competitive-report-structure
把競爭對手評分卡組成能推動決策的競爭格局報告
中文翻譯
--- name: competitive-report-structure description: 把已評分的競爭對手剖析卡（來自 benchmark-methodology）組裝成可支援決策的競爭報告，包含格局地圖、競爭對手分層、基準矩陣、空白市場分析、策略建議，以及團隊對齊的觸發問題。適用於向領導層或董事會呈現競爭發現、撰寫競爭格局報告，或作為競爭分析流程的最後一步。 --- # Competitive Report Structure 用這個 skill 把已評分的競爭對手卡片組裝成可支援決策的報告。 這份報告必須替客戶回答三個問題：**我們跟誰競爭、 怎麼競爭、我們站得住腳的空白市場在哪裡？** 每個章節都要靠推進這些答案來證明 自己有存在的價值，沒有幫助的就刪掉。 ## When to Activate - benchmark-methodology 產出的所有競爭對手剖析卡都已完成，可以組裝。 - 需要向創辦人、領導團隊或董事會呈現競爭發現。 - 報告必須推動決策（跟誰競爭、怎麼競爭、護城河在哪裡），而不只是記錄格局。 - 準備一份必須可稽核、站得住腳的客戶交付物。 ## Client positioning brief (establish first) 組裝報告之前，先建立客戶的定位簡報。它會 提供： - **Strategic tension**：成對的軸線（例如記憶度 × 可雇用度）， 定義客戶鎖定的空白市場。所有地圖和整合都會回到這個張力。 - **Brand balance**：客戶各項策略重點預期的比例組合 （例如 60% 策略/證據、25% 獨特性、15% 工藝）。 每一項建議都要對照這個平衡檢查；任何 會改變它的建議都要標出來。 - **Differentiator**：執行摘要和空白市場章節的框架原則。 - **Target quadrant**：客戶打算在張力地圖中落在哪裡； 確認那個象限是不是真的空著，是這份報告最核心的實證問題。 ## Framing principle 整份報告圍繞客戶的策略張力來組織， 建議最後都回到客戶刻意設定的品牌平衡。 會打破這個平衡的建議，必須明確對照它標出來： 「這個動作會把平衡從 X/Y/Z 移向 A/B/C；請確認意圖。」 ## Report sections ### 1. Executive summary 3–5 個重點，決策優先。用白話講出最重要的 發現：客戶強在哪裡、哪裡暴露風險、誰佔據了它鎖定的 空白市場，以及最重要的 2–3 個動作。寫成創辦人/PM 只讀這一節 就知道該做什麼。這裡不放方法論。 ### 2. Market landscape & category framing 定義類別並畫出地圖。使用**多軸地圖**，至少是 2×2 （例如 *品牌導向 <-> 能力導向* × *精品型 <-> 企業規模*）， 最好以 `benchmark-methodology` 裡**客戶的張力圖**作為 主打的地圖。把每個被剖析的競爭對手和客戶都放上去。地圖應該 讓客戶預期的位置一目了然，並顯示那裡有多擁擠（或多空曠）。 ### 3. Competitor tiers 把集合整理成 **Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational**（來自 `competitive-platform-analysis`）。每一層用一小段說明誰在 裡面，以及對客戶為什麼重要。這會在細節之前先設定讀者的預期。 ### 4. Benchmarking matrix 完整的**競爭對手 × 維度**表格，是量化的主幹。列 = 競爭對手（依層級分組），欄 = 九個基準維度（注意： 第 9 個維度，策略張力，有兩個極端（例如對品牌工作室客戶來說是記憶度和 可雇用度；換成客戶自己的成對軸線）； 要用兩個獨立的子欄表示，不要取平均）。加入 客戶自己誠實的自我評估當作一列來對照。用**熱力圖** （顏色或符號尺度），讓強弱的模式一眼就能掃出來。**不要** 加混合的總分欄，要分開報告各維度（依照 偏誤控制）。點出客戶領先的欄位和落後的欄位。 ### 5. Deep dives 以敘事形式呈現 3–5 個最有啟發性的競爭對手（來自他們的剖析卡）。 挑選依據是啟發性，不是排名：最能代表目標張力的典範 （兩端都高）、只有一端的警示案例、客戶用來劃清界線的 「稱職但讓人記不住」典型，再加上任何直接威脅。每個 深入剖析：他們做什麼、客戶該學什麼、客戶該避免什麼。 ### 6. White-space & threats 策略的核心。分兩個部分： - **White-space：** 客戶可以佔據、而對手沒有的位置，要從 地圖和矩陣論證出來，不是憑空宣稱。確認目標象限 （來自定位簡報）是不是真的空著。 - **Threats：** 誰/什麼在對客戶施壓，例如逼近差距的對手、 替代品（no-code/AI 工具、內部團隊、通才自由工作者），或類別轉變。 對客戶自己的風險也要誠實（例如大膽的識別 對趨避風險的買家來說顯得不夠嚴肅）。 ### 7. Strategic recommendations 具體、有優先順序的動作：客戶跟誰競爭、怎麼做出差異化， 以及該把資源投在哪裡（服務包裝、證據/案例研究、思想領導力、 品牌強化）。**每一項建議都要連回定位簡報裡的 品牌平衡**，並標出任何會改變它的建議。依影響 × 投入排序。 ### 8. Sources / methodology appendix 維度、權重、評分標準、界定好的集合與層級、每個競爭對手的來源連結， 以及驗證說明（宣稱的 vs 證實的）。這是讓 報告可稽核、站得住腳的關鍵，要把對抗式的引用 紀律貫徹到底。 ## How to present data - **2×2 / 定位地圖**：用於格局和張力圖。以這些開場； 它們傳達論點的速度比文字快。 - **熱力圖矩陣**：用於競爭對手 × 維度的比較（第 4 節）。 - **剖析卡**：供應深入剖析（第 5 節）的來源單位。 - **象限標註**：明確點出每個象限裡是誰，尤其是 客戶鎖定的那一個。 - 表格要好掃讀；把原始證據和連結放到附錄。 ## Decision framework (the report must resolve these) - **我們跟誰競爭？**：明確點出 Direct 那一層，那才是 真正的戰場。 - **我們怎麼競爭？**：用一句話講出客戶的差異化， 以矩陣為根據（客戶擁有哪些維度）。 - **我們的差異化在哪裡站得住腳？**：找出對手不容易複製的 維度/象限（護城河），跟那些只是基本門檻的區分開。 ## Trigger questions for the team alignment session 以逼人做決定的問題結尾，而不是讚嘆這份分析： - 目標象限真的是空的嗎？還是已經有對手正在進駐？ - 哪個 Direct 競爭對手是未來 12 個月最尖銳的威脅？ 我們的對策是什麼？ - 考慮到這個格局，品牌平衡還成立嗎？有沒有哪個重點該 調整？ - 客戶落後的維度中，哪個值得追上？哪個要刻意放棄？ - 有哪一個動作能最大幅度拉開獨特性，*而且不會*犧牲 可雇用度 / 可信度？ ## Anti-Patterns - **以方法論開場。** 執行摘要要先講最重要的發現，而不是解釋基準測試是怎麼跑的。方法論屬於附錄。 - **只給分數，沒有張力圖。** 2×2 張力地圖是主打的成品。只有一張數字表而沒有地圖，會把策略洞見埋掉。 - **省略決策框架。** 報告必須解決那三個問題（跟誰競爭、怎麼競爭、護城河在哪裡）。沒回答這些，報告就變成文獻回顧。 - **在所有剖析卡完成之前就開始。** 組裝開始前，Benchmark-methodology 必須先完成。資料不完整會造成缺口，破壞熱力圖和空白市場分析。 - **在矩陣加上混合的總分欄。** 明確排除，它會製造出假的綜合分數，掩蓋客戶需要採取行動的不對稱性。 ## Related Skills - `benchmark-methodology`：前置條件；產出這個 skill 要組裝的已評分競爭對手剖析卡。 - `competitive-platform-analysis`：提供第 3 節用的分層結構（Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational）。 - `brand-discovery`：客戶的定位簡報還沒定義時，用它來建立。
英文原文
--- name: competitive-report-structure description: Assemble scored competitor profile cards (from benchmark-methodology) into a decision-grade competitive report with landscape map, competitor tiers, benchmarking matrix, white-space analysis, strategic recommendations, and team alignment trigger questions. Use when presenting competitive findings to leadership or a board, writing a competitive landscape report, or as the final step of the competitive analysis pipeline. --- # Competitive Report Structure Use this skill to assemble scored competitor cards into a decision-grade report. The report must answer three questions for the client: **who do we compete with, how do we compete, and where is our defensible white-space?** Every section earns its place by moving toward those answers — cut anything that doesn't. ## When to Activate - All competitor profile cards from benchmark-methodology are complete and ready to assemble. - Need to present competitive findings to a founder, leadership team, or board. - The report must drive decisions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is) — not just document the landscape. - Preparing a client deliverable that must be auditable and defensible. ## Client positioning brief (establish first) Before assembling the report, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies: - **Strategic tension** — the paired axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) that define the client's target white-space. All maps and synthesis resolve back to this tension. - **Brand balance** — the intended proportional mix of the client's strategic emphases (e.g., 60% strategy/evidence, 25% distinctiveness, 15% craft). Every recommendation must be checked against this balance; flag any that would shift it. - **Differentiator** — the framing principle for the executive summary and white-space section. - **Target quadrant** — where the client intends to sit in the tension map; confirming whether that quadrant is genuinely open is the report's central empirical question. ## Framing principle The whole report is organized around the client's strategic tension and recommendations resolve back to the client's deliberate brand balance. Recommendations that would break that balance must be flagged against it explicitly — "this move shifts the balance from X/Y/Z toward A/B/C; confirm intent." ## Report sections ### 1. Executive summary 3–5 takeaways, decision-first. State the most important findings in plain language: where the client is strong, where it's exposed, who occupies its target white-space, and the top 2–3 moves. Written so a founder/PM reads only this and knows what to do. No methodology here. ### 2. Market landscape & category framing Define the category and map it. Use a **multi-axis map** — at minimum a 2×2 (e.g., *brand-led <-> capability-led* × *boutique <-> enterprise-scale*), and ideally the **client's tension plot** from `benchmark-methodology` as the headline map. Place every profiled competitor and the client. The map should make the client's intended position visually obvious and show how crowded (or empty) it is. ### 3. Competitor tiers Organize the set into **Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational** (from `competitive-platform-analysis`). One short paragraph per tier explaining who's in it and why it matters to the client. This sets reader expectations before the detail. ### 4. Benchmarking matrix The full **competitors × dimensions** table — the quantitative spine. Rows = competitors (grouped by tier), columns = the nine benchmark dimensions (note: dimension 9 — strategic tension — has two poles (e.g., Memorability and Hireability for a brand-studio client; substitute the client's own paired axes); represent them as two separate sub-columns rather than averaging them). Include the client's own honest self-assessment as a row for contrast. Use a **heatmap** (color or symbol scale) so strength/weakness patterns are scannable. Do **not** add a blended total column — report dimensions separately (per the bias controls). Call out the columns where the client leads and where it trails. ### 5. Deep dives 3–5 most instructive competitors in narrative form (from their profile cards). Choose for instruction, not ranking: the best exemplar of the target tension (high on both poles), the cautionary "one pole only" case, the "competent but forgettable" archetype the