competitive-analysis-process

Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction. Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/competitive-analysis-process/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured orchestration skill that sequences six analytical steps with named frameworks, delegated skills, decision points, and concrete pitfalls — genuinely actionable and concise for its scope. Its weaknesses are minor: rhetorical padding in places, no explicit validation loops, and references to bundle files that are not shipped with the skill under review.

Suggestions

Trim the rhetorical flourishes in the "Watch for" notes and tighten the Examples section to recover token budget and push conciseness toward 5.

Add explicit validation/checkpoint cues (e.g., "before producing an output, confirm each framework produced a judgment and every claim carries a Fact/Inference/Assumption label") to reach the top workflow_clarity anchor.

Ensure referenced bundle files (template.md, examples/sample.md, examples/sample-industrial.md) ship alongside SKILL.md, or remove the links, so progressive-disclosure navigation resolves.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is dense and assumes competence — it does not explain what competitive analysis or the frameworks are from scratch, and the one-line framework glosses ("which features delight vs. merely satisfy") earn their place — but the rhetorical "watch for" flourishes and a fairly long Examples section could be trimmed, leaving it just below lean.	4 / 5
Actionability	Each step names the specific skill to run, the framework to apply, the decision point, and a concrete pitfall to watch for, plus a copy-paste scoping menu and two worked examples — highly actionable for an orchestration skill, with only minor gaps because the research mechanics are delegated by design.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Steps 0–7 are explicitly numbered and sequenced with per-step decision points and an engagement-tracker template; this is not a destructive/batch operation so the validation cap does not apply, but it lacks explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loops, keeping it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The overview is well-organized into Purpose, Input, Key Concepts, Application, Examples, Pitfalls, and References with clearly signaled one-level-deep links to delegated sibling skills and example files; however the referenced bundle files (template.md, examples/sample.md, examples/sample-industrial.md) are not present in the provided bundle, a minor reliability gap that prevents a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

66%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A solid third-person description that clearly states both the what and the when and sharply differentiates from sibling scan/card skills. Its main gap is trigger-term breadth and action specificity — it frames the use case abstractly rather than listing the natural phrases and concrete actions a user would name.

Suggestions

Add concrete trigger phrases users actually say (e.g., "Use when the user asks for competitive research, a competitor analysis, or a market-intelligence pass on a space") to lift trigger_term_quality and completeness.

Name one or two more specific actions or outputs (e.g., "ending in battle cards, comparison matrices, and threat assessments") so specificity reaches comprehensive coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain and a concrete action — "Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps, from landscape to strategic direction" — but enumerates the arc rather than listing multiple specific concrete actions, so it stops at domain-plus-1-2-actions rather than comprehensive coverage.	3 / 5
Completeness	It states what ("Orchestrate a complete competitive analysis across six steps") and when ("Use when you need the full picture, not a single scan or card"), so both halves are present, but the when-clause is a use-case framing rather than a list of concrete trigger phrases, keeping it just below the explicit-trigger anchor.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"competitive analysis", "scan", and "card" are relevant keywords and "Use when you need the full picture" is a natural framing, but common variations users would say ("competitor research", "competitive landscape", "market intelligence") are missing, leaving synonym coverage incomplete.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The phrase "not a single scan or card" explicitly carves the niche apart from sibling scan and battle-card skills, giving it distinct triggers with minimal overlap risk.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

87%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 14 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 3 missing, 21 suspicious	Warning

	Total	14 / 16 Passed

Repository: deanpeters/Product-Manager-Skills
Path: skills/competitive-analysis-process/SKILL.md
Commit: a03af68

Reviewed: 19 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.