agentsclimarketplace

Competitor deep research sop

Skill Celina-create/X-Studio/skills/competitor-deep-research-sop

A solo studio for growth operators — skills, playbooks, templates.

Install
npx -y skills add Celina-create/X-Studio --skill competitor-deep-research-sop

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 1 stars1 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Run competitor UX research using the v1.3.1 methodology — dual-axis pain mapping (M1×M2), 14 dimensions, 12-layer evidence channels, seed-user signals (S1–S3), Tier-1 outreach list, and monitoring cadence. Use when doing deep user-pain oriented competitor research (not just feature comparison), building seed-user pipelines from competitor communities, or producing S-tier deep-dive reports aligned with a structured SOP.

SKILL.md

7.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Competitor Deep Research (SOP v1.3.1)

You guide pain-first, evidence-backed competitor research that produces actionable outputs: not only analysis, but Tier-1 reachable contacts, outreach angles, and ongoing monitoring.

This skill is the agent-executable layer on top of the full written standard:

  • Full text: templates/competitor-ux-research-framework-v1.3.1.md (930 lines — channels, matrices, templates, A-tier lite mode).

If another skill in the workspace is named competitive-analysis, distinguish them:

SkillPrimary lens
competitive-analysisPositioning, capability grid, growth/SEO signals, strategic brief
competitor-deep-research-sop (this)User pain × seed users × 12-layer evidence × M1×M2 matrix × Tier-1 list

Pairing: run this for “who hurts & where”; run competitive-intel-mining (if present) to operationalize community mining; run competitive-analysis for product/GTM framing.


When to Use

  • Single competitor deep dive (S-tier style) with reproducible methodology.
  • Need M1 × M2 pain matrix, S1–S3 seed signals, and Tier-1 outreach list.
  • Must prove channel coverage (12 layers) with sub-channel hits (v1.3.1).
  • Building monitoring (RSS, alerts) after the research spike.

When Not to Use

  • Quick positioning memo only → use competitive-analysis or a short brief.
  • Only “mine GitHub issues for leads” → use competitive-intel-mining-style narrow workflow.

Non-Negotiable Principles

  1. No official-story-only: force user-side evidence across 12 layers (see full doc §3).
  2. Every pain item: tag M1 (who hurts) × M2 (pain type) when evidence supports it.
  3. Sources: web links or identifiers; no fabricated metrics (DAU, revenue).
  4. Outputs must ship: pain report structure + Tier-1 list + ≥2 outreach hooks + monitoring sketch.

Concept Quick Reference (memorize direction; details in full doc)

14 dimensions

BucketIDsRole
Dual axisM1 users · M2 pain typesBuild 6×10 heat-style mapping
ThemesM3M9Evidence path, business model, trade-offs, onboarding, hype gap, churn/migration, feature gaps
SignalsS1 anger · S2 alt-seeking · S3 self-rescueFeed Tier-1 prioritization (S3 first)

12 layers (L1–L12)

Code hosts → forums → long-form/newsletters → social → review aggregators → search → app stores → Q&A → hiring → finance/disclosures → product-native communities → awesome lists.
v1.3.1: each layer lists sub-channels; coverage and hit rules are in full doc §3 + §3.x hit rules.


Execution Phases (map to full doc §5)

Advance phase-by-phase; do not skip Phase C–E if the user asked for a full S-tier deliverable.

Phase A — Charter (§5 stage 1)

Output a scope block:

## Charter
- Competitor(s):
- Tier intent: S full | A lite | custom
- Decision this informs:
- Owner / date:
- Output paths (adapt to user repo): report file, monitoring file, matrix source

Phase B — Product snapshot (§5 stage 2)

Deliver at top of report:

  • One-line positioning + short description
  • GitHub stats if OSS (stars, contributors, rough age, maintainer handles)
  • Domain / entry points list
  • Audience types (map toward M1)
  • Who they sell to (commercial target ≠ generic audience)

Phase C — Evidence sweep — 12 layers (§5 stage 3)

  • Work layer-by-layer; record sub-channel hits (v1.3.1 granularity).
  • Minimum discipline from SOP: strong L1/L3/L6/L11 coverage when applicable; never skip L1 + L3 + L11 without explicit rationale (see full doc §3 rules).
  • Maintain appendix evidence list: URL, quote stub, date, proposed M1×M2 tags.

Phase D — Pain mapping (§5 stage 4)

  1. M1×M2 matrix: aggregate counts or severity per cell (🔴/🟠/🟡/empty); call out top 3 hot cells.
  2. M4–M9: fill theme sections (business model, trade-offs, onboarding, hype gap, flows, feature backlog signals).
  3. S1–S3: classify leads; elevate S3 (forks, PRs, workarounds) to Tier-1 priority.
  4. Orphan bucket: evidence that fits no cell → park in §orphan; if ≥3 similar orphans, flag as candidate new dimension (do not rewrite framework ad hoc).

Phase E — Comparison grid (§5 stage 5)

If multi-competitor: fill comparison table — at minimum business model + self-host / deployment posture + dimensions user chose; add “differentiation insight” paragraph per table.

Phase F — Seed pipeline (§5 stage 6)

  • Tier-1 list: P0 5–10 with handles + why (signal type).
  • ≥2 outreach angles (technical pain vs onboarding pain vs self-rescue).

Phase G — Playbook for “your product” (§5 stage 7)

  • 5 insights, each containing an explicit “avoid X’s trap” style lesson where possible.
  • 4-step seed motion (week 1 / week 2 / month 1 / ongoing).
  • Monitoring: at least one hook each for L1-class and L6-class signals (RSS, alerts, saved searches — see full doc §8).

Phase H — Wrap-up (§5 stage 8)

  • Short insights file (bullet memory).
  • Update competitive matrix / facts if this workspace keeps them.

Phase I — External framework check (§5 stage 9, quarterly optional)

Optional: Mom Test, JTBD, Kano, PMF survey — one paragraph each on gaps.


Report Skeleton (must match §6 in full doc)

Use this outline for the main deliverable:

  1. Snapshot (positioning, GitHub, URLs, audiences)
  2. TL;DR + M5 trade-offs (≥3)
  3. Method — channel coverage table (L1–L12 with sub-channel hits)
  4. PainM1×M2 matrix + top-3 cells deep dives
  5. Themes — M4–M9 sections
  6. Signals — S1/S2/S3 + Tier-1 list
  7. Playbook — implications + monitoring + next steps
  8. Appendices — evidence chain, templates used

Evidence citation style (per full doc):

> "quote"
> — [source](url) · reactions if any
> **Tags**: `M1 …` × `M2 …` · S1/S2/S3 …

A-Tier Lite Mode

If user selects A-tier (cross-layer watch, less depth):

  • Follow §9 in templates/competitor-ux-research-framework-v1.3.1.md: reduced dimension set, drift tracking table, shorter report shell.
  • Still keep L1/L3/L6/L11 signal coverage unless explicitly scoped down.

Quality Gates (before calling research “done”)

  • Every 🔴/🟠 pain has M1×M2 or explicit “uncategorized” with orphan note
  • 12-layer table shows which sub-channels hit (or “N/A” with reason)
  • Tier-1 list has ≥5 contacts or explicit “insufficient public identity — next steps”
  • Monitoring section has actionable subscriptions/alerts, not vague “watch Twitter”

Related Skills / Assets

  • Full methodology: templates/competitor-ux-research-framework-v1.3.1.md
  • Pair with seed tooling in same repo (e.g. scrapers, CSV enrichment) when moving from list → email.

Maintainer Notes

  • Product names: user may say Nexu / internal codenames — keep output product-agnostic unless scope says otherwise.
  • Language: this SKILL.md is English; use SKILL.zh-CN.md for Chinese-first execution.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.