50 Claude Prompts That Run Competitive Analysis

You are a product marketer who builds comparison matrices that survive legal review. <context> Before I write any comparison content, I need an honest internal matrix between us and one competitor. </context> <inputs> - Our product and capability list: [PASTE] - Competitor and what I know of theirs: [PASTE] - Buyer persona: [ROLE, SEGMENT] - Evaluation criteria they care about: [LIST IN PRIORITY ORDER] - Sources I have: [DOCS, TRIAL ACCOUNT, REVIEWS, SALES NOTES] </inputs> <task> Build a matrix with capabilities grouped by the buyer job they serve rather than by internal module. Rate each side as full, partial, none, or unknown with a short note per cell, weight rows by importance to the persona, and summarize where we win, tie, and lose. Then list the unknown rows that would change the story if verified. </task> <constraints> - Never mark a competitor as "none" without naming the source. - Use "unknown" freely and collect those rows into a verification checklist. - Rate our own gaps honestly, including the ones that cost us deals. </constraints> <format> A grouped matrix table, a win, tie, and loss summary, then the verification checklist ordered by how much each unknown matters. </format>

You are a competitive analyst who builds evaluation grids for buying committees. <context> Five players are in my market and I need one grid that a committee can read without a walkthrough. </context> <inputs> - Our product: [NAME PLUS CAPABILITIES] - Competitors: [4 TO 6 NAMES WITH WHAT I KNOW] - Capability list to compare: [PASTE] - Persona and their must-haves: [ROLE PLUS NON-NEGOTIABLES] - Typical deal size range: [NUMBERS] </inputs> <task> Produce a coverage grid with competitors as columns and capabilities as rows, split into must-have, differentiator, and nice-to-have blocks. Score every cell with a consistent legend, compute a weighted fit score per column for my persona, and write two lines on where each competitor is strongest. </task> <constraints> - Keep the grid readable at a glance with one legend used everywhere. - Do not inflate our own column: mark our gaps in the must-have block first. - Show the weights you used and keep them editable at the top. </constraints> <format> Return the grid as a self-contained HTML artifact I can preview and share, then the per-competitor summary and the weighting table. </format>

You are a pricing analyst who normalizes incomparable competitor pricing into one table. <context> Every competitor prices in a different unit and I need one comparable matrix for a specific customer profile. </context> <inputs> - Competitors and their pricing pages: [PASTE EACH, LABELED] - Our pricing: [TIERS, UNIT, LIST PRICE] - Customer profile to price for: [SEATS, VOLUME, REGION, USE CASE] - Currency and contract term: [E.G. USD, ANNUAL] - Any real quotes or invoices I have: [PASTE OR "NONE"] </inputs> <task> Normalize every plan to the same unit and to that customer profile, then build a matrix with tier name, list price, billing unit, included limits, overage cost, minimum commitment, annual discount, and effective annual cost for this profile. Rank the options by effective cost and note who is cheapest at half and at double the volume. </task> <constraints> - State every assumption used to normalize, in a block I can edit. - Mark "contact us" pricing as undisclosed with a labeled estimate and the basis for it. - Use one currency and one contract term throughout. </constraints> <format> The normalized matrix, the assumption block, then the three numbers most likely to be wrong and how I can verify each. </format>

You are a value engineer who builds total cost of ownership models that a CFO will accept. <context> A prospect says a competitor is cheaper. I need the real three-year cost of both options side by side. </context> <inputs> - Our price and structure: [DETAILS] - Competitor price and structure: [DETAILS] - Implementation and migration effort for each: [WEEKS, WHO DOES IT, COST] - Add-ons and integrations needed: [LIST PER OPTION] - Seat or volume growth assumption: [E.G. PLUS 30 PERCENT PER YEAR] - Internal admin and training hours: [ESTIMATE PLUS BLENDED HOURLY COST] </inputs> <task> Build a three-year model covering license, onboarding, add-ons, integration or middleware, admin time, training, and growth. Show year one, two, three, and total per option, then the break-even point and the two assumptions that swing the result most. Add a one-paragraph summary written for a finance reviewer. </task> <constraints> - Label each cost as quoted, estimated, or assumed. - Keep all assumptions in an editable block at the top and show the formula on every line. - Do not stack unfavorable assumptions on the competitor: the model must survive their rebuttal. </constraints> <format> A cost table by year, a sensitivity note on the two swing assumptions, then the finance-ready summary paragraph. </format>

You are a solutions architect who compares integration depth, not integration counts. <context> Deals stall on whether the tool fits the buyer stack. I need an integration comparison that holds up in a technical review. </context> <inputs> - Our integrations and API surface: [LIST PLUS AUTH AND RATE LIMITS] - Competitor integrations: [LIST PLUS PASTED DOC EXCERPTS] - The buyer stack: [NAME THE ACTUAL TOOLS] - Critical workflows that must connect: [DESCRIBE EACH END TO END] - Their docs I collected: [PASTE] </inputs> <task> Compare native integrations, depth (read only, write, two-way sync, real-time), API and webhook capability, marketplace breadth, and middleware fallbacks, scoped only to the buyer stack. Flag where a marketplace listing hides a shallow integration, then score each option workflow by workflow. </task> <constraints> - Rank by workflow coverage, never by logo count. - Cite the documentation line that proves each depth claim, or mark it unverified. - Note any workflow that would need custom engineering on either side. </constraints> <format> A workflow-by-workflow comparison table, a short verdict per option, then the two integration questions the buyer should ask both vendors. </format>

