Competitive Audit
Systematic comparison of this project against competitors and alternatives in the market.
When to Use
- •
/do:plan audit competitive- Direct invocation - •Before major feature planning (what should we build?)
- •When positioning the product
- •To identify gaps and opportunities
- •To validate differentiation claims
What This Audit Does
- •Identify competitors - Direct competitors, alternatives, adjacent solutions
- •Analyze their approach - Features, architecture, UX, pricing
- •Compare systematically - Feature-by-feature, capability-by-capability
- •Find gaps - What do they have that we don't?
- •Find opportunities - What could we do better? What's missing in market?
- •Assess differentiation - Is our differentiation real and valuable?
Process
Step 1: Understand Our Project
Before comparing, document what WE do:
- •Core features
- •Target users
- •Key differentiators (claimed)
- •Technical approach
Step 2: Identify Competitors
Sources:
- •User-provided list
- •Web search: "[product type] alternatives"
- •GitHub: similar projects
- •Product Hunt, G2, Capterra for commercial products
Categorize:
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| Direct | Same problem, same audience |
| Indirect | Same problem, different approach |
| Adjacent | Related problem, overlapping audience |
| Emerging | New entrants, early stage |
Step 3: Research Each Competitor
Use do:researcher with WebSearch for each:
| Aspect | What to Find |
|---|---|
| Features | What does it do? Feature list |
| Approach | How does it work? Architecture if OSS |
| Users | Who uses it? What scale? |
| Strengths | What do users praise? |
| Weaknesses | What do users complain about? |
| Pricing | Free? Paid? Model? |
| Momentum | Growing? Stagnant? Declining? |
Step 4: Feature Comparison Matrix
markdown
| Feature | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | |---------|-----|--------------|--------------|--------------| | [Feature 1] | ✅ Full | ✅ Full | ⚠️ Partial | ❌ None | | [Feature 2] | ⚠️ Partial | ✅ Full | ✅ Full | ✅ Full | | [Feature 3] | ❌ None | ❌ None | ✅ Full | ❌ None |
Step 5: Gap Analysis
They have, we don't:
| Gap | Competitor(s) | Impact | Should We? |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Feature] | A, B | High/Med/Low | Yes/No/Maybe |
We have, they don't:
| Differentiator | Value | Defensible? |
|---|---|---|
| [Feature] | [Why it matters] | Yes/No |
Step 6: Opportunity Analysis
| Opportunity | Description | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Gap to fill] | [What and why] | H/M/L | H/M/L |
| [Improvement] | [What and why] | H/M/L | H/M/L |
Intensity Levels
| Level | Competitors Analyzed | Depth |
|---|---|---|
| Quick | 2-3 direct | Feature list only |
| Medium | 4-6 mixed | Features + approach |
| Thorough | 8+ comprehensive | Full analysis + user research |
Output Format
markdown
# Competitive Audit - <project> - <date> ## Our Position [Brief description of what we do and for whom] ## Competitive Landscape ### Direct Competitors | Competitor | Summary | Threat Level | |------------|---------|--------------| | [Name] | [1-line] | High/Med/Low | ### Indirect/Adjacent | Alternative | Summary | Relevance | |-------------|---------|-----------| ## Feature Comparison Matrix [Matrix table] ## Gap Analysis ### Critical Gaps (they all have, we don't) - [Gap]: [Impact and recommendation] ### Opportunities (we could lead) - [Opportunity]: [Why and how] ### Differentiators (our advantages) - [Differentiator]: [Defensibility] ## Strategic Recommendations 1. [Highest priority action] 2. [Next priority] 3. ... ## Appendix: Competitor Profiles ### [Competitor A] [Detailed profile]
Notes
- •This audit requires external research (WebSearch, WebFetch)
- •For OSS competitors, can also examine their code
- •Update periodically - competitive landscape changes
- •Focus on what users care about, not feature count
See Also
- •
do:market-researchskill for broader market analysis - •
do:feature-proposalfor acting on identified opportunities