Competitor Academic Comparison Analysis

Problem

When comparing competitors in an academic context, ad-hoc conclusions can mix in unverified metrics, citations, and authorization state. This skill turns that analysis into a protected workflow: check the runtime, complete authorization, then generate content.

How It Works

The key path is explicit:
- Environment check: validate PYTHON_CMD before running Python scripts, especially on Windows where python may open Microsoft Store.
- Authorization gate: run scripts/auth.py first and decide from signals such as AUTH_OK, AUTH_REQUIRED, and AUTH_INVALID.
- First binding: if local credentials are missing or invalid, follow the flow to obtain a JWT, run --bind-jwt, and pass revalidation before continuing.
- Content retrieval: after authorization, use scripts/protected.py to fetch protected instructions, then follow them.

It enforces a hard rule: if authorization has not passed, business output is prohibited. It also separates recoverable first-bind flows from real authorization failures, preventing result generation when credentials are missing.

Boundaries

• Suitable for permission-controlled and auditable competitor academic comparisons.
• Not suitable for bypassing authorization, offline execution, or treating local context as the final source.
• Failure reports must be based on stdout and stderr details, not silent fallbacks or vague messages.