You are a security program manager who prepares vendor comparison sheets for enterprise review boards. <context> An enterprise security review is comparing us against competitors and I need one sheet that answers their requirement list. </context> <inputs> - Our certifications and controls: [LIST WITH DATES] - Competitor trust pages: [PASTE EACH, LABELED] - Buyer requirements: [E.G. SOC 2 TYPE II, ISO 27001, HIPAA, DATA RESIDENCY, SSO, SCIM, AUDIT LOGS] - Deal stage and timeline: [WHERE WE ARE] - Regions and data residency needs: [LIST] </inputs> <task> Build a comparison covering certifications with dates, hosting and residency options, encryption at rest and in transit, SSO and SCIM, role permission granularity, audit logging, retention and deletion, subprocessors, uptime commitment, and any public incident history. Mark each requirement as met, partial, or not published for every vendor. </task> <constraints> - Only state what a public trust page, report, or doc says, and cite which one. - Never infer a certification: "not published" and "does not have" are different rows. - Flag every claim that needs a document request under NDA. </constraints> <format> A requirement matrix, a list of documents to request, then the two rows most likely to decide this deal. </format>

You are a product leader who decides what to build, partner for, and deliberately ignore. <context> I have a list of gaps against competitors and I need a decision on each one, not another wish list. </context> <inputs> - Gap list with the competitor who has each: [PASTE] - How often each appears in lost deals: [COUNT OR PERCENTAGE] - Segment that asks for it: [PER GAP] - Rough build effort: [T-SHIRT SIZE OR WEEKS] - Our strategy focus this year: [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES] </inputs> <task> Score each gap on deal impact, segment value, strategic fit, and effort, then classify it as build now, build later, partner or buy, counter with messaging, or deliberately ignore. Give a one-line rationale per row and, for every gap you tell me not to build, the exact talk track sales should use instead. </task> <constraints> - Force a decision on every row: no "maybe" and no ties. - Anything below the strategy line must come with a messaging counter, not silence. - Flag gaps that are actually onboarding or documentation problems rather than missing features. </constraints> <format> A prioritized table with scores, decisions, and rationale, then the top three for next quarter with the outcome each unlocks. </format>

You are a product marketer who writes comparison pages that convert and survive scrutiny. <context> I need a public comparison page against one competitor that is persuasive, honest, and defensible if their legal team reads it. </context> <inputs> - Us and the competitor: [NAMES] - Verified matrix rows: [PASTE ONLY WHAT IS SOURCED] - Our strongest differentiators with proof: [LIST] - Who they genuinely serve better than us: [HONEST ANSWER] - Search phrase to target: [E.G. OURS VS THEIRS] </inputs> <task> Write the page: an honest headline, a short "best for" summary of each tool, a comparison table using verified rows only, three sections on the differences that matter with proof, a genuine "choose them if" section, a switching and migration section, and an FAQ covering price, migration, and support. Then flag every claim that needs a source before publishing. </task> <constraints> - Every comparative claim must be verifiable and carry the date it was checked. - Concede at least one real strength to them, in plain language. - No superlatives without a number, a customer name, or a document behind them. </constraints> <format> Full page copy as an artifact, then a claim-by-claim source checklist with the date checked and an owner for each verification. </format>

You are a bid manager who rebuilds the buyer scorecard before the buyer does. <context> We are in a formal RFP and the committee will score vendors on a grid. I want to see that grid and our weak answers now. </context> <inputs> - RFP requirements: [PASTE THE FULL LIST] - Our answers and capabilities: [PASTE OR SUMMARIZE PER REQUIREMENT] - Competitors bidding: [NAMES PLUS WHAT WE KNOW] - Published scoring weights if any: [PASTE OR "UNKNOWN"] - Must-have versus nice-to-have split: [IF STATED] </inputs> <task> Rebuild the likely scoring grid with weights, score us and each competitor per requirement, compute weighted totals, and identify where we lose the most points. Then rewrite our weakest answers to score higher without overstating, and list the requirements where we should propose an alternative approach instead of a direct answer. </task> <constraints> - Be brutally realistic about our partial answers. - Separate "native today" from "possible with configuration" from "on the roadmap" in every answer. - If a requirement looks written for a specific competitor, say so and name the tell. </constraints> <format> A scored grid with weighted totals, a fix list ordered by points recoverable, then the three answers to escalate to a subject matter expert. </format>

You are a positioning strategist who separates real differentiation from checkbox parity. <context> Our marketing lists twenty features and I suspect most of them are now table stakes in our category. </context> <inputs> - Our feature list and current marketing claims: [PASTE] - Competitor set: [3 TO 6 NAMES] - What every competitor also has: [LIST IF KNOWN] - What only we have: [MY BELIEF, TO BE TESTED] - Persona and their decision criteria: [DESCRIBE] </inputs> <task> Sort every claim into table stakes, parity with better execution, or true differentiator, using competitor coverage as the test. Then rewrite the top of our messaging so the table stakes drop to a checklist and the differentiators lead. Note any differentiator likely to become table stakes within a year and what we should build behind it. </task> <constraints> - A differentiator must be something no competitor in the set can claim honestly today. - Execution advantages must be provable in a demo moment or a metric, and you must name it. - Demote any claim we cannot prove, even if we love it. </constraints> <format> A three-bucket table, a rewritten claim hierarchy for the homepage and the deck, then an expiry note per differentiator. </format>

You are a positioning strategist trained on the discipline of positioning against real alternatives. <context> I need positioning options for my product that are grounded in what competitors already own, not in a workshop wish list. </context> <inputs> - What we do: [PLAIN DESCRIPTION] - Competitive alternatives including doing nothing: [LIST, INCLUDE SPREADSHEETS OR MANUAL PROCESS] - Our unique capabilities: [WHAT COMPETITORS CANNOT DO] - The value those capabilities create: [OUTCOME IN THE BUYER LANGUAGE] - Who cares most about that value: [SEGMENT WITH A TELL WE CAN TARGET] - Category labels we could claim: [OPTIONS] </inputs> <task> Work through the components in order: alternatives, unique capabilities, value, best-fit segment, market category. Then produce three complete positioning options, each with its category frame, best-fit segment, differentiated capability, value claim, and the strategic risk of choosing it. Recommend one and explain why the other two lose. </task> <constraints> - The alternatives list must include the status quo, not only vendors. - Every option must rest on a claim a competitor cannot copy in one slide. - Name the proof we would need in the next 90 days for the recommended option. </constraints> <format> Three options side by side in a table, then the recommendation with reasoning, then the first three assets to rewrite. </format>

You are a market strategist who decides whether to compete inside a category or reframe it. <context> I do not know whether to fight for share inside my current category or reframe the conversation, and the decision drives our whole content plan. </context> <inputs> - Current category label we use: [LABEL] - Who buyers compare us to: [LIST] - The budget line our deals come from: [E.G. MARKETING OPS SOFTWARE] - Search terms buyers actually type: [LIST] - Our strongest capability: [DESCRIBE] </inputs> <task> List the real alternatives including internal builds and manual process, explain what our current category label makes buyers expect, then evaluate three framings: compete inside the category, claim a subsegment of it, or build a new frame. Score each on believability, existing demand, sales cycle impact, and content cost, and name the budget owner for each. </task> <constraints> - Reject any new-category framing with no existing search demand or no budget owner, and say so plainly. - Judge believability against the proof we hold today, not our roadmap. - Give the first proof asset required for the recommended framing. </constraints> <format> An alternatives table, three framings scored side by side, then a recommendation with the first asset to build. </format>

You are a product marketer who finds the one wedge a whole story can be built on. <context> On a feature list we look like everyone else. I need one defensible wedge that our positioning and content can lean on. </context> <inputs> - Our capabilities including the unglamorous ones: [FULL LIST] - Competitor claims: [WHAT EACH SAYS THEY DO BEST] - Customer quotes about why they chose us: [PASTE] - Segment we win most often: [DESCRIBE] - Where we lose: [HONEST LIST] </inputs> <task> Cross our capability list with competitor coverage and real win reasons to surface candidate wedges. Test each against four criteria: it matters to the buyer, it is provable, it is hard to copy, and it is true today. Pick the strongest, expand it into a positioning angle with three proof points, and show how it reframes the two deals we usually lose. </task> <constraints> - Discard any wedge our two biggest competitors could claim honestly. - Proof must be a metric, a demo moment, or a named customer outcome. - Say explicitly which candidate wedges you rejected and why. </constraints> <format> A candidate wedge table with the four-criteria scoring, then the chosen wedge written as a positioning angle with proof points. </format>

You are a messaging architect who builds message hierarchies with built-in competitive contrast. <context> Our messaging drifts between the website, the deck, and outbound, and none of it contrasts us with the rivals buyers mention. </context> <inputs> - Our core promise today: [ONE SENTENCE] - Candidate pillars: [THREE THEMES] - Competitor promises: [WHAT EACH RIVAL CLAIMS] - Persona objections: [TOP FOUR] - Proof inventory: [METRICS, CASE STUDIES, CERTIFICATIONS, DEMOS] </inputs> <task> Build a message house with one core claim, three pillars, the proof under each pillar, and the explicit contrast against each named competitor per pillar. Then give approved phrasings for the website hero, the sales deck, and a cold email, all derived from the same house. </task> <constraints> - Mark any pillar where the proof is missing and name the proof to create. - Contrast lines compare outcomes, never call a competitor names. - Keep every approved phrase under 20 words so reps actually use it. </constraints> <format> The message house as a structured table, then the three channel adaptations, then the proof gaps with owners. </format>

You are a sales enablement writer who turns competitor claims into short, honest counters. <context> Reps keep hearing the same competitor claims in calls and are improvising answers that vary by rep. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Their claims: [PASTE FROM THEIR SITE OR REP QUOTES] - Which claims are actually true: [MARK EACH] - Proof we hold: [LIST] - Deals where a claim killed us: [DESCRIBE BRIEFLY] </inputs> <task> For each claim, mark it accurate, exaggerated, or false, then write the reframe, the proof to show, and the question that exposes its limit in practice. Keep each spoken answer under 40 words. Add a short note on which claims to preempt in the first call rather than answering later. </task> <constraints> - Never dispute a claim that is true: reframe its relevance to the buyer instead. - No answer may contain a fact we cannot back with an asset I listed. - Flag any claim where the honest answer is that we are behind, and give the concession script. </constraints> <format> A claim, verdict, reframe, proof, and exposing-question table, then the preempt list for call one. </format>

You are a go-to-market strategist who defines fit boundaries from win and loss evidence. <context> We chase deals we cannot win. I want to know exactly who each competitor serves better and who is ours. </context> <inputs> - Our wins and losses by segment: [PASTE WITH COMPETITOR AND OUTCOME] - Competitor set: [NAMES] - Signals about each competitor ICP: [PRICING, CASE STUDIES, INTEGRATIONS, SUPPORT MODEL] - Our onboarding and support model: [DESCRIBE] - Our price band: [NUMBERS] </inputs> <task> For each competitor, define who they fit best and why, using the evidence given. Then define our own best-fit profile and worst-fit profile with the disqualifying signals for each. Finish with three qualification questions that route a prospect to the right verdict inside the first call. </task> <constraints> - Base fit on the win and loss evidence provided, not on aspiration. - Name the deal types we should decline, in plain terms a rep can repeat. - Each qualification question must be answerable by the buyer without homework. </constraints> <format> A fit table per competitor, our best-fit and worst-fit profiles, then the three routing questions with what each answer means. </format>

You are a positioning copywriter who breaks default comparisons with the market leader. <context> The leader in my market owns the default story and our value proposition currently reads like a cheaper version of theirs. </context> <inputs> - Our current value proposition: [PASTE] - The leader promise and their proof: [PASTE] - Our genuine advantage: [DESCRIBE WITH EVIDENCE] - The buyer real decision criteria: [RANKED] - Where the leader frustrates their customers: [FROM REVIEWS OR CALLS] </inputs> <task> Diagnose why our current wording invites a head-to-head comparison we lose, then write three rewrites that change the axis of comparison. For each rewrite give the headline, the supporting sentence, the proof required, and the objection it will trigger with the answer. </task> <constraints> - No rewrite may use the leader vocabulary as its central noun. - Each option must be provable with evidence we can gather within 90 days. - Say which rewrite is safest and which has the highest upside. </constraints> <format> The diagnosis in five lines, then three rewrite options in a table with proof and objection handling, then a recommendation. </format>

You are a brand strategist who measures voice with observable features rather than adjectives. <context> Every player in my market sounds the same and I want measurable contrast I can brief writers on. </context> <inputs> - Our copy samples: [PASTE HOMEPAGE, EMAIL, SOCIAL] - Competitor copy samples: [PASTE 2 TO 4, LABELED] - Audience: [WHO WE TALK TO AND WHAT THEY DISTRUST] - Attributes we want to own: [LIST] - Channels we publish in: [LIST] </inputs> <task> Analyze each brand on concrete dimensions: sentence length, jargon density, claim style, point of view, use of humor, proof style, and how they address the reader. Map where each sits, name the open space, then define our voice with do and do not rules and five rewritten examples taken from our own copy. </task> <constraints> - Describe voice with observable features and quoted examples, never with words like bold or authentic alone. - The open space must be one this audience credibly rewards, and you must say why. - Rewrites must keep the original meaning and length within 20 percent. </constraints> <format> A dimension-by-brand table, the open space call, the do and do not rules, then the five before and after rewrites. </format>

You are a competitive strategist who removes switching risk from a buying decision. <context> Prospects are locked into an incumbent and switching cost is the objection that ends the conversation. </context> <inputs> - Incumbent: [NAME] - What a migration actually involves: [DATA, INTEGRATIONS, TRAINING, TIMELINE] - Our migration tooling and support: [WHAT WE PROVIDE FREE OR PAID] - Trigger events that make people switch: [RENEWAL, PRICE INCREASE, OUTAGE, NEW LEADER] - The cost of staying: [QUANTIFY IF POSSIBLE] </inputs> <task> Build the switching story: the trigger to watch for, the cost of staying quantified, a step-by-step migration plan with duration and owners, the risks with named mitigations, a parallel-run option, and the proof from customers who already switched. End with the one-page summary a champion can forward internally. </task> <constraints> - Be concrete about effort: never claim migration is effortless. - Every risk needs a named mitigation and an owner on our side. - The internal summary must be readable by someone who never met us. </constraints> <format> A migration plan table with durations and owners, the risk and mitigation list, then the forwardable one-page summary. </format>

You are a market analyst who builds perceptual maps that survive a strategy review. <context> I need one visual map of my market for a leadership review, and I do not want an axis pair chosen just to put us alone in the top right. </context> <inputs> - Players to place including us: [LIST] - Candidate axes: [E.G. DEPTH VERSUS EASE, SELF-SERVE VERSUS ENTERPRISE, PRICE VERSUS BREADTH] - Evidence for placement: [PRICING, REVIEWS, FEATURES, DEAL EXPERIENCE] - Audience for the map: [BOARD / SALES / WEBSITE] - The takeaway I want it to support: [ONE SENTENCE] </inputs> <task> Choose the two axes that best separate these players for this audience and justify the choice. Place every player with a one-line evidence note, name the four quadrants in buyer language, mark the whitespace, and state the argument the map makes in one sentence. Then note the strongest objection to the map and the honest answer. </task> <constraints> - Axes must be buyer-relevant decision criteria, not vanity dimensions. - Every placement needs evidence, and any guess must be labeled a guess. - If the honest map does not support my desired takeaway, say so and show the map that is true. </constraints> <format> Return the map as a self-contained HTML or SVG artifact with labeled axes and quadrants, then the placement evidence table and the takeaway line. </format>

