Choose which competitors to compare based on a company's offer, audience, and positioning. Organize candidates into direct, adjacent, and aspirational groups, then narrow the list with selection scores and source links before detailed benchmarking.
Use when scoping a competitive landscape — identifying, categorising, and score-filtering a competitor set before any benchmarking begins. Decides who counts as a competitor, which tier they belong to, and which sources to mine. First step in the three-skill competitive pipeline; precedes benchmark-methodology.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use this skill to decide who to benchmark and where to find them before any scoring begins. A competitive analysis is only as good as its frame: the wrong set makes the client look either unbeatable or doomed. The goal is a defensible, decision-relevant set — not an exhaustive census.
Before scoping the set, establish the client's positioning brief. If you don't already have it, run a short brand-discovery interview to elicit it — do not invent one and do not scope the set blind. The brief supplies:
Do not proceed without the positioning brief. A competitor list scoped without the client's lens is noise, not intelligence. The scoping consequence in particular determines which competitors are strong rivals (those that contest the client's moat) vs. merely overlapping on service menu.
For each candidate, capture these axes — they decide both inclusion and tier:
Don't sort competitors into niche-specific buckets; sort them along a few generic axes so the landscape isn't skewed toward one archetype. These axes apply to any creative-service market (design, motion, copywriting, branding, content, film, etc.). Aim for breadth across each axis first, then prune to the most instructive.
Plot each candidate on the relevant axes; a competitor is direct when it sits near the client on positioning, specialization, size, and market at once.
Group the final set into three tiers — this structure carries through to the report:
Match the source to the dimension you need. The platform types below are generic; substitute the ones native to the client's niche (e.g. Dribbble/Behance for design, showreel/Vimeo for motion, writing samples/published work for copy):
Always verify claims across at least two sources before treating a competitor attribute as fact (self-reported site copy ≠ verified outcome). Carry an adversarial-verification discipline into every profile.
A lightweight pre-filter to decide who graduates into full benchmarking. Score 1–5; keep candidates that score high on either distinctiveness or credibility — the client's strategic tension means both poles are instructive.
| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Tier | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Include? |
|---|
Rules of thumb (apply per the client's scoping consequence in the positioning brief):
A scoped, tiered competitor set (typically 10–18 candidates → 8–12 profiled),
each tagged with its axis positions, tier, and source links, ready to hand to
benchmark-methodology.
Scenario: A boutique brand-identity studio (2-person, EU-remote, productized sprints, contrarian/manifesto-driven aesthetic) wants to scope its competitive set before benchmarking. The strategic tension from the positioning brief is memorability × hireability.
Step 1 — eight-axis population (sample candidates):
| Candidate | Positioning stance | Specialization | Size band | Engagement | Distinctiveness | Evidence model | Brand strength | Market |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio A | brand-led / editorial | identity only | micro | productized | contrarian | aesthetic-led | cult | global-remote |
| Studio B | capability-led | broad DS+motion | boutique | bespoke | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | US |
| Agency C | capability-led | brand+digital | mid-size | retainer | conventional | outcome-led | interchangeable | EU |
| Freelancer D | brand-led | brand voice only | solo | day-rate | editorial | aesthetