agentsclimarketplace

Competitor briefs

Skill shinzoxD/knackbox/skills/research/competitor-briefs

Curated, auditable, benchmark-ready Agent Skills library for Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Cursor, and more.

Install
npx -y skills add shinzoxD/knackbox --skill competitor-briefs

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

2 things to look at

  • 27 days oldThe repository was created 27 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 0 stars0 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

Research competitors into structured comparison briefs with evidence and gaps. Use whenever the user asks for competitive analysis, competitor research, market landscape, battlecards, or how we compare to another product — even if they only name one rival.

The file declares its own license as Apache-2.0. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.6 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Competitor Briefs

Good competitive work is sourced, dated, and decision-oriented. Separate facts from inference. Unknowns beat confident fiction.

Workflow

  1. Clarify the decision: pricing page, sales battlecard, build-vs-buy, roadmap gap, investor landscape.
  2. Fix the comparison set (2–5 rivals + your product if relevant).
  3. Collect dimensions that matter: ICP, core jobs-to-be-done, pricing model, key features, integrations, packaging, proof (customers, compliance).
  4. For each claim, attach evidence (URL, doc, quote) or mark unverified.
  5. Synthesize: where you win, lose, and what to learn — not a feature laundry list without prioritization.

Output format

# Competitor brief: <focus>
**Date:** …
**Decision this supports:** …
**Sources checked:** … (list)

## Snapshot table
| Dimension | Us | Comp A | Comp B |
|---|---|---|---|

## Competitor profiles
### <Name>
- Positioning:
- ICP:
- Pricing (if public):
- Strengths:
- Weaknesses / gaps:
- Notable proof:
- Sources:

## Implications
- Product:
- GTM / sales:
- Risks if we ignore:

## Open questions
- …

## Confidence
high | medium | low — and why (source quality, recency)

Rules

  1. Never invent pricing, customer logos, or feature support. Label estimates.
  2. Prefer primary sources (vendor site, docs, pricing page, SEC filings) over random blogs; note access date when possible.
  3. Compare on jobs-to-be-done, not raw feature counts.
  4. Call out when a "competitor" is adjacent (different ICP) vs direct.
  5. If offline / no network, produce a research plan and interview questions instead of fake findings.
  6. Keep sales battlecards honest; overclaiming destroys trust in the field.

Edge cases

  • Single competitor deep-dive: still include a small "alternatives" section so the market is not a false duel.
  • Crowded market: cluster by archetype (open source, enterprise suite, point tool) before naming every vendor.
  • Fast-changing pricing: screenshot-level caution; mark "verify live".
  • User wants only a matrix: deliver the table plus a 5-line implication summary minimum.

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.