client defines against, plus any direct threat. Each deep dive: what they do, what the client should learn, what the client should avoid. ### 6. White-space & threats The strategic heart. Two parts: - **White-space:** the position the client can own that rivals don't — argued from the maps and matrix, not asserted. Confirm whether the target quadrant (from the positioning brief) is genuinely open. - **Threats:** who/what pressures the client — a rival closing the gap, substitutes (no-code/AI tools, in-house teams, generalist freelancers), or category shifts. Be honest about the client's own risks (e.g., a bold identity reading as un-serious to risk-averse buyers). ### 7. Strategic recommendations Concrete, prioritized moves: who the client competes with, how it differentiates, and where to invest (offer packaging, evidence/case studies, thought leadership, brand sharpening). **Tie every recommendation back to the brand balance from the positioning brief** and flag any that would shift it. Sequence by impact × effort. ### 8. Sources / methodology appendix The dimensions, weights, rubrics, the scoped set with tiers, source links per competitor, and verification notes (asserted vs proven). This is what makes the report auditable and defensible — carry the adversarial citation discipline through. ## How to present data - **2×2 / positioning maps** — for landscape and the tension plot. Lead with these; they carry the argument faster than prose. - **Heatmap matrix** — for the competitors × dimensions comparison (section 4). - **Profile cards** — the source unit feeding deep dives (section 5). - **Quadrant callouts** — name who sits in each quadrant explicitly, especially the client's target one. - Keep tables scannable; push raw evidence and links to the appendix. ## Decision framework (the report must resolve these) - **Who do we compete with?** — Name the Direct tier specifically; that's the real fight. - **How do we compete?** — State the client's differentiator in one sentence, grounded in the matrix (which dimensions the client owns). - **Where are our differentiators defensible?** — Identify the dimensions/quadrant rivals can't easily copy (the moat), vs. the ones that are table-stakes. ## Trigger questions for the team alignment session End with questions that force decisions, not admiration of the analysis: - Is the target quadrant truly open, or is a rival already moving in? - Which Direct competitor is the sharpest threat in the next 12 months, and what's the counter? - Does the brand balance still hold given the landscape — should any emphasis shift? - Which dimension where the client trails is worth closing, and which to deliberately concede? - What's the one move that most widens distinctiveness *without* costing hireability / credibility? ## Anti-Patterns - **Leading with methodology.** The executive summary opens with the most important finding, not an explanation of how the benchmark was run. Methodology belongs in the appendix. - **Presenting scores without the tension plot.** The 2×2 tension map is the headline artefact. A table of numbers without the map buries the strategic insight. - **Omitting the decision framework.** The report must resolve the three questions (who to compete with, how, where the moat is). Leaving these unanswered turns the report into a literature review. - **Starting before all profile cards are complete.** Benchmark-methodology must finish before assembly begins. Partial data produces gaps that undermine the heatmap and white-space analysis. - **Adding a blended total column to the matrix.** Explicitly excluded — it creates a false composite that obscures the asymmetry the client needs to act on. ## Related Skills - `benchmark-methodology` — the prerequisite; produces the scored competitor profile cards this skill assembles. - `competitive-platform-analysis` — provides the tier structure (Direct / Adjacent / Aspirational) used in Section 3. - `brand-discovery` — use to establish the client's positioning brief if it hasn't been defined.