Product teardown

Product Teardown

Forked skill — extends competitive-teardown from alirezarezvani/claude-skills (MIT) with a Visual Capture phase (homepage UI + demo/review videos) and broadens scope from pure competitor analysis to general product UI/UX research. See ATTRIBUTION.md for the full diff.

Tier: POWERFUL
Category: Product Team
Domain: Competitive Intelligence, Product Strategy, Market Analysis, Product UX Research

---

Two output modes — pick before you start

Mode	Output shape	Use when
Mode 1 — One-shot	Full teardown as a single doc, captured at one point in time	One-time strategic review, M&A diligence, board prep, frozen targets
Mode 2 — Watchlist	Append-log structure with dated entries, claim-drift tracking, <!-- Don't rewrite §1–§N --> marker enforcing the appendable shape	Any target you'll re-research more than once — active competitors, fast-moving categories, GTM-shared docs

The skill defaults to Mode 1, but Mode 2 produces dramatically more durable docs. The canonical question is: will I look at this in 6 weeks? If yes, ship Mode 2. See references/analysis-templates.md §6 for the watchlist append-log template, and references/data-collection-guide.md for the (value, source_url, capture_date) tuple convention that makes claim-drift tracking work.

---

Core analysis rules

These are global rules that apply to every section of every teardown produced by this skill, regardless of mode.

Rule 1 — Tag every claim as Observed or Inferred

Every claim in the output must carry a label:

• Observed — the claim is anchored to a URL, timestamp, screenshot reference, or direct quote. Reader can verify it without trusting you.
• Inferred — the claim is reasoned from indirect signals. The inference chain MUST be stated alongside the claim.

✓ Observed: Pricing page lists 3 tiers — Free / Pro $20/mo / Enterprise contact-sales
  (https://example.com/pricing as of 2026-04-30; screenshot pricing-2026-04-30.png)

✓ Inferred: Likely sales-led motion above $20/mo
  Chain: 70% of LinkedIn job postings in last 60 days are AE/SDR roles + the
  Enterprise tier hides pricing + 4 of 5 case studies are Fortune 1000

✗ Bad (no label, no chain): "They're moving upmarket."

Inferences without a chain don't pass review. If you can't state the chain, don't make the claim.

Rule 2 — Capture "what's NOT shown" alongside what is

Negative space carries strategic information. For every UX audit, demo analysis, and competitive section, also enumerate what the product deliberately or accidentally hides:

• Pricing flow that 404s or requires a sales call
• Empty states absent from the demo video
• Error / failure states absent from screenshots
• Decline / cancel / abort gestures the demo skips
• Multi-user or escalation paths not shown
• Mobile parity gaps for desktop-demoed flows

Treat these absences as findings, not gaps in your research. They're often where competitive opportunities live — the vendor is hiding them deliberately.

Rule 3 — Don't average sentiment across source tiers

Reviews vary in epistemic weight. Sponsored coverage is closer to a press release than a review; community discussion is more honest but lower-resolution. Classify every third-party source before averaging anything (full taxonomy in references/data-collection-guide.md §Source-tier classification):

Tier	Examples	Treat as
Hands-on review	Independent reviewer who actually used the product, 8+ minutes, shows real workflow	High signal
Sponsored content	Disclosed sponsorship, free product credits, "this video is sponsored by…"	Press release tier
Press-release rewrite	Tech-blog rewriting a launch announcement with no hands-on	Press release tier
Analyst opinion	Gartner/Forrester/G2 categorical placement	Strategic signal, not UX signal
Community discussion	Reddit, HN, Discord, Slack threads	Honest but anecdotal — quote verbatim, don't aggregate

Don't average a sponsored video and a hands-on review into one "third-party sentiment" number. Surface them separately.

---

When to Use

• Before a product strategy or roadmap session
• When a competitor launches a major feature or pricing change
• Quarterly competitive review
• Before a sales pitch where you need battle card data
• When entering a new market segment
• When studying a product's UI/UX patterns to inform your own design (even non-competitors)
• When evaluating how a product narrates its value (homepage + demo video) vs. how reviewers actually experience it

---

Teardown Workflow

Follow these steps in sequence to produce a complete teardown:

1. Define competitors — List 2–4 competitors to analyze. Confirm which is the primary focus.

2. Collect data — Use references/data-collection-guide.md to gather raw signals from at least 3 sources per competitor (website, reviews, job postings, SEO, social).
   Validation checkpoint: Before proceeding, confirm you have pricing data, at least 20 reviews, and job posting counts for each competitor.

