competitors-analysis

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.

AGENTS.md

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 7e8b65f8cdc7 · 28 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherdaymade GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderdaymade/claude-code-skills/competitors-analysisThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict7e8b65f8cdc7A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedPushed today
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Clones and audits competitor repositories into evidence-based intelligence with file:line citations. Use to track competitors, add a competitor repo, review competitor code, compare capabilities, build a competitor…

---
name: competitors-analysis
description: >-
  Clones and audits competitor repositories into evidence-based intelligence with file:line
  citations. Use to track competitors, add a competitor repo, review competitor code, compare
  capabilities, build a competitor landscape, or check for code updates: 竞品分析 / 竞品 / competitor scan
  / analyze competitor / compare with X / latest competitor code. Not for market research without
  code (use deep-research).
context: fork
agent: general-purpose
argument-hint: "[competitor-url-or-search-query] [optional-product-name]"
---

# Competitors Analysis

Build competitor intelligence that can be shared, re-run, and audited later. This
skill has two layers:

1. **Repository evidence**: clone or update the competitor code under the durable
   competitors workspace, then cite facts from actual files and commits.
2. **Landscape synthesis**: explain which product choices the evidence changes,
   including trade-offs and what would overturn the judgment. Keep positioning,
   pricing, strengths and gaps as supporting evidence.

This skill intentionally subsumes lightweight "competitor scan" workflows. A scan
is useful for the landscape table, but it is not enough for technical conclusions.

## Resolve the analysis target (read this first)

The executing agent resolves two separate inputs: the **code source to analyze**
and the **our-product context used for comparison**. A repository URL identifies
the first; a separately typed product name is not required to profile it.

1. Honor the current request's explicit product/market and exclusions first.
   If the caller requests a standalone profile, do not add an our-product comparison.
2. Otherwise, read the current project's `AGENTS.md` / `CLAUDE.md` and follow its
   product-contract or research entry to confirm the product and analysis scope.
   The caller's current project is valid context for this invocation. A directory
   basename alone is not enough; record the authoritative file used to identify it.
   A delegated caller should pass the project path and relevant entry when available.
3. A supplied repository URL without a confirmed our-product context selects a
   standalone **Profile**. Continue repository analysis; omit comparison and
   opportunities specific to our product. A missing customer segment does not
   block code facts or sourced positioning from the repository's own docs.
4. For **Discover** or **Landscape**, use the explicit request or confirmed
   current project to establish the scope. If comparison context remains unknown,
   complete any supplied repository profiles and report the exact missing context
   to the caller. An interactive host may ask only for the unresolved comparison
   input; a noninteractive fork reports it without blocking independent profiles.

**Stop only when neither an analysis target nor an actionable current-project
scope is available.** Report that missing input to the caller. Do not invent a
task, browse `$COMPETITORS_BASE` to choose an unrelated product, or start discovery
from a self-generated market. A fork receiving neither a task request nor
caller-bound project scope must stop; its inability to ask is not a reason to
reject a supplied repository URL.

## Entry Router

Resolve scope above before selecting a mode. A bare repository URL selects
Profile, using the confirmed current project for comparison when available.
Known competitors are optional for a scoped Discover request.

Use the user's wording and historical qualifiers to choose the path. A request
to recap earlier work selects the inventory route before keyword-based discovery:

| User intent | Mode | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| "recap competitors already studied", "回顾已分析的竞品", historical cumulative list | Landscape inventory | Follow [historical inventory](references/landscape_synthesis.md#inventory-prior-analysis-when-requested); reconcile existing records without requiring new profiles or synthesis |
| "find competitors", "竞品有哪些", broad market query for new discovery | Discover | Search GitHub and web sources, shortlist candidates, clone only relevant repositories |
| "add competitor <url>" | Ingest | Clone the repository, record remote + commit, then produce a first profile |
| A repository URL or supplied code package, "analyze competitor", "review this repo" | Profile | Bind the source, read code, write a cited technical profile; compare with the confirmed current product when applicable |
| "compare", "landscape", "opportunities" | Landscape | Ensure each competitor has a profile, then synthesize gaps and opportunities |
| "latest code", "有没有更新" | Update | Pull/fetch existing competitors and report changed commits before analysis |

Before saving source profiles, resolve the user's selected destination. When the
request explicitly selects a team collection, read
[collection destination routing](references/collection_destination.md) and use
its existing producer/review entry. Keep project-specific adoption judgments in
the existing project research entry. Without that selection, retain the current
project-backed learning and durable source layout below.

## Durable Source Layout

Use a durable workspace, not `/tmp`. The default base is:

```bash
COMPETITORS_BASE="${COMPETITORS_BASE:-$HOME/workspace/competitors}"
```

Directory convention:

```text
$COMPETITORS_BASE/
└── {product-slug}/
    ├── {owner-repo}/
    └── ...
```

Use `owner-repo` for GitHub repositories so forks and similarly named projects do
not collide. Derive `product-slug` from the explicitly named or authoritatively
confirmed current product. If neither applies, use `standalone` for a supplied
repository URL; this is a storage namespace, not an invented market.
Reuse the matching product directory and clone after checking its remote.
Do not browse other product directories to manufacture the analysis scope.

## Preflight

Bind the requested edition to the supplied source before comparing capabilities.
For Git, record th

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.

1. 2026-10-28
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 7e8b65f8cdc7

Questions about competitors-analysis

• github.com/daymade/claude-code-skills/tree/main/competitors-anal — the audited source at commit 7e8b65f8cdc7 and every finding aboveObserved · 28 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology