 | 5 | 3 |\n| Pricing | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |\n| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |\n| **Total (/60)** | **38** | **35** | **42** | **33** |\n\n---\n\n## Feature Comparison Matrix\n\n### Matrix Structure\n\n| Feature Category | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B | Notes |\n|-----------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|-------|\n| **Core Features** | | | | |\n| Feature 1 | Full | Full | Partial | Comp B lacks [specific capability] |\n| Feature 2 | Full | Missing | Full | Our differentiator |\n| Feature 3 | Partial | Full | Full | Gap to close |\n| **Platform** | | | | |\n| Web app | Yes | Yes | Yes | |\n| iOS app | Yes | No | Yes | Comp A gap |\n| API access | Full | Limited | Full | |\n| **Enterprise** | | | | |\n| SSO | Yes | No | Yes | |\n| Audit logs | Yes | Yes | No | |\n| Custom SLA | Yes | Yes | Yes | |\n\n**Score per cell:** Full = 5, Partial = 3, Basic = 2, Missing = 0\n\n---\n\n## Pricing Analysis Framework\n\n### Pricing Model Comparison\n\n| Attribute | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B |\n|-----------|-------------|-------------|-------------|\n| Model type | Per seat | Usage-based | Flat rate |\n| Free tier | Yes (3 users) | Yes (limited) | No |\n| Entry price | $15/user/mo | $29/mo (up to 1K events) | $49/mo |\n| Mid-tier price | $35/user/mo | $99/mo | $99/mo |\n| Enterprise | Custom | Custom | $249/mo |\n| Annual discount | 20% | 15% | 2 months free |\n| Trial | 14-day free | 7-day free | 30-day money-back |\n\n### Pricing Position Map\n\n| Position | Characteristic | Your Strategy |\n|----------|---------------|---------------|\n| Price leader | Lowest price, may signal lower quality | Win on value, not features |\n| Value leader | Best features-per-dollar ratio | Win on differentiation |\n| Premium | Highest price, justified by brand/features | Win on exclusivity and support |\n| Disruptor | Radically different model (free, usage-based) | Win on accessibility |\n\n---\n\n## SWOT Analysis Template\n\nFor each competitor, produce:\n\n### Competitor SWOT\n\n| Quadrant | Points |\n|----------|--------|\n| **Strengths** (Their advantages) | 3-5 bullets, each anchored to a data signal |\n| **Weaknesses** (Their vulnerabilities) | 3-5 bullets, each tied to reviews, missing features, or complaints |\n| **Opportunities for Us** | What their weaknesses create for us |\n| **Threats to Us** | What their strengths mean for our position |\n\n**Evidence rule:** Every bullet must cite the data source (review quote, pricing page, job posting count, feature comparison, etc.).\n\n---\n\n## UX Audit Methodology\n\n### First-Run Experience Audit\n\n| Dimension | What to Measure | How to Score |\n|-----------|----------------|--------------|\n| Time to first value (TTFV) | Minutes from signup to first meaningful output | < 5 min = 5, 5-15 min = 3, > 15 min = 1 |\n| Steps to activation | Number of screens/actions before core value | < 3 = 5, 3-7 = 3, > 7 = 1 |\n| Credit card required | Required at signup? | No = 5, Optional = 3, Required = 1 |\n| Onboarding quality | Wizard, tooltips, empty states | Comprehensive = 5, Basic = 3, None = 1 |\n| SSO available | Google, Microsoft, etc. | Yes = 5, No = 1 |\n\n### Core Workflow Audit\n\nFor the 3 most common workflows, compare:\n\n| Workflow | Steps (Yours) | Steps (Competitor) | Friction Points |\n|----------|-------------|-------------------|-----------------|\n| [Primary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |\n| [Secondary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |\n| [Tertiary workflow] | N | N | Specific UX issues |\n\n---\n\n## Positioning Map\n\n### 2x2 Positioning Map\n\nChoose the two axes most relevant to your market:\n\n| Common Axis Pairs | When to Use |\n|-------------------|-------------|\n| Simple / Complex x Low Price / High Price | General product comparison |\n| SMB / Enterprise x Narrow / Broad Features | Market segment analysis |\n| Self-Serve / Sales-Led x Point Solution / Platform | Go-to-market comparison |\n| Technical / Non-Technical x Niche / Horizontal | Audience analysis |\n\n### Map Template\n\n```\n                    High Price / Enterprise\n                          │\n                          │\n          [Competitor B]  │  [Competitor C]\n                          │\n  Simple ─────────────────┼─────────────────── Complex\n                          │\n          [YOUR PRODUCT]  │  [Competitor A]\n                          │\n                          │\n                    Low Price / SMB\n```\n\n---\n\n## Action Plan Framework\n\n### Three Horizons\n\n| Horizon | Timeframe | Effort | Examples |\n|---------|-----------|--------|---------|\n| Quick wins | 0-4 weeks | Low | Publish comparison pages, update pricing page, add missing trust badges |\n| Medium-term | 1-3 months | Moderate | Build top-requested