Competitive Product Research

Core Problem: How to Systematize Competitive Analysis from Fragmentation?

In product iteration and strategic decision-making, competitive research is critical but often suffers from scattered data, broken evidence chains, and inconsistent frameworks. Teams need a traceable, structured report to inform decisions, not ad-hoc screenshots or subjective judgments. Manual compilation risks missing key points and lacks consistency in analysis depth.

Skill Workflow

This skill implements systematic competitive analysis via the dual-track four-layer method:

• Information Collection Checklist: Starts from research objectives, uses an interactive form (e.g., assets/intake-form.html) to gather necessary parameters like benchmark targets, core scenarios, and output formats. Supports fragmented inputs (e.g., screenshots/links), auto-indexes evidence, and marks gaps as SRC-GAP.
• Experience Track Analysis: Breaks down competitors into eight dimensions (e.g., first-order links, publishing flows, onboarding steps) at minimal operational nodes, contrasts with our gaps, and tags each key conclusion with SRC-xxx evidence labels (user input SRC-U, public sources SRC-P, etc.).
• Strategy Track (Optional): For market landscape, employs frameworks like SWOT, Five Forces, or PESTLE to diagnose competitive strategies and differentiation opportunities, avoiding pure conceptual speculation.
• Output Generation: Based on confirmed format, generates HTML (strictly using report-template-pro.html) or Markdown reports, including benchmark tables, Key Findings, Roadmap (with Owner/Priority), and Source Index. Public source SRC-xxx tags must be clickable links to original URLs.

Caveats and Boundals

• Rigid Constraints: Information priority, no fabrication; all key conclusions must link to at least one SRC-xxx; reports must include Rigid elements (e.g., Source Index, disclaimer); in HTML reports, evidence tags cannot be merged and must link individually.
• Flexibility: Strategy modules can be selected as needed (e.g., only SWOT); experience dimensions can be merged for similar areas (e.g., grouping D1-D3); supplementary appendices are allowed beyond output format but not mandatory.
• Applicable Scenarios: Suitable for PRD review materials, feature benchmarking, strategy diagnosis, etc.; but if input is insufficient (e.g., only one competitor), it will ask follow-ups or use "our solution/industry common practice" as a reference with noted limitations. When objectives or targets are uninferrable, it explicitly refuses to generate invalid reports.