3. Capture visuals — Use references/visual-ingestion-guide.md to capture the visible product surface — what text-based signals can't show. For each competitor, collect: a full-page homepage screenshot, the URL of one first-party demo video (vendor-published), and the URL of one in-depth third-party review video. Then run the prompts in references/visual-ux-prompts.md against your runtime's vision/video model.
   Validation checkpoint: Before proceeding, confirm you have a homepage screenshot plus at least one demo or review video transcript per competitor.

   ⚠️ Visual content has two halves — capture BOTH. Audio (transcript) and visual (frames) are independent signals. The transcript tells you what they said; the frames tell you what they showed. For UI/UX research the visual side is usually more valuable. Skipping it is the most common reason teardowns lack texture.

   DO NOT use WebFetch on YouTube URLs or auth-walled / SPA-rendered apps. WebFetch returns only page chrome (header / footer / nav / "Sign in") for YouTube, and only the title + empty <div id="root"> for client-rendered apps. Real content needs JS execution.

   Resolve in this priority order (full detail in references/visual-ingestion-guide.md):

   1. Native runtime ingestion — if your runtime can ingest a YouTube URL directly, pass it with the prompts in visual-ux-prompts.md. Skip the rest.
   2. Browser-driver scrubbing (preferred for visual frames) — playwright / chrome-devtools / browser-MCP. Read the transcript first to pick 5–10 structurally meaningful timestamps (intro, first UI shown, "wow moment", any skipped step, closing CTA), then for each timestamp: navigate to youtube.com/watch?v=<id>&t=<seconds>, inject document.querySelector('video').pause(); v.currentTime=<T>, screenshot the player. Deliberate frames beat random frames.
   3. Bundled transcript helper (audio side, any runtime with shell): bash scripts/youtube_transcript.sh "<url>" --out transcript.txt.
   4. Bundled keyframes helper (visual side fallback, when no browser MCP): bash scripts/youtube_keyframes.sh "<url>" --out-dir ./frames --max-frames 12. Programmatic scene-change extraction with fallback to fixed-interval.
   5. Bundled full-capture helper (homepage + multiple videos for one competitor): bash scripts/capture_visuals.sh --competitor "<name>" --homepage <url> --first-party-demo <url> --third-party-review <url>.
   6. External YouTube skill — if a youtube-transcript-style skill is co-installed, invoke it instead.
   7. No content available — if all of the above fail, document the gap explicitly in the Visual Capture evidence table. Do not try to substitute WebFetch.

   Same anti-pattern applies to auth-walled / SPA pages: use the browser driver, navigate, wait for content, screenshot — never WebFetch.

4. Score using rubric — Apply the 12-dimension rubric below to produce a numeric scorecard for each competitor and your own product. Dimension 3 (UX) MUST cite both review-based evidence AND visual evidence captured in step 3.
   Validation checkpoint: Every dimension should have a score and at least one supporting evidence note.

5. Generate outputs — Populate the templates in references/analysis-templates.md (Feature Matrix, Pricing Analysis, SWOT, Positioning Map, UX Audit). The UX Audit should incorporate visual findings from step 3.

6. Build action plan — Translate findings into the Action Items template (quick wins / medium-term / strategic).

7. Package for stakeholders — Assemble the Stakeholder Presentation using outputs from steps 4–6.

---

Data Collection Guide

Full executable scripts for each source are in references/data-collection-guide.md. Summaries of what to capture are below.

1. Website Analysis

Key things to capture:

• Pricing tiers and price points
• Feature lists per tier
• Primary CTA and messaging
• Case studies / customer logos (signals ICP)
• Integration logos
• Trust signals (certifications, compliance badges)

2. App Store Reviews

Review sentiment categories:

• Praise → what users love (defend / strengthen these)
• Feature requests → unmet needs (opportunity gaps)
• Bugs → quality signals
• UX complaints → friction points you can beat them on

Sample App Store query (iTunes Search API):

GET https://itunes.apple.com/search?term=<competitor_name>&entity=software&limit=1
# Extract trackId, then:
GET https://itunes.apple.com/rss/customerreviews/id=<trackId>/sortBy=mostRecent/json?l=en&limit=50

Parse entry[].content.label for review text and entry[].im:rating.label for star rating.

