agentsclimarketplace

Competitor deep research sop

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

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.From its SKILL.md

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.

SKILL.md

7.8 KB, ~2.0k tokens by cl100k_base, 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.

What ships with it: 3 files

52.5 KB alongside SKILL.md

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most operations skills give in ~2.0k tokens

Counted across 483 of the 484 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07

  • Collect monitoring data throughout the simulationin 14 of 483, across 6 files
  • Set the random seed for reproducibilityin 14 of 483, across 6 files
  • Validate simulations against analytical solutionsin 12 of 483, across 4 files
  • Clarify goals, constraints, and inputsin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Implement contract tests for integration pointsin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Implement strangler fig infrastructure with API gatewayin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Audit modernized components for security vulnerabilitiesin 11 of 483, across 2 files
  • Avoid Python blocking calls in processesin 10 of 483, across 3 files
  • Use resource context managers for automatic cleanupin 9 of 483, across 2 files
  • Maintain consistent time unitsin 9 of 483, across 2 files
  • Validate outcomes against success criteriain 8 of 483, across 1 file
  • Analyze the legacy codebase for technical debtin 8 of 483, across 1 file

Said here and by no other author read

  • tag evidence with M1 and M2 dimensions
  • source web links or identifiers for evidence
  • advance research phase-by-phase
  • output a research scope charter block
  • record sub-channel hits for every evidence layer
  • elevate S3 self-rescue signals to priority

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. 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.