Pm Competitive Agent Skill

pm-competitive — Competitive analysis

Part of the Personal Corp framework — running a one-person business through AI agents.

Run a systematic multi-dimensional competitor study. Branches by analysis purpose. Includes information-credibility tagging, time-stamping of all findings, and explicit separation of fact vs inference.

Inputs

| Field | Required | Notes |

|---|---|---|

| Competitor list | yes | 2-5 names; > 5 → batch into rounds |

| Our product | no | Used for differentiation positioning |

| Purpose | no | Product design / fundraising deck / strategic planning / annual review; default product design |

| Dimensions | no | Features / pricing / UX / tech / business model; default features + pricing |

Step 1 — Set purpose and depth

| Purpose | Emphasis | Output focus | Length |

|---|---|---|---|

| Product design | Features + UX | Feature matrix + differentiation list | 2-3 pages |

| Fundraising deck | Market structure + moats | Landscape map + moat analysis | 1 page |

| Strategic planning | Full depth | SWOT + 5-Forces + pricing + roadmap | 5-8 pages |

| Annual review | Market share change + trends | YoY changes + trend judgment | 2-3 pages |

Step 2 — Information collection

Use user-supplied materials first (URLs, screenshots, pricing pages). Tag everything with credibility and timestamp.

Credibility tiers:

| Tier | Sources | Tagging |

|---|---|---|

| High | Official site, pricing page, official announcements | Quote directly |

| Medium | Media coverage, user reviews, industry reports | Cite source |

| Low | Rumors, speculation, outdated info | Mark [unverified] |

Information-collection checklist:

| Dimension | What to collect | Typical sources |

|---|---|---|

| Fundamentals | Founded, funding rounds, team size, user base | Official site, business databases |

| Product | Core feature list, recent updates, roadmap | Official site, changelog, blog |

| Pricing | Tiers, price ranges, free-tier limits | Pricing page |

| Reputation | Praise, complaints, NPS | Review sites, app stores, social platforms |

| Strategy | Target market, acquisition channels, partnerships | Press, social media |

Always tag freshness — e.g. "based on Q1 2026 public information" — and prompt user to verify currency.

Step 3 — Porter's Five Forces

Evaluate from industry-structure angle.

| Force | Dimension | Evaluation points |

|---|---|---|

| Supplier power | Upstream dependency | Concentration of key tech/talent/resources; switching cost |

| Buyer power | Downstream customer leverage | Customer concentration; switching cost; price sensitivity |

| New-entrant threat | Entry barriers | Tech / capital / brand / network effects / regulation |

| Substitute threat | Alternative solutions | What's the user's current alternative? Substitute's value-for-money? |

| Industry rivalry | Existing-player dynamics | Competitor count, concentration, differentiation, exit barriers |

Output: each force = strong / medium / weak + one-sentence rationale. Overall industry attractiveness = high / medium / low.

Step 4 — Multi-dimensional comparison

Feature comparison matrix (core deliverable):

| Module | Sub-feature | Us | Comp A | Comp B | Comp C |

|---|---|---|---|---|---|

| {module 1} | {sub 1} | ✅ Mature | ✅ Mature | ⚠️ Basic | ❌ None |

| | {sub 2} | ⚠️ Basic | ✅ Mature | ✅ Mature | ⚠️ Basic |

Legend: ✅ Mature / ⚠️ Basic (exists but limited) / ❌ Missing / 🔜 Planned

Positioning deep-dive:

| Dimension | Method | Scoring |

|---|---|---|

| Feature score | 1-5 per module, weighted total | 5 = best-in-class, 3 = passing, 1 = barely present |

| UX comparison | Steps in core flow, learning curve, completion efficiency | Compare clicks + time-to-complete |

| Tech architecture | Patterns, stack, performance, openness | API openness, integration capability, extensibility |

SWOT per competitor:

| | Positive | Negative |

|---|---|---|

| Internal | Strengths (core advantages) | Weaknesses (clear gaps) |

| External | Opportunities (exploitable) | Threats (must watch) |

Each quadrant: 2-3 items, each with factual support. Banned: vague claims like "strong team" or "advanced tech".

SWOT cross-strategies:

| Strategy | Meaning | Direction |

|---|---|---|

| SO | Strengths × Opportunities | Use strengths to grab market window |

| WO | Weaknesses × Opportunities | Fill gaps to capture new opportunities |

| ST | Strengths × Threats | Use moats to defend against attacks |

| WT | Weaknesses × Threats | Most urgent defensive priorities |

Pricing comparison (if pricing dimension included):

| Item | Us | A | B | C |

|---|---|---|---|---|

| Free-tier scope | {} | {} | {} | {} |

| Entry-tier monthly | {} | {} | {} | {} |

| Enterprise monthly | {} | {} | {} | {} |

| Billing model | {per-seat / usage / feature-tier} | | | |

| Core differentiator | {pricing strategy reading} | | | |

Pricing-strategy types:

• Penetration: low price for share (look for generous free tier)
• Skimming: high price, premium positioning (look for many gated advanced features)
• Freemium: core free, advanced paid (look at the gap between free and paid)

Step 5 — Positioning quadrant

Pick two most-discriminating dimensions (e.g. "feature depth vs ease of use", or "price vs feature breadth") and place all products into a 2×2:

| Quadrant | Trait | Products |

|---|---|---|

| High features + high price | Enterprise full-stack | {list} |

| High features + low price | Best value | {list} |

| Low features + high price | Niche specialist | {list} |

| Low features + low price | Entry-level | {list} |

Step 6 — Strategic projection

Predict competitor's likely next moves based on recent signals.

Method:

• Signal collection: product updates, funding moves, hiring focus, partnership announcements (last 3-6 months)
• Pattern recognition: what does the cluster of signals imply?
• Repeated feature launches in area X → betting on X
• Heavy hiring in role Y → preparing new product line
• Price cut / new free tier → market-share grab
• Projection output:

| Competitor | Recent moves | Inferred intent | Impact on us | Confidence | Recommended response |

|---|---|---|---|---|---|

| {A} | {actions} | {hypothesis} | {assessment} | High/Medium/Low | {strategy} |

Projection rules:

• Distinguish "fact" from "inferred intent" — second always tagged with confidence
• One signal can have multiple readings — list 2-3 most likely
• Time windows: short-term (1-3 months), mid-term (3-12 months)

Step 7 — Three-tier differentiation strategy

| Tier | Definition | Action |

|---|---|---|

| Catch-up | Competitors have it; we don't | List features to add + priority + estimated effort |

| Differentiate | We're unique or clearly ahead | List strengths to reinforce + marketing message ideas |

| Innovate | No competitor has done it; opportunity exists | List blue-ocean candidates + validation approach |

Quality bar

• Comparisons grounded in verifiable public info; cite source + date
• Same dimension scored on the same scale across all products
• Every SWOT item backed by a fact; no fluff
• Differentiation suggestions concrete and prioritized
• All data tagged with freshness ("as of Q1 2026")
• Pricing data tagged with collection date
• Strategic projections separate fact from inference
• Five-Forces evaluation grounded in industry data

Red lines

• No fabricated data — unverified info → [unverified]
• No subjective trash-talk — competitor evaluation must be objective; no pejoratives
• Always tag freshness — every data point + collection date; nudge user to refresh
• Tag inference confidence — every strategic projection labeled with confidence

Market-structure judgment

| Structure | Trait | Strategy advice |

|---|---|---|

| One-dominant | One player > 50% share | Differentiate niches, avoid head-on |

| Duopoly | Top 2 = > 70% combined | Pick a side, or be the third option |

| Fragmented | Top 5 each < 20% | Speed-grab a niche #1 position |

| Emerging | No clear leader | Educate market first, build brand |

Monitoring cadence

| Frequency | What to monitor | Trigger |

|---|---|---|

| Weekly | Product changelog, social signals | Major updates → tracker entry |

| Monthly | Pricing changes, new features, press | Update feature matrix |

| Quarterly | Full competitor report, strategy projection refresh | Quarterly competitor brief |

| Event-driven | Funding / M&A / major launches / exec changes | Immediate impact assessment |

When input is incomplete

• Only competitor names → standard feature matrix + brief SWOT
• No own product → competitor-vs-competitor comparison only, no differentiation advice
• > 5 competitors → batch, or pick 3 for deep-dive + brief notes on others

Related skills

• /pm-prd — differentiation gap → PRD
• /pm-prioritize — catch-up feature list → RICE-rank
• /pm-feedback — user mentions of competitors → enrich perception data
• /pm-brainstorm — diverge on differentiation ideas