integration, improve onboarding TTFV, launch free tier |\n| Strategic | 3-12 months | High | Enter new market segment, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II |\n\n### Priority Scoring\n\nFor each action item, score:\n\n| Factor | Weight | Scale |\n|--------|--------|-------|\n| Competitive impact | 40% | How much does this close or widen a gap? |\n| Customer demand | 30% | How many customers/prospects request this? |\n| Implementation effort | 20% | How hard is this to build/execute? |\n| Revenue impact | 10% | Direct revenue contribution? |\n\n---\n\n## Battle Card Template\n\n### One-Page Battle Card\n\n```\nCOMPETITOR: [Name]\nLAST UPDATED: [Date]\nTHREAT LEVEL: [LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / CRITICAL]\n\nTHEIR POSITIONING: [1 sentence]\nOUR POSITIONING AGAINST THEM: [1 sentence]\n\nWHERE THEY WIN:\n- [Strength 1 with evidence]\n- [Strength 2 with evidence]\n- [Strength 3 with evidence]\n\nWHERE WE WIN:\n- [Advantage 1 with evidence]\n- [Advantage 2 with evidence]\n- [Advantage 3 with evidence]\n\nLANDMINES (questions that expose their weaknesses):\n- \"How does [competitor] handle [weakness area]?\"\n- \"Can you show me [feature they lack]?\"\n- \"What do their customers say about [common complaint]?\"\n\nOBJECTION HANDLING:\n- \"They're cheaper\" → [Response with value framing]\n- \"They have [feature]\" → [Response with alternative/roadmap]\n- \"Everyone uses them\" → [Response with differentiation]\n\nPRICING COMPARISON:\n[Quick comparison table]\n\nCUSTOMER QUOTE:\n\"[Quote from a customer who switched from this competitor to you]\"\n```\n\n---\n\n## Stakeholder Presentation\n\n### 7-Slide Structure\n\n| Slide | Content |\n|-------|---------|\n| 1. Executive Summary | Threat level, top strength, top opportunity, recommended action |\n| 2. Market Position | 2x2 positioning map with all players |\n| 3. Feature Scorecard | 12-dimension scores, total comparison |\n| 4. Pricing Analysis | Pricing comparison table + key pricing insight |\n| 5. UX Comparison | Where they win (3 bullets) vs where we win (3 bullets) |\n| 6. Voice of Customer | Top 3 competitor complaints from reviews (quoted) |\n| 7. Action Plan | Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities |\n\n---\n\n## Output Artifacts\n\n| Artifact | Format | Description |\n|----------|--------|-------------|\n| Data Collection Report | Structured notes per source | Raw intelligence organized by source type |\n| 12-Dimension Scorecard | Scored table with evidence | Numeric comparison across all dimensions |\n| Feature Comparison Matrix | Grid table | Feature-by-feature comparison with scoring |\n| Pricing Analysis | Comparison table + position map | Model comparison, tier mapping, positioning |\n| SWOT Analysis | Per-competitor 4-quadrant | Anchored to data signals |\n| UX Audit | Scored checklist | TTFV, steps, friction analysis |\n| Positioning Map | 2x2 diagram | Visual market position |\n| Action Plan | Three-horizon table | Prioritized competitive responses |\n| Battle Card | One-page template | Sales-ready competitive reference |\n| Stakeholder Presentation | 7-slide outline | Executive-ready competitive briefing |\n\n---\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- **competitor-alternatives** -- Use for creating comparison and alternative pages for SEO/marketing. Competitive-teardown provides the intelligence; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content.\n- **pricing-strategy** -- Use when competitive analysis reveals pricing misalignment. Feed teardown pricing data into pricing-strategy.\n- **page-cro** -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion.\n- **content-creator** -- Use for writing competitive content (blog posts, comparison guides) based on teardown findings.\n\n---\n\n## Tool Reference\n\n### 1. competitor_scorer.py\n\n**Purpose:** Score competitors across the 12-dimension rubric and generate a numeric comparison scorecard.\n\n```bash\npython scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json\npython scripts/competitor_scorer.py competitor_data.json --json\n```\n\n| Flag | Required | Description |\n|------|----------|-------------|\n| `competitor_data.json` | Yes | JSON file with competitor dimension scores and evidence |\n| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |\n| `--weights` | No | Custom dimension weights as JSON string (default: equal weights) |\n\n### 2. feature_matrix_builder.py\n\n**Purpose:** Build a feature comparison matrix from structured feature data and calculate coverage scores.\n\n```bash\npython scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json\npython scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py features.json --json\n```\n\n| Flag | Required | Description |\n|------|----------|-------------|\n| `features.json` | Yes | JSON file with feature comparison data |\n| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |\n\n### 3. battle_card_generator.py\n\n**Purpose:** Generate a one-page battle card from competitor data for sales team use.