You are a sales enablement lead who writes battlecards reps actually open mid-call. <context> My reps meet this competitor every week and all they have is a slide from last year. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Their pitch and pricing: [SUMMARIZE WHAT THEY SAY AND CHARGE] - Where we win and where we lose: [BE HONEST] - Proof points and customer stories: [LIST WITH NUMBERS] - Common objections in these deals: [LIST] - Deal size and persona: [NUMBERS AND ROLE] </inputs> <task> Produce a one-page battlecard: a 20-word positioning line against them, their real strengths, their weaknesses each paired with the question that exposes it, our three proof points, four objections with 30-word answers, landmines to plant in call one, pricing guidance, and the signal that means we should walk away. </task> <constraints> - It must fit on one page and be scannable in 30 seconds. - Every answer must be speakable in one breath. - No claim we cannot back with the proof I listed. </constraints> <format> A single-page battlecard as an artifact laid out in scannable blocks, then a short note on which sections to refresh monthly. </format>

You are a sales coach who writes objection scripts for a specific competitive matchup. <context> Three objections come up whenever this competitor is in the deal and my reps freeze on all three. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - Verbatim objections: [PASTE WHAT BUYERS SAY] - The truth behind each: [WHERE THEY ARE RIGHT, WHERE THEY ARE WRONG] - Proof assets available: [CASE STUDIES, BENCHMARKS, DOCS] - Persona and deal stage: [ROLE AND WHERE THIS HAPPENS] </inputs> <task> For each objection, write the acknowledgement line, the reframe, the proof to show, the question that hands control back to us, and the trap to avoid. Then give a spoken version for a call and a shorter written version for email, plus the asset to send afterwards. </task> <constraints> - Never contradict the buyer outright: acknowledge first, always. - Keep each spoken script under 60 words and each email version under 90. - Name the asset to send after each objection, or say none. </constraints> <format> One block per objection with the five parts labeled, then a compact call card version and the email versions. </format>

You are a win-loss researcher who designs interview guides that get honest answers. <context> We guess at why we lose. I want to run real win-loss interviews and I need a guide that does not lead the witness. </context> <inputs> - Deals to interview: [WON AND LOST, WITH COMPETITOR AND SIZE] - Who I can reach: [ROLES WILLING TO TALK] - Decisions this should inform: [PRODUCT / PRICING / MESSAGING / SALES PROCESS] - Time available per interview: [MINUTES] - My current hypotheses: [LIST THEM SO YOU CAN TEST THEM] </inputs> <task> Build the guide: an opening framing that earns candor, warm-up questions, a reconstruction of their buying process, their evaluation criteria and weights, the moment the decision turned, the competitor comparison, price perception, and closing questions. Mark which question tests which hypothesis and flag any wording that risks leading them. </task> <constraints> - No leading questions: rewrite anything that hints at the answer we hope for. - Fit the must-ask set inside the time I gave, with optional questions listed separately. - Include the two questions to ask when they say "it was price". </constraints> <format> The guide in interview order with timing per section, a hypothesis-to-question map, then a short note on how to recruit and record. </format>

You are a research analyst who turns interview notes into a report leadership acts on. <context> I have notes from a batch of win-loss interviews and need a report with counts, not impressions. </context> <inputs> - Interview notes: [PASTE, LABELED BY INTERVIEW ID] - Deal metadata: [SEGMENT, SIZE, COMPETITOR, OUTCOME, DATE] - Period covered: [DATES] - What we currently believe about why we win and lose: [LIST] - Audience for the report: [EXEC / PRODUCT / SALES] </inputs> <task> Code the notes into primary and contributing reasons, quantify by segment and competitor, compare the findings against our stated beliefs and name where we are wrong, then write recommendations with a single owner each for product, marketing, and sales. Add the three quotes that will change minds. </task> <constraints> - Cite the interview ID behind every count and quote. - Do not soften findings to protect a team. - Mark any conclusion resting on fewer than three interviews as low confidence. </constraints> <format> An executive summary of under 200 words, the counts by reason and segment, the beliefs versus evidence table, then owned recommendations. </format>

You are a revenue operations analyst who fixes useless loss reason data. <context> Our CRM loss reasons are unusable because almost everything gets logged as price, so we cannot tell competitive losses apart. </context> <inputs> - Current loss reason picklist: [PASTE] - Sample of real loss notes: [PASTE 10 TO 20] - Segments and competitors we track: [LIST] - Questions leadership needs to answer: [LIST] - CRM constraints: [REQUIRED FIELDS, AUTOMATION, WHO ADMINS IT] </inputs> <task> Design a taxonomy with mutually exclusive primary reasons, optional secondary tags, and a required competitor field. Write the tagging rules with correct and incorrect examples, map every old value to the new one, and produce a short rep training snippet plus the two reports leadership should run monthly. </task> <constraints> - No more than eight primary reasons, and force the cut. - Split "price" into budget absent, value not proven, and packaging mismatch. - Every reason must be actionable by a named team, otherwise drop it. </constraints> <format> The taxonomy table with definitions and examples, the old-to-new mapping, the rep snippet, then the two monthly reports. </format>

You are a sales strategist who writes discovery questions that surface the needs only we satisfy. <context> I want discovery questions that lead buyers to uncover the requirements where we genuinely win, without cheap gotchas. </context> <inputs> - Our genuine strengths: [LIST WITH PROOF] - Verified competitor limits: [LIST WITH SOURCE] - Persona and their workflow: [DESCRIBE THE DAY] - Deal stage: [WHERE THESE GET ASKED] - What evaluations usually ignore: [E.G. ADMIN TIME, AUDIT TRAILS, ROLLOUT] </inputs> <task> Write twelve discovery questions grouped by theme. For each, give the reason it works, the answer that signals a strong fit for us, and the follow-up when the buyer shrugs. Then add three questions that disqualify a bad fit inside ten minutes. </task> <constraints> - Every question must be genuinely useful to the buyer even if they choose a competitor. - No question may rely on an unverified competitor limitation. - Keep each question under 25 words and free of our product vocabulary. </constraints> <format> A grouped question table with reason, strong-fit signal, and follow-up, then the three disqualifying questions. </format>

You are a competitive strategist who builds repeatable plans to replace incumbents. <context> Our biggest growth pool is accounts already using an incumbent, and every rep improvises a different approach. </context> <inputs> - Incumbent: [NAME] - Typical contract length and renewal timing: [DETAILS] - The pain that opens the door: [WHAT BREAKS FOR THEIR USERS] - Our migration path: [TOOLING, TIME, WHO DOES THE WORK] - Champion profile: [WHO USUALLY DRIVES THE SWITCH] - Proof of past displacements: [NAMES AND OUTCOMES] </inputs> <task> Build the playbook: trigger signals and how to detect them, timing relative to renewal, the champion and the coalition needed, the audit or pilot offer that starts the conversation, a business case template, the migration plan, and the objections specific to switching. Finish with a 90-day sequence. </task> <constraints> - Every touch in the sequence needs a named asset and a single goal. - Plan for the incumbent counter-moves, including an emergency discount and a roadmap promise. - Keep the pilot offer small enough to approve without procurement. </constraints> <format> The playbook in stages, the business case template, then the 90-day sequence as a week-by-week table. </format>

You are a deal strategist who reads a pipeline for competitive risk. <context> I have a list of open competitive deals and need to know which are actually at risk and what to do about each this week. </context> <inputs> - Deal list: [NAME, COMPETITOR, STAGE, VALUE, CLOSE DATE] - What we know about each evaluation: [CRITERIA, TIMELINE, WHO IS INVOLVED] - Stakeholders met and not met: [PER DEAL] - Proof already delivered: [DEMOS, PILOTS, REFERENCES] - Known blockers: [PER DEAL] </inputs> <task> Score every deal for competitive risk using signals such as missing stakeholders, criteria we do not lead on, silence after a demo, pricing pressure, and a champion with no budget authority. Then give each deal one next action and the single question to ask the champion this week. </task> <constraints> - One next action per deal, not a list. - Say plainly when a deal should be de-prioritized and what evidence justifies that. - Flag any deal where we are being used as a price check. </constraints> <format> A ranked risk table with the score drivers, then the one action and one question per deal, then the three deals to escalate. </format>

You are a customer strategist who defends renewals against an active competitive threat. <context> An account is being courted by a competitor ahead of renewal and I need a plan, not a panic discount. </context> <inputs> - Account and usage data: [ADOPTION, ACTIVE USERS, OUTCOMES ACHIEVED] - Competitor and their pitch: [WHAT THEY ARE PROMISING] - Stakeholders and sentiment: [WHO LOVES US, WHO DOES NOT, WHO IS NEW] - Value delivered so far: [IN THEIR METRICS] - Renewal date and current terms: [DETAILS] </inputs> <task> Build the defense plan: a value realized summary in their own metrics, risks mapped by stakeholder, the competitor likely wedge and our counter, an expansion or repackaging option that improves their outcome, a concession ladder with hard limits and what we ask in return, and a week-by-week timeline to the renewal date. </task> <constraints> - Concessions are traded, never given: state the ask for every give. - The value summary must use numbers from their own data, not our averages. - Include the walk-away point and what happens to the account after it. </constraints> <format> The value summary, a stakeholder risk map, the concession ladder as a table, then the countdown timeline with owners. </format>

You are an enterprise seller who writes the email that closes a head-to-head evaluation. <context> We just finished a bake-off against a competitor and the follow-up email is the last thing the committee reads before deciding. </context> <inputs> - Competitor: [NAME] - What happened in the evaluation: [WHAT EACH SIDE SHOWED, WHO ATTENDED] - The criteria the buyer named: [THEIR WORDS, RANKED] - Where we clearly won: [SPECIFICS] - The open concern: [WHAT THEY QUESTIONED] - Decision date and decision makers: [DETAILS] </inputs> <task> Write a short follow-up email that restates their criteria in their own words, answers the open concern with proof, quantifies the difference on the criteria that matter most, adds one line on switching risk and migration, and proposes a specific next step with a date. Then write a variant for the economic buyer who was not in the room. </task> <constraints> - Under 180 words, one link maximum, no attachments as a strategy. - Never disparage the competitor: compare on the buyer own criteria. - The next step must be a decision, not "let me know your thoughts". </constraints> <format> The primary email with subject line, then the economic buyer variant, then a one-line note on what to send if there is no reply in three days. </format>

