competitive-platform-analysis

Name: competitive-platform-analysis
Author: affaan-m

524installs35kforks

How to install competitive-platform-analysis?

affaan-m/ecc/competitive-platform-analysis

$npx -y skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill competitive-platform-analysis

Installs into the current project.

Summary

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;

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Competitive Platform Analysis
2
3	Use this skill to decide who to benchmark and where to find them before
4	any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the
5	wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a
6	defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.
7
8	## When to Activate
9
10	- About to start a competitive benchmarking project and need to define the competitor set first.
11	- Unsure which companies belong in Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
12	- Need a defensible, pruned scope for a market landscape report.
13	- Has a positioning brief and wants to identify who contests that position.
14	- First step before running benchmark-methodology.
15
16	## Client positioning brief (establish first)
17
18	Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't
19	already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do not
20	invent one and do not scope the set blind. The brief supplies:
21
22	- Identity / aesthetic register — what kind of studio or company this is and
23	how it presents itself.
24	- Offer — what services or products it delivers.
25	- Target clients — who it sells to.
26	- Differentiator — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
27	- Scoping consequence — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g.,
28	prioritize by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
29	- Strategic tension — the paired axes that define the client's white-space
30	(e.g., memorability × hireability).
31
32	Do not proceed without the positioning brief. A competitor list scoped
33	without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in
34	particular determines which competitors are strong rivals (those that contest
35	the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.
36
37	## Selection criteria
38
39	For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:
40
41	- Size / model — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size
42	agency. Match the client's own band; same-band studios are the realistic
43	head-to-head set.
44	- Niche / specialization — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with
45	the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
46	- Geography / market — EU vs US vs global-remote; language; time-zone reach.
47	Note whether they win the same clients the client targets.
48	- Pricing & engagement model — productized sprints, retainer, project,
49	day-rate; transparent vs "contact us". Signals positioning maturity.
50	- Portfolio style — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian. Closer
51	to the client's aesthetic register = more they contest the client's
52	distinctiveness.
53	- Technical depth / craft maturity — relevant if the client's credibility
54	story includes public process work, open tooling, or documented systems.
55	- Brand strength — does the studio have an ownable verbal/visual identity, or
56	is it interchangeable? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.
57
58	## Player taxonomy — axes to populate across
59
60	Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few
61	generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes
62	apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding,
63	content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the
64	most instructive.
65
66	1. Positioning stance — brand-led / editorial (competes on identity,
67	voice, POV) vs capability-led (competes on craft, throughput, outcomes).
68	Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
69	2. Specialization — specialist (one tight discipline or vertical) vs
70	generalist (broad service menu). Tighter overlap with the client's focus =
71	more direct.
72	3. Size / model — solo / micro vs boutique vs mid-size vs
73	enterprise-scale. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger
74	bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
75	4. Engagement format — productized (named sprints, audits, fixed packages)
76	vs bespoke (custom project / retainer). Signals positioning maturity.
77	5. Distinctiveness posture — conventional / safe vs *contrarian /
78	manifesto-driven*. The opinionated end is key for distinctiveness
79	benchmarking in any niche.
80	6. Evidence / credibility model — outcome-led (metrics, named clients,
81	case depth) vs aesthetic-led (portfolio, awards). Tells you how each player
82	earns trust.
83	7. Brand strength of the operator — interchangeable vs *cult / ownable
84	identity* (including senior independents who prove th

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

competitive-platform-analysis

524installs35kforks

View on GitHub

How to install competitive-platform-analysis?

affaan-m/ecc/competitive-platform-analysis

$npx -y skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill competitive-platform-analysis

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Competitive Platform Analysis
2
3	Use this skill to decide who to benchmark and where to find them before
4	any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the
5	wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a
6	defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.
7
8	## When to Activate
9
10	- About to start a competitive benchmarking project and need to define the competitor set first.
11	- Unsure which companies belong in Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational tiers.
12	- Need a defensible, pruned scope for a market landscape report.
13	- Has a positioning brief and wants to identify who contests that position.
14	- First step before running benchmark-methodology.
15
16	## Client positioning brief (establish first)
17
18	Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't
19	already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do not
20	invent one and do not scope the set blind. The brief supplies:
21
22	- Identity / aesthetic register — what kind of studio or company this is and
23	how it presents itself.
24	- Offer — what services or products it delivers.
25	- Target clients — who it sells to.
26	- Differentiator — the moat or positioning argument the client believes in.
27	- Scoping consequence — the implication for how to weight competitors (e.g.,
28	prioritize by distinctiveness vs. capability overlap vs. price).
29	- Strategic tension — the paired axes that define the client's white-space
30	(e.g., memorability × hireability).
31
32	Do not proceed without the positioning brief. A competitor list scoped
33	without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in
34	particular determines which competitors are strong rivals (those that contest
35	the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.
36
37	## Selection criteria
38
39	For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:
40
41	- Size / model — solo, micro-studio (2–8), boutique (sub-30), mid-size
42	agency. Match the client's own band; same-band studios are the realistic
43	head-to-head set.
44	- Niche / specialization — how closely the candidate's focus overlaps with
45	the client's offer. Tighter overlap = more direct.
46	- Geography / market — EU vs US vs global-remote; language; time-zone reach.
47	Note whether they win the same clients the client targets.
48	- Pricing & engagement model — productized sprints, retainer, project,
49	day-rate; transparent vs "contact us". Signals positioning maturity.
50	- Portfolio style — generic vs. opinionated/editorial vs. contrarian. Closer
51	to the client's aesthetic register = more they contest the client's
52	distinctiveness.
53	- Technical depth / craft maturity — relevant if the client's credibility
54	story includes public process work, open tooling, or documented systems.
55	- Brand strength — does the studio have an ownable verbal/visual identity, or
56	is it interchangeable? Weight this per the client's scoping consequence.
57
58	## Player taxonomy — axes to populate across
59
60	Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few
61	generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes
62	apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding,
63	content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the
64	most instructive.
65
66	1. Positioning stance — brand-led / editorial (competes on identity,
67	voice, POV) vs capability-led (competes on craft, throughput, outcomes).
68	Populate both poles; the client's closest mirror sits at its own end.
69	2. Specialization — specialist (one tight discipline or vertical) vs
70	generalist (broad service menu). Tighter overlap with the client's focus =
71	more direct.
72	3. Size / model — solo / micro vs boutique vs mid-size vs
73	enterprise-scale. Same-band players are the realistic head-to-head; larger
74	bands are the aspirational/commercial-maturity reference.
75	4. Engagement format — productized (named sprints, audits, fixed packages)
76	vs bespoke (custom project / retainer). Signals positioning maturity.
77	5. Distinctiveness posture — conventional / safe vs *contrarian /
78	manifesto-driven*. The opinionated end is key for distinctiveness
79	benchmarking in any niche.
80	6. Evidence / credibility model — outcome-led (metrics, named clients,
81	case depth) vs aesthetic-led (portfolio, awards). Tells you how each player
82	earns trust.
83	7. Brand strength of the operator — interchangeable vs *cult / ownable
84	identity* (including senior independents who prove th

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type