\n\n```bash\npython scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json\npython scripts/battle_card_generator.py competitor_profile.json --json\n```\n\n| Flag | Required | Description |\n|------|----------|-------------|\n| `competitor_profile.json` | Yes | JSON file with competitor profile data |\n| `--json` | No | Output results as JSON |\n| `--format` | No | Output format: text (default) or markdown |\n\n---\n\n## Troubleshooting\n\n| Problem | Likely Cause | Solution |\n|---------|-------------|----------|\n| Scoring feels subjective across analysts | No shared rubric calibration | Use the 12-dimension rubric with explicit 1/3/5 definitions; have two analysts score independently and reconcile |\n| Data is stale within weeks of teardown | Fast-moving competitors | Set calendar reminders for monthly pricing checks and quarterly full refreshes; use competitor_scorer.py to track score changes over time |\n| Feature matrix has too many rows to be useful | Trying to capture every micro-feature | Group features into 8-12 categories; detail only the top differentiators |\n| Battle cards are not used by sales | Too long, too academic, or not actionable | Keep to one page; lead with \"Where We Win\" and \"Landmines\"; validate with 3 sales reps before distributing |\n| Review data is contradictory | Small sample size or selection bias | Target 50+ reviews per competitor across G2, Capterra, and TrustRadius; weight recent reviews more heavily |\n| Cannot get pricing data for enterprise tiers | Custom pricing not published | Use sales intel (request a demo), G2 pricing data, or customer interviews for directional estimates |\n| SWOT analysis has no actionable output | Analysis lacks connection to action plan | Every SWOT bullet must map to a specific quick-win, medium-term, or strategic action |\n\n---\n\n## Success Criteria\n\n- 12-dimension scorecard completed with evidence notes for every score\n- Feature matrix covers at least 80% of features that prospects evaluate\n- Battle cards reviewed and approved by 3+ sales representatives\n- Pricing data verified within the last 30 days\n- Teardown produces at least 3 actionable quick wins and 2 strategic priorities\n- Stakeholder presentation reviewed and feedback incorporated within 1 week\n- Teardown data refreshed quarterly with score trend tracking\n\n---\n\n## Scope & Limitations\n\n- **In scope:** Product analysis, feature comparison, pricing deconstruction, UX audit, SWOT analysis, battle card creation, action plan generation\n- **Out of scope:** Primary market research (customer interviews, surveys), financial modeling, legal competitive analysis, intellectual property assessment\n- **Data dependency:** Quality depends on publicly available data, user reviews, and product access; some competitors may have limited public information\n- **Bias risk:** Teardowns conducted by internal teams may have confirmation bias; consider external validation for high-stakes decisions\n- **Point-in-time:** Teardowns are snapshots; competitors evolve continuously -- schedule regular refreshes\n\n---\n\n## Integration Points\n\n- **competitor-alternatives** -- Teardown provides the data; competitor-alternatives produces the marketing content (comparison and alternative pages)\n- **pricing-strategy** -- When teardown reveals pricing misalignment, feed pricing data into pricing-strategy for repositioning analysis\n- **page-cro** -- Use for optimizing your comparison or competitor landing pages for conversion after teardown produces the content\n- **sales-engineer** -- Battle cards feed directly into sales engineering competitive positioning and RFP responses\n- **customer-success-manager** -- When exit surveys reveal COMPETITOR as a top churn reason, use teardown data to understand what competitors offer that you do not","author":"@borghei","ownerProfile":null,"authorContacts":null,"sourceUrl":"https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills/tree/main/business-growth/competitive-teardown","license":"MIT","category":"review","lang":"en","tokens":4727,"stars":0,"calls30d":1,"claimed":false,"visibility":"public","origin":"crawler","version":"0.1.0","createdAt":"2026-08-22","updatedAt":"2026-08-22","files":[{"path":"scripts/battle_card_generator.py","size":8824,"sha256":"18f0fcde2348194761949eb9b65bdbd6f9d5ed316938653e94a6ffd3439519ca"},{"path":"scripts/competitor_scorer.py","size":8053,"sha256":"e450f273af6be660542bb7b68acb24f5833fb0980665f9ae5026318abefee00f"},{"path":"scripts/feature_matrix_builder.py","size":7003,"sha256":"593865fbf0e720900d2f0d40d0f05080945ab67519b4b7e644e33add6e4873b9"}],"requires":{"mcp":[],"tools":[]},"safety":{"flags":[],"scannedAt":"2026-08-22","hasScripts":true,"networkEndpoints":[]}}