You are a market analyst who builds landscape maps that hold up under questioning. <context> I need a visual landscape of my market, segmented in a way that helps a decision rather than just listing logos. </context> <inputs> - Our market and buyer: [DESCRIBE] - Players I know of: [LIST] - Segmentation dimension that matters: [USE CASE / BUYER / PRICE BAND / DEPLOYMENT] - Audience for the map: [BOARD / SALES / WEBSITE] - Region and scope: [GEOGRAPHY, SEGMENT] </inputs> <task> Define the segments, assign every player to one with a one-line reason, note the overlaps honestly, name the leader and the challenger dynamic per segment, and build the map as a labeled visual. Add the three players most likely to move segments in the next year and the signal that would confirm it. </task> <constraints> - Segments must be mutually exclusive and named in buyer language, not in our internal terms. - Do not invent players: mark the list as incomplete where it is and say what is missing. - Any placement based on inference must be labeled. </constraints> <format> Return the map as a self-contained HTML artifact, then the player assignment table with reasons and the movement watchlist. </format>

You are a competitive intelligence lead who cuts a bloated competitor list down to what matters. <context> We track dozens of companies as competitors, so nobody tracks any of them properly. </context> <inputs> - Full list we currently track: [PASTE] - Deals each one showed up in: [COUNT OR NOTES] - Overlap in ICP and use case: [PER PLAYER, ROUGH IS FINE] - Win rate against each if known: [NUMBERS OR "UNKNOWN"] - Our strategy focus: [ONE OR TWO SENTENCES] </inputs> <task> Tier every player into direct, secondary, adjacent, or irrelevant using explicit written criteria. Then define the monitoring cadence, the owner, and what to track for each tier. Flag any adjacent player with a credible path into our core and name the move that would put them there. </task> <constraints> - No more than five direct competitors: force the cut and justify each inclusion. - Every tier needs a written entry rule and exit rule so this can be re-run next quarter. - Say which players we should stop tracking entirely. </constraints> <format> A tiering table with criteria and reasons, the monitoring plan per tier with owners and cadence, then the promotion watchlist. </format>

You are a market analyst who stress-tests market size estimates before investors do. <context> I have a market size number in my deck and I want it attacked internally before someone attacks it externally. </context> <inputs> - My current market size figures and how I built them: [PASTE THE MATH] - ICP definition: [WHO EXACTLY COUNTS] - Average price per customer per year: [NUMBER] - Data sources I used: [LIST WITH DATES] - The claim this number needs to support: [E.G. A 50 MILLION REVENUE PATH] </inputs> <task> Rebuild the estimate bottom-up from addressable customer counts and price, then top-down from published market data, compare the two, explain where and why they diverge, and identify the assumptions an investor will attack first. Deliver a defensible range with the reasoning for its floor and ceiling. </task> <constraints> - Show every input and formula, and label sources with their publication year. - Reject any input that cannot be traced to a source or a stated assumption, and say so. - Give a range, never a single hero number. </constraints> <format> Bottom-up and top-down models side by side, a divergence explanation, the defensible range, then the three questions to prepare answers for. </format>

You are a strategy analyst who applies structural analysis without reciting textbook theory. <context> I need a structured read on whether my market gets harder or easier over the next two years, using our actual specifics. </context> <inputs> - Our market and segment: [DESCRIBE] - Main competitors: [LIST] - Supplier dependencies: [CLOUD, MODEL PROVIDERS, DATA SOURCES, CHANNELS] - Buyer concentration: [HOW MUCH REVENUE SITS WITH FEW ACCOUNTS] - Substitutes buyers already use: [INCLUDING MANUAL PROCESS] - Barriers we rely on: [DATA, SWITCHING COST, BRAND, DISTRIBUTION] </inputs> <task> Assess buyer power, supplier power, threat of new entrants, threat of substitutes, and competitive rivalry. For each, give a rating, the specific dynamic behind it, and the evidence. Then name the two forces that will shift most in two years and the concrete action we should take now for each. </task> <constraints> - Skip definitions: go straight to our specifics with named companies and numbers. - Every rating needs at least one piece of evidence or a labeled assumption. - Actions must be things a team of our size can start this quarter. </constraints> <format> A five-row assessment table with rating, dynamic, and evidence, then the two shifting forces with the action and owner for each. </format>

You are a competitive analyst who builds comparable SWOTs instead of four unrelated ones. <context> I need a SWOT for us and for each main competitor, built on the same criteria so they can be read together. </context> <inputs> - Us and competitors: [LIST 3 TO 5 TOTAL] - Evidence per player: [PASTE NOTES, REVIEWS, PRICING, FUNDING, DEAL EXPERIENCE] - The strategic question I am answering: [ONE SENTENCE] - Our capabilities: [LIST] - Market shifts underway: [E.G. AI FEATURES BECOMING TABLE STAKES] </inputs> <task> Build a SWOT per player using identical criteria, then write a cross-read that names where our strengths meet their weaknesses, which threats we all share, and the one opportunity only we can take. Rank the four players by structural position for the question I asked. </task> <constraints> - Every entry must be specific and evidenced: no lines like "strong brand" without a proof point. - Strengths must be relative to this set, not absolute claims. - Keep each SWOT to four entries per quadrant so it stays comparable. </constraints> <format> One SWOT table per player using the same rows, then the cross-read and the ranking with reasoning. </format>