3. Job Postings (Team Size & Tech Stack Signals)

Signals from job postings:

• Engineering volume → scaling vs. consolidating
• Specific tech mentions → stack (React/Vue, Postgres/Mongo, AWS/GCP)
• Sales/CS ratio → product-led vs. sales-led motion
• Data/ML roles → upcoming AI features
• Compliance roles → regulatory expansion

4. SEO Analysis

SEO signals to capture:

• Top 20 organic keywords (intent: informational / navigational / commercial)
• Domain Authority / backlink count
• Blog publishing cadence and topics
• Which pages rank (product pages vs. blog vs. docs)

5. Social Media Sentiment

Capture recent mentions via Twitter/X API v2, Reddit, or LinkedIn. Look for recurring praise, complaints, and feature requests. See references/data-collection-guide.md for API query examples.

---

Scoring Rubric (12 Dimensions, 1-5)

#	Dimension	1 (Weak)	3 (Average)	5 (Best-in-class)
1	Features	Core only, many gaps	Solid coverage	Comprehensive + unique
2	Pricing	Confusing / overpriced	Market-rate, clear	Transparent, flexible, fair
3	UX	Confusing, high friction	Functional	Delightful, minimal friction
4	Performance	Slow, unreliable	Acceptable	Fast, high uptime
5	Docs	Sparse, outdated	Decent coverage	Comprehensive, searchable
6	Support	Email only, slow	Chat + email	24/7, great response
7	Integrations	0-5 integrations	6-25	26+ or deep ecosystem
8	Security	No mentions	SOC2 claimed	SOC2 Type II, ISO 27001
9	Scalability	No enterprise tier	Mid-market ready	Enterprise-grade
10	Brand	Generic, unmemorable	Decent positioning	Strong, differentiated
11	Community	None	Forum / Slack	Active, vibrant community
12	Innovation	No recent releases	Quarterly	Frequent, meaningful
13	Category Vocabulary (conditional — see below)	Colliding term that means something else in the category	Neutral term in unsettled category	The term the category will be called in 5 years

Conditional Dim 13 — activate only when the target is a protocol, standard, MCP server, category-defining product, or anything whose strategic value depends on category naming. Skip otherwise. When activated, weight at 15–20%. Full rubric in references/scoring-rubric.md.

Example completed row (Competitor: Acme Corp, Dimension 3 – UX):

Dimension	Acme Corp Score	Evidence
UX	2	App Store reviews cite "confusing navigation" (38 mentions); onboarding requires 7 steps before TTFV; no onboarding wizard; CC required at signup. Visual: homepage hero buries the primary CTA below 3 marketing rows; demo video skips past the empty-state entirely; 3rd-party reviewer takes 4:12 to find the "Create" button.

Apply this pattern to all 12 dimensions for each competitor. For Dimension 3 (UX), evidence MUST include both review-based signals AND visual signals captured in workflow step 3.

---

Templates

Full template markdown is in references/analysis-templates.md. Abbreviated reference below.

Bidirectional Gap Tables (primary comparison artifact)

Symmetric scorecards summarise; directional gap tables drive decisions. For every comparison, produce two tables:

1. What [Their Product] has that [Our Product] doesn't — each row: their capability, our gap, strategic implication, action option (build / punt / counter)
2. What [Our Product] has that [Their Product] doesn't — each row: our capability, their gap, why it matters, how to weaponise

Each row should be specific enough to become a roadmap ticket or a sales-deck bullet. Symmetric "Feature X: Us 4, Them 3" doesn't tell you what to do; the directional version tells you what to build, what to ignore, and what to weaponise.

See references/analysis-templates.md §5 for the full template.

Feature Comparison Matrix (summary only)

Use the symmetric matrix as a summary artifact (one slide, executive-level), not the primary comparison artifact:

Rows: core features, pricing tiers, platform capabilities (web, iOS, Android, API).
Columns: your product + up to 3 competitors.
Score each cell 1–5. Sum to get total out of 60.
Score legend: 5=Best-in-class, 4=Strong, 3=Average, 2=Below average, 1=Weak/Missing

Pricing Analysis

Capture per competitor: model type (per-seat / usage-based / flat rate / freemium), entry/mid/enterprise price points, free trial length.
Summarize: price leader, value leader, premium positioning, your position, and 2–3 pricing opportunity bullets.

