# Competitor matrix Human Guide

## What This Is For
Categorize competitors into four tiers based on proximity and threat level: It gives the agent a clearer input/output frame for competitive research: what context to ask for, what decisions to make, and what usable artifact to return.

Use this as a human-readable version of the Competitor matrix agent skill. It is meant for marketers, operators, founders, and other non-coders who want the workflow without reading agent-specific implementation instructions.

## When To Use This
- Use this when you need a repeatable process for competitor matrix.
- Use this when the task needs judgment, examples, constraints, or a clear output format rather than a one-off prompt.
- Use this when you want to hand an AI assistant enough context to produce a usable marketing artifact.

## When Not To Use This
- Do not use this when you only need a quick factual answer.
- Do not use this when the work depends on private data you cannot share with the assistant.
- Do not use this as a replacement for legal, compliance, financial, or medical review.

## What You Need Before Starting
- The goal or business outcome you want.
- The audience, customer segment, or market context.
- Any source material the assistant should respect, such as notes, briefs, examples, URLs, or brand guidance.
- Constraints such as tone, length, channel, deadline, region, or approval requirements.
- A clear definition of what a good final answer should look like.

## Step-By-Step Workflow
1. State the job clearly: "Use the Competitor matrix guide to help me with..."
2. Add context: audience, goal, offer, channel, source material, and constraints.
3. Ask the assistant to identify missing inputs before producing the final output.
4. Have the assistant follow the skill-specific guidance below.
5. Review the result against the final checklist and ask for revisions where needed.

## Skill-Specific Guidance
- These appear in head-to-head evaluations, review site comparisons, and sales deal cycles
- Customers actively weigh your product against these alternatives
- A fundamentally different methodology for the same user problem (e.g., a spreadsheet used in place of dedicated project management software)
- Include the option of doing nothing at all -- inaction or manual workarounds are often the strongest competitor
- Companies with overlapping technology stacks, customer relationships, or distribution channels
- Large platforms that could absorb your functionality as a built-in feature
- Focused startups serving a niche that could expand toward your core market
- Hiring personnel instead of purchasing software
- Relying on general-purpose tools (spreadsheets, email, shared documents) instead of purpose-built products
- Outsourcing the entire process to a service provider
- Breadth versus depth (platform suite vs. focused point solution)
- Downmarket versus upmarket (SMB-oriented vs. enterprise-focused)

## Decision Points And Nuance
The original skill emphasizes: Mapping the Competitive Landscape, Defining the Competitor Set, Constructing a Landscape Map, Ongoing Competitive Monitoring, Building Feature Comparison Matrices, Construction Process, Rating Scales, Matrix Format, Comparison Best Practices, Positioning Teardown.

Use these questions to steer the work:
- What is the intended audience or buyer?
- What source material must be preserved?
- What should the assistant optimize for: clarity, persuasion, accuracy, speed, creativity, or conversion?
- What examples represent the desired quality bar?
- What should the assistant avoid?

## Common Mistakes
- Starting without a clear audience or goal.
- Asking for a final artifact before sharing examples or constraints.
- Accepting a generic first draft without checking it against the intended use.

## Copy-And-Paste Prompt
```text
Use the Competitor matrix human guide.

My goal:
[Describe the business outcome]

Audience:
[Describe who this is for]

Context and source material:
[Paste notes, examples, links, or existing copy]

Constraints:
[Tone, length, channel, timeline, must-include items, must-avoid items]

Before producing the final output, ask me for any missing information that would materially improve the result.
```

## Final Checklist
- [ ] The output matches the original goal.
- [ ] The audience and context are reflected in the answer.
- [ ] Important constraints and source material were preserved.
- [ ] The assistant made the relevant decisions explicit.
- [ ] The final artifact is ready to use, review, or hand to the next person.

## Source
This guide was generated from the vm0-ai/vm0-skills skill entry for `competitor-matrix`.

## Source Skill Notes
These notes preserve the nuance from the original skill. Use them as supporting reference when the workflow above feels too generic.

## Mapping the Competitive Landscape

### Defining the Competitor Set

Categorize competitors into four tiers based on proximity and threat level:

**Tier 1 -- Direct rivals**: Products targeting the same users with the same approach to the same problem.
- These appear in head-to-head evaluations, review site comparisons, and sales deal cycles
- Customers actively weigh your product against these alternatives

**Tier 2 -- Alternative approaches**: Products addressing the same underlying need through a different mechanism.
- A fundamentally different methodology for the same user problem (e.g., a spreadsheet used in place of dedicated project management software)
- Include the option of doing nothing at all -- inaction or manual workarounds are often the strongest competitor

**Tier 3 -- Potential entrants**: Organizations not competing today but positioned to move into your space.
- Companies with overlapping technology stacks, customer relationships, or distribution channels
- Large platforms that could absorb your functionality as a built-in feature
- Focused startups serving a niche that could expand toward your core market

**Tier 4 -- Substitute solutions**: Entirely different approaches to the underlying need.
- Hiring personnel instead of purchasing software
- Relying on general-purpose tools (spreadsheets, email, shared documents) instead of purpose-built products
- Outsourcing the entire process to a service provider

### Constructing a Landscape Map

Plot competitors along dimensions that reveal strategic positioning:

**Useful axis pairs**:
- Breadth versus depth (platform suite vs. focused point solution)
- Downmarket versus upmarket (SMB-oriented vs. enterprise-focused)
- Self-service versus sales-assisted (go-to-market model)
- Simplicity versus power (ease of adoption vs. configurability)
- Horizontal versus vertical (general-purpose vs. industry-tailored)

Select axis pairs that expose the positioning differences most relevant to your market. Well-chosen dimensions make competitive dynamics immediately visible.

### Ongoing Competitive Monitoring

Systematically track competitor activity over time:

- Product updates: changelog entries, blog announcements, press coverage of new capabilities
- Pricing and packaging adjustments
- Capital events: funding rounds, acquisitions, IPO filings
- Talent signals: senior hires and open roles that indicate strategic direction
- Deal outcomes: accounts won and lost, particularly those involving head-to-head competition
- Third-party coverage: analyst reports, review site rankings, media commentary
- Ecosystem moves: partnership announcements and integration launches

## Building Feature Comparison Matrices

### Construction Process

1. **Establish capability domains**: Organize features into functional groupings that reflect buyer evaluation criteria, not your internal product architecture. Mirror the language and categories that buyers use.
2. **Enumerate specific capabilities**: Within each domain, list the discrete features or functions to compare.
3. **Apply consistent ratings**: Score every competitor using a uniform scale.

### Rating Scales

**Four-level scale (recommended for most contexts)**:
- Strong: Industry-leading execution. Deep, differentiated functionality.
- Adequate: Competent implementation. Meets requirements without standing out.
- Weak: Present but limited. Meaningful gaps or rough execution.
- Absent: Capability does not exist.

**Six-level scale (for granular deep-dive assessments)**:
- 5: Best-in-class. Sets the benchmark others pursue.
- 4: Robust. Comprehensive and well-implemented.
- 3: Sufficient. Covers core needs without differentiation.
- 2: Partial. Exists but with notable limitations.
- 1: Rudimentary. Barely functional or in early preview.
- 0: Not available.

### Matrix Format

```
| Capability Domain  | Our Product | Rival A   | Rival B   |
|--------------------|-------------|-----------|-----------|
| [Domain 1]         |             |           |           |
|   [Capability 1a]  | Strong      | Adequate  | Absent    |