安装方式
命令行安装
在项目根目录执行以下命令,完成 Skill 安装。
npx bzskills add affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill competitive-report-structure Use after benchmark-methodology has produced scored competitor profile cards. Assembles findings into a decision-grade report: landscape map, competitor profiles, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations, and team alignment trigger questions. Final step in the three-skill competitive pipeline.
20
下载量
命令行安装
在项目根目录执行以下命令,完成 Skill 安装。
npx bzskills add affaan-m/everything-claude-code --skill competitive-report-structure name: competitive-report-structure
description: 'Use after benchmark-methodology has produced scored competitor profile cards. Assembles findings into a decision-grade report: landscape map, competitor profiles, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations, and team alignment trigger questions. Final step in the three-skill competitive pipeline.'Use this skill to assemble scored competitor cards into a decision-grade report.
The report must answer three questions for the client: **who do we compete with,
how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space?** Every section
earns its place by moving toward those answers — cut anything that doesn't.
Before assembling the report, establish the client's positioning brief. It
supplies:
that define the client's target white-space. All maps and synthesis resolve
back to this tension.
emphases (e.g., 60% strategy/evidence, 25% distinctiveness, 15% craft).
Every recommendation must be checked against this balance; flag any that
would shift it.
white-space section.
confirming whether that quadrant is genuinely open is the report's central
empirical question.
The whole report is organized around the client's strategic tension and
recommendations resolve back to the client's deliberate brand balance.
Recommendations that would break that balance must be flagged against it
explicitly — "this move shifts the balance from X/Y/Z toward A/B/C; confirm
intent."
3–5 takeaways, decision-first. State the most important findings in plain
language: where the client is strong, where it's exposed, who occupies its
target white-space, and the top 2–3 moves. Written so a founder/PM reads only
this and knows what to do. No methodology here.
Define the category and map it. Use a multi-axis map — at minimum a 2×2
(e.g., *brand-led <-> capability-led* × *boutique <-> enterprise-scale*), and
ideally the client's tension plot from benchmark-methodology as the
headline map. Place every profiled competitor and the client. The map should
make the client's intended position visually obvious and show how crowded (or
empty) it is.
Organize the set into Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational (from
competitive-platform-analysis). One short paragraph per tier explaining who's
in it and why it matters to the client. This sets reader expectations before
the detail.
The full competitors × dimensions table — the quantitative spine. Rows =
competitors (grouped by tier), columns = the nine benchmark dimensions (note:
dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and
Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes);
represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). Include
the client's own honest self-assessment as a row for contrast. Use a heatmap
(color or symbol scale) so strength/weakness patterns are scannable. Do not
add a blended total column — report dimensions separately (per the bias
controls). Call out the columns where the client leads and where it trails.
3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from their profile cards).
Choose for instruction, not ranking: the best exemplar of the target tension
(high on both poles), the cautionary "one pole only" case, the "competent but
forgettable" archetype the client defines against, plus any direct threat. Each
deep dive: what they do, what the client should learn, what the client should
avoid.
The strategic heart. Two parts:
from the maps and matrix, not asserted. Confirm whether the target quadrant
(from the positioning brief) is genuinely open.
substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers), or
category shifts. Be honest about the client's own risks (e.g., a bold identity
reading as un-serious to risk-averse buyers).
Concrete, prioritized moves: who the client competes with, how it differentiates,
and where to invest (offer packaging, evidence/case studies, thought leadership,
brand sharpening). **Tie every recommendation back to the brand balance from the
positioning brief** and flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact ×
effort.
The dimensions, weights, rubrics, the scoped set with tiers, source links per
competitor, and verification notes (asserted vs proven). This is what makes the
report auditable and defensible — carry the adversarial citation discipline
through.
these; they carry the argument faster than prose.
the client's target one.
real fight.
grounded in the matrix (which dimensions the client owns).
dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy (the moat), vs. the ones that
are table-stakes.
End with questions that force decisions, not admiration of the analysis:
what's the counter?
shift?
deliberately concede?
hireability / credibility?
benchmark-methodology — the prerequisite; produces the scored competitor profile cards this skill assembles.competitive-platform-analysis — provides the tier structure (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) used in Section 3.brand-discovery — use to establish the client's positioning brief if it hasn't been defined.