SWOT Analysis

For each competitor: 3–5 bullets per quadrant (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities for us, Threats to us). Anchor every bullet to a data signal (review quote, job posting count, pricing page, etc.).

Positioning Map

2x2 axes (e.g., Simple ↔ Complex / Low Value ↔ High Value). Place each competitor and your product. Bubble size = market share or funding. See references/analysis-templates.md for ASCII and editable versions.

UX Audit Checklist

Onboarding: TTFV (minutes), steps to activation, CC-required, onboarding wizard quality.
Key workflows: steps, friction points, comparative score (yours vs. theirs).
Mobile: iOS/Android ratings, feature parity, top complaint and praise.
Navigation: global search, keyboard shortcuts, in-app help.

What's NOT shown (per Core Rule 2 — required subsection): enumerate flows, surfaces, and states the product hides. Pricing flow that 404s, expert/cancel/decline gestures skipped in demos, error states absent from screenshots, multi-user paths that aren't demonstrated, mobile parity gaps for desktop-only flows. These absences carry strategic information.

Verbatim Founder Positioning Quotes

Capture verbatim founder positioning quotes — separately from marketing copy — from:

• YC launch posts and demo days
• Demo video narration ("00:50: 'Set up in under 2 minutes'")
• Podcast and conference interviews
• Footer slogans (often more honest than the headline)
• Twitter/X bios and pinned posts

These are the positions the founders themselves chose to defend. They're stickier than homepage marketing copy and they're reusable strategic vocabulary you can co-opt or counter. Tag each quote with (speaker, source URL, date). Don't paraphrase — verbatim is the entire point.

Action Items

Horizon	Effort	Examples
Quick wins (0–4 wks)	Low	Add review badges, publish comparison landing page
Medium-term (1–3 mo)	Moderate	Launch free tier, improve onboarding TTFV, add top-requested integration
Strategic (3–12 mo)	High	Enter new market, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II

Open Questions / Things to Watch

3–7 explicit unknowns, each answerable by a specific future signal (a pricing-page change, funding announcement, press release, analyst report). Date them and re-check in watchlist mode. Resolved questions move to a ## Resolved section rather than being deleted, preserving historical thinking. Full template in references/analysis-templates.md §7.

Stakeholder Presentation (8 slides)

1. Executive Summary — Threat level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), top strength, top opportunity, recommended action
2. Market Position — 2x2 positioning map
3. Feature Scorecard — 12-dimension (or 13 if Category Vocabulary applies) radar or table, total scores
4. Pricing Analysis — Comparison table + key insight
5. UX Highlights — What they do better (3 bullets) vs. where we win (3 bullets) vs. what they don't show (per Core Rule 2)
6. Voice of Customer — Top 3 verbatim review complaints (per Core Rule 3, classified by source tier — don't average)
7. Open Questions — 3–7 unknowns we're tracking, with re-check triggers
8. Our Action Plan — Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities; Appendix with raw data, founder/investor depth, channel inventory, public-interface contract (when applicable)

Related References (in this skill)

• references/data-collection-guide.md — text/data signal collection (pricing, reviews, jobs, SEO, social)
• references/visual-ingestion-guide.md — homepage screenshot + demo/review video capture pipeline (added in this fork)
• references/visual-ux-prompts.md — structured prompts for analyzing captured visuals (added in this fork)
• references/scoring-rubric.md — full 12-dimension rubric with anchors
• references/analysis-templates.md — Feature Matrix, SWOT, Positioning Map, UX Audit, Pricing Analysis, Action Items, Stakeholder Presentation templates
• references/competitive-analysis-frameworks.md — Porter's Five Forces, Blue Ocean, JTBD background

Related Upstream Skills

The original alirezarezvani/claude-skills repo cross-references these skills (not included in this fork — install upstream if needed):

• product-team/product-strategist/ — competitive insights → OKR / strategy planning
• product-team/landing-page-generator/ — competitive positioning → landing page messaging