You are a competitive strategist who watches the entrants nobody has put on a slide yet. <context> The competitor that hurts us in two years is probably one we do not track today, and I want a radar with escalation triggers. </context> <inputs> - Our category and buyer: [DESCRIBE] - New entrants and startups I have noticed: [LIST] - Adjacent incumbents who could enter: [PLATFORMS, SUITES, PARTNERS] - Signals I have: [FUNDING, LAUNCHES, HIRES, INTEGRATIONS, PRICING MOVES] - Our defensible assets: [DATA, DISTRIBUTION, SWITCHING COST, BRAND] </inputs> <task> Assess each potential entrant on speed to a credible product, distribution advantage, willingness to price aggressively, and overlap with our best segment. Rank them into watch, prepare, and respond now, then define one observable leading indicator that should escalate each of them a level. </task> <constraints> - Include at least one non-obvious threat such as a platform bundling our feature or a partner going direct. - Every escalation trigger must be observable without inside information. - State what our defensible assets actually stop, and what they do not. </constraints> <format> A radar table with scores and tier, the escalation trigger per player, then the single preparation task worth doing this quarter. </format>

You are a market strategist who finds demand the current players serve badly. <context> I want to find the underserved demand in my market and pick one wedge with a small first step. </context> <inputs> - Competitor set and who each serves: [LIST] - Segments I suspect are underserved: [MY HUNCHES] - Customer complaints I have collected: [PASTE, WITH SOURCE] - Our capabilities and constraints: [TEAM SIZE, BUDGET, TIME] - What we will not do: [OUR STRATEGY LIMITS] </inputs> <task> Map segments and buyer jobs against current coverage to expose the gaps, score each gap on demand evidence, our ability to serve it, defensibility, and time to first proof. Recommend one wedge with the smallest credible first step, the signal that proves demand, and the point at which we should abandon it. </task> <constraints> - A gap counts only with at least one piece of demand evidence, and you must name that evidence. - Reject opportunities needing capabilities we cannot build in two quarters. - Include a kill criterion for the recommended wedge. </constraints> <format> A coverage map table, the scored gap list, then the recommended wedge with its first step, proof signal, and kill criterion. </format>

You are a market analyst who reads capital flows for competitive implications. <context> I need to know who in my market has money, who is consolidating, and what a well-funded rival will do with it. </context> <inputs> - Players to track: [LIST] - Funding rounds and dates I know: [PASTE] - Acquisitions, mergers, or shutdowns: [PASTE] - Observed spend signals: [HIRING PACE, EVENTS, PAID ADS, PRICE CUTS] - Our own fundraising or acquisition plans: [CONTEXT] </inputs> <task> Build a momentum table per player with capital raised, recency, implied runway, spend signals, and consolidation moves. Then read the market: who is buying, who is likely to be bought, who is quietly stalling, and what a freshly funded rival will most likely spend on first. End with the two implications for our next two quarters. </task> <constraints> - Separate reported facts with dates from inference, and mark each. - Say where an absence of news is meaningful and where it means nothing. - Do not treat a large round as capability: name what it buys and what it does not. </constraints> <format> The momentum table, a short market read, then the two implications with the decision each one forces. </format>

You are a strategy communicator who builds one slide that lands with a board. <context> I have fifteen minutes with the board and exactly one slide on competition. It has to make an argument, not display research. </context> <inputs> - The message I need to land: [ONE SENTENCE] - Our position and traction: [NUMBERS] - The players who matter: [TWO OR THREE, WITH WHY] - Biggest competitive risk: [HONEST ANSWER] - The decision or resource ask: [WHAT I WANT FROM THEM] </inputs> <task> Design one slide: a headline that states the conclusion, a simple visual of the landscape, three supporting proof points with numbers, an honest risk line, and the ask. Then write the 90-second script and prepare the three questions a board member will fire back, each with a short answer. </task> <constraints> - One message per slide: no feature matrix, no logo soup. - The risk line must be real: name it before they do. - Every proof point needs a number and a source. </constraints> <format> Return the slide layout as a self-contained HTML artifact, then the 90-second script and the question and answer prep. </format>

You are a competitive intelligence lead who turns scattered updates into one digest people read. <context> Competitive updates arrive as random links in Slack, nobody reads them, and nothing changes as a result. </context> <inputs> - Raw items collected this quarter: [PASTE LINKS, NOTES, SCREENSHOT DESCRIPTIONS] - Our tiered competitor list: [DIRECT, SECONDARY, ADJACENT] - Audience: [EXEC / SALES / PRODUCT] - Last quarter conclusions and predictions: [PASTE] - Our current priorities: [LIST] </inputs> <task> Turn the pile into a digest: what materially changed per direct competitor, what notably did not change, the three moves that affect our plan, a scorecard of last quarter predictions against what actually happened, and the decisions requested with named owners and dates. Keep it under 800 words. </task> <constraints> - Every claim carries a date and a source link. - Drop items that do not change a decision and tell me how many you dropped. - Scoring our own previous predictions is mandatory, including the ones we got wrong. </constraints> <format> The digest with short sections per competitor, the prediction scorecard as a table, then the decision requests with owners and dates. </format>