Competitive Platform AnalysisSAFE

The agent harness performance optimization system. Skills, instincts, memory, security, and research-first development for Claude Code, Codex, Opencode, Cursor and beyond.

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: competitive-platform-analysis
description: Use when scoping a competitive landscape — identifying, categorising, and score-filtering a competitor set before any benchmarking begins. Decides who counts as a competitor, which tier they belong to, and which sources to mine. First step in the three-skill competitive pipeline; precedes benchmark-methodology.
---

# Competitive Platform Analysis

Use this skill to decide **who to benchmark** and **where to find them** before
any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the
wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a
defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.

## When to Activate

- About to start a competitive benchmarking project and need to define the competitor set first.
- Unsure which companies belong in Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
- Need a defensible, pruned scope for a market landscape report.
- Has a positioning brief and wants to identify who contests that position.
- First step before running benchmark-methodology.

## Client positioning brief (establish first)

Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't
already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do **not**
invent one and do **not** scope the set blind. The brief supplies:

- **Identity / aesthetic register** — what kind of studio or company this is and
  how it presents itself.
- **Offer** — what services or products it delivers.
- **Target clients** — who it sells to.
- **Differentiator** — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
- **Scoping consequence** — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g.,
  prioritize by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
- **Strategic tension** — the paired axes that define the client's white-space
  (e.g., memorability × hireability).

**Do not proceed without the positioning brief.** A competitor list scoped
without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in
particular determines which competitors are *strong* rivals (those that contest
the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.

## Selection criteria

For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:

- **Size / model** — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size
  agency. Match the client's own band; same-band studios are the realistic
  head-to-head set.
- **Niche / specialization** — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with
  the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
- **Geography / market** — EU vs US vs global-remote; language; time-zone reach.
  Note whether they win the same clients the client targets.
- **Pricing & engagement model** — productized sprints, retainer, project,
  day-rate; transparent vs "contact us". Signals positioning maturity.
- **Portfolio style** — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian. Closer
  to the client's aesthetic register = more they contest the client's
  distinctiveness.
- **Technical depth / craft maturity** — relevant if the client's credibility
  story includes public process work, open tooling, or documented systems.
- **Brand strength** — does the studio have an ownable verbal/visual identity, or
  is it interchangeable? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.

## Player taxonomy — axes to populate across

Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few
generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes
apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding,
content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the
most instructive.

1. **Positioning stance** — *brand-led / editorial* (competes on identity,
   voice, POV) vs *capability-led* (competes on craft, throughput, outcomes).
   Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
2. **Specialization** — *specialist* (one tight discipline or vertical) vs
   *generalist* (broad service menu). Tighter overlap with the client's focus =
   more direct.
3. **Size / model** — *solo / micro* vs *boutique* vs *mid-size* vs
   *enterprise-scale*. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger
   bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
4. **Engagement format** — *productized* (named sprints, audits, fixed packages)
   vs *bespoke* (custom project / retainer). Signals positioning maturity.
5. **Distinctiveness posture** — *conventional / safe* vs *contrarian /
   manifesto-driven*. The opinionated end is key for distinctiveness
   benchmarking in any niche.
6. **Evidence / credibility model** — *outcome-led* (metrics, named clients,
   case depth) vs *aesthetic-led* (portfolio, awards). Tells you how each player
   earns trust.
7. **Brand strength of the operator** — *interchangeable* vs *cult / ownable
   identity* (including senior independents who prove the "memorable solo brand"
   model).
8. **Market / reach** — *local / regional* vs *global-remote*; note whether they
   win the same clients the client targets.

Plot each candidate on the relevant axes; a competitor is *direct* when it sits
near the client on positioning, specialization, size, and market at once.

## Competitive tiers (how the set resolves)

Group the final set into three tiers — this structure carries through to the
report:

- **Direct** — same band, overlapping offer, same client targets. The realistic
  head-to-head.
- **Adjacent** — partial overlap (one capability, or a different client size)
  that pressures at the edges.
- **Aspirational** — players the client is not competing with today but whose
  brand or commercial maturity sets the bar to aim at.
- *(Watch also for substitutes: no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist
  freelancers — note as a threat vector, not a profiled competitor unless
  materially relevant.)*

## Data sources (where to look)

Match the source 

SAFEgrade B · trust 89/100 Nothing in the source contradicts what it says it does. Grade A is reserved for packages that have also passed the behavioural sandbox.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (0)

No findings outside the package's declared scope.

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.

[![ModelsAtlas audit: Competitive Platform Analysis](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/affaan-m/competitive-platform-analysis/badge.svg)](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/affaan-m/competitive-platform-analysis/)

Not your listing, or something out of date? Claim or update your listing.