Competitive Intel

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

.codex/skills/a11y-audit

.codex/skills/ab-test-setup

.codex/skills/account-executive

.codex/skills/ad-creative

.codex/skills/aeo

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 6e3fcbdbb5cf · 19 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherborghei GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderborghei/Claude-Skills/c-level-advisor/competitive-intelThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNOASSERTIONAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict6e3fcbdbb5cfA new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 12 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Systematic competitor tracking that feeds positioning, battlecards, and roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building battlecards, tracking market moves, conducting win/loss analysis, or updating…

---
name: competitive-intel
description: >
  Systematic competitor tracking that feeds positioning, battlecards, and roadmap
  decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building battlecards, tracking market
  moves, conducting win/loss analysis, or updating positioning.
license: MIT + Commons Clause
metadata:
  version: 2.0.0
  author: borghei
  category: c-level
  domain: competitive-strategy
  updated: 2026-03-09
  frameworks:
    - 5-layer-intelligence
    - battlecard-template
    - win-loss-analysis
    - positioning-map
    - tracking-cadence
    - threat-assessment
  triggers:
    - competitive intelligence
    - competitor analysis
    - battlecard
    - win/loss analysis
    - competitive positioning
    - competitive tracking
    - market intelligence
    - competitor research
    - SWOT
    - competitive map
    - feature gap
    - competitive strategy
    - competitor launched
    - lost deal to competitor
    - competitive win
    - market positioning
    - sales battlecard
---
# Competitive Intelligence

Systematic competitor tracking. Not obsession -- intelligence that drives real decisions. Know competitors well enough to win against them. Do not let them set your agenda.

## Keywords

competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecard, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning, competitive tracking, market intelligence, competitor research, SWOT, competitive map, feature gap analysis, competitive strategy, market share, competitive advantage, moat, switching costs

---

## Clarify First

Before generating, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

- [ ] **Which output is needed** (battlecard, positioning map, win/loss analysis, or board summary) — each has a different template and data requirement
- [ ] **Which competitors and their tier** (direct, adjacent, future) — sets tracking intensity and which competitors appear in the artifact
- [ ] **Your ICP and the problem you solve** — drives the threat-classification matrix and what counts as a real competitor vs. noise
- [ ] **Your actual differentiators with proof points** — the "why we win" and "killer questions" sections are worthless without concrete, evidence-backed advantages

Stop 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 artifact.

---

## 5-Layer Intelligence System

### Layer 1: Competitor Identification

#### Threat Classification Matrix

| | Same ICP | Different ICP |
|---|---|---|
| **Same problem** | Direct threat (Tier 1) | Adjacent watch (Tier 2) |
| **Different problem** | Displacement risk (Tier 2) | Monitor only (Tier 3) |

#### Competitor Tiers

| Tier | Definition | Tracking Intensity | Examples |
|------|-----------|-------------------|---------|
| 1: Direct | Same ICP, same problem, similar price | Monthly deep tracking | Your top 3 named competitors |
| 2: Adjacent | Same budget, different solution approach | Quarterly review | Build-in-house, adjacent products |
| 3: Future | Well-funded in adjacent space or incumbents with roadmap overlap | Semi-annual scan | Funded startups, big tech features |

### Layer 2: Tracking Dimensions

| Dimension | Sources | Cadence | Priority |
|-----------|---------|---------|----------|
| Product moves | Changelog, G2, Capterra, Twitter, LinkedIn | Monthly | High |
| Pricing changes | Pricing page, sales intel, customer feedback | Triggered | High |
| Funding | Crunchbase, TechCrunch, LinkedIn | Triggered | Medium |
| Hiring signals | LinkedIn job postings, Indeed, Glassdoor | Monthly | Medium |
| Partnerships | Press releases, co-marketing, integrations | Triggered | Medium |
| Customer wins/losses | Case studies, review sites, LinkedIn | Monthly | High |
| Customer losses (theirs) | G2 reviews, forums, your own inbound | Ongoing | High |
| Messaging shifts | Homepage, ads, conference talks | Quarterly | Medium |

### Layer 3: Analysis Frameworks

#### SWOT Per Competitor

| Element | Key Questions |
|---------|-------------|
| Strengths | Where do they consistently win? What do customers praise? |
| Weaknesses | Where do they lose? What do reviews complain about? |
| Opportunities | What could they do that would threaten you more? |
| Threats | What is their existential risk? What could make them irrelevant? |

#### Feature Gap Analysis Template

| Feature/Capability | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Status |
|-------------------|-----|-------------|-------------|--------|
| Core Feature 1 | [check] | [check] | [x] | Your advantage |
| Core Feature 2 | [x] | [check] | [check] | Gap -- on roadmap? |
| Feature 3 | [check] | [x] | [x] | Moat (unique to you) |
| Feature 4 | [x] | [x] | [check] | Comp B only |
| Feature 5 | [check] | [check] | [check] | Table stakes |

#### Competitive Positioning Map

Choose 2 axes that show YOUR differentiation:

| Common Axis Pairs | When to Use |
|------------------|------------|
| Price vs. Feature Depth | When you compete on value |
| Enterprise-ready vs. SMB-ready | When you serve a different segment |
| Easy to Implement vs. Configurable | When implementation speed is your advantage |
| Vertical-specific vs. Horizontal | When you specialize |

### Layer 4: Output Formats

#### Battlecard Template (Sales Use)

```
BATTLECARD: [Competitor Name]
Last Updated: [Date]

OVERVIEW
  Company: [name, founded, HQ, funding, size]
  Product: [1-sentence description]
  ICP overlap: [High/Medium/Low]
  Threat level: [High/Medium/Low]

WHY WE WIN
  1. [Advantage 1 with proof point]
  2. [Advantage 2 with proof point]
  3. [Advantage 3 with proof point]

WHERE THEY WIN
  1. [Their advantage -- be honest]
  2. [Their advantage]

LANDMINES (what they say about us)
  - "[Their claim]" --> Counter: "[Your response with evidence]"
  - "[Their claim]" --> Counter: "[Your response with evidence]"

KILLER QUESTIONS (ask the prospect)
  1. "[Question that exposes competitor weakness]"
  2. "[Question that highlights 

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
git -C Claude-Skills checkout 6e3fcbdbb5cf

Works in

1. 2026-10-19
   !CAUTION B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 6e3fcbdbb5cf

Questions about Competitive Intel

• github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/compe — the audited source at commit 6e3fcbdbb5cf and every finding aboveObserved · 19 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology