Competitive Teardown

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/business-growth/competitive-teardownThe 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 analysis covering product teardowns, 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audits, and strategic action plans with stakeholder…

---
name: competitive-teardown
description: >
  Systematic competitor analysis covering product teardowns, 12-dimension
  scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model
  deconstruction, UX audits, and strategic action plans with stakeholder
  presentation templates.
license: MIT + Commons Clause
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  author: borghei
  category: business-growth
  updated: 2026-03-31
  tags:
    - competitive-intelligence
    - competitor-analysis
    - product-strategy
    - battle-cards
    - market-analysis
---
# Competitive Teardown

Production-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.

---

## Table of Contents

- [When to Use](#when-to-use)
- [Teardown Workflow](#teardown-workflow)
- [Data Collection Framework](#data-collection-framework)
- [12-Dimension Scoring Rubric](#12-dimension-scoring-rubric)
- [Feature Comparison Matrix](#feature-comparison-matrix)
- [Pricing Analysis Framework](#pricing-analysis-framework)
- [SWOT Analysis Template](#swot-analysis-template)
- [UX Audit Methodology](#ux-audit-methodology)
- [Positioning Map](#positioning-map)
- [Action Plan Framework](#action-plan-framework)
- [Battle Card Template](#battle-card-template)
- [Stakeholder Presentation](#stakeholder-presentation)
- [Output Artifacts](#output-artifacts)
- [Related Skills](#related-skills)

---

## When to Use

| Trigger | Teardown Scope |
|---------|---------------|
| Before product strategy or roadmap session | Full teardown (2-4 competitors) |
| Competitor launches major feature or pricing change | Focused teardown (1 competitor, updated dimensions only) |
| Quarterly competitive review | Update existing teardowns + trend analysis |
| Before a sales pitch (battle card needed) | Single-competitor battle card |
| Entering a new market segment | Full teardown of segment incumbents |

---

## Clarify First

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

- [ ] **Competitors + primary focus** — the 2-4 names and which is the main threat (sets scorecard columns and depth)
- [ ] **Your own product baseline** — so the 12-dimension scorecard and feature matrix have a "you" column to compare against
- [ ] **Decision this feeds** — roadmap session, sales battle card, or new-market entry (determines full teardown vs single battle card vs segment incumbents)
- [ ] **Available data sources** — pricing pages, 50+ reviews, product access (the rubric needs evidence; thin data caps which dimensions are scorable)

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 teardown.

## Teardown Workflow

### Step-by-Step Process

1. **Define competitors** -- List 2-4 competitors. Confirm which is the primary focus.
2. **Collect data** -- Gather intelligence from at least 3 of the 6 sources per competitor.
3. **Score using rubric** -- Apply the 12-dimension rubric to produce a numeric scorecard.
4. **Generate comparison outputs** -- Feature matrix, pricing analysis, SWOT, positioning map.
5. **Build action plan** -- Translate findings into quick wins, medium-term, and strategic priorities.
6. **Package for stakeholders** -- Assemble the presentation or battle card.

### Validation Checkpoints

- Before scoring: Confirm you have pricing data, 20+ user reviews, and recent product data
- Before action plan: Every dimension should have a score and supporting evidence
- Before presentation: Every recommendation should tie back to a data point

---

## Data Collection Framework

### Source 1: Website and Product Analysis

| Data Point | Where to Find | What It Signals |
|-----------|--------------|-----------------|
| Pricing tiers and price points | Pricing page | Market positioning, target segment |
| Feature lists per tier | Pricing + feature pages | Packaging strategy |
| Primary CTA and messaging | Homepage hero | Positioning and ICP |
| Case studies and customer logos | Case study page, homepage | Target segments, social proof |
| Integration partnerships | Integrations page | Ecosystem strategy |
| Trust signals | Footer, security page | Enterprise readiness |
| Job postings | Careers page, LinkedIn | Growth direction, tech stack |

### Source 2: User Reviews

**Platforms:** G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, App Store, Product Hunt

| Category | What to Track | Strategic Value |
|----------|-------------|-----------------|
| Praise themes | What users love (top 5 themes) | Their defensible strengths |
| Complaint themes | What users hate (top 5 themes) | Your opportunities |
| Feature requests | What users want but do not have | Product roadmap gaps |
| Switching mentions | Why users left competitors | Competitive migration paths |
| Rating trends | Quarter-over-quarter rating change | Improving or declining |

**Sample size target:** 50+ reviews per competitor for reliable themes.

### Source 3: Job Postings

| Signal | What It Means |
|--------|--------------|
| High engineering hiring | Product investment, scaling |
| AI/ML roles | AI features coming |
| Sales team expansion | Moving upmarket or expanding geographically |
| Customer success roles | Retention focus, enterprise motion |
| Compliance/legal roles | Regulatory expansion |
| Reduced postings | Cost cutting, potential contraction |

### Source 4: SEO and Content Analysis

| Metric | Tool | Strategic Value |
|--------|------|-----------------|
| Top 20 organic keywords | Ahrefs, SEMrush, GSC | Content strategy and targeting |
| Domain authority | Ahrefs, Moz | Brand strength |
| Blog publishing cadence | Manual check | Content investment level |
| Ranking pages (product vs blog vs docs) | Ahrefs | Traffic

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 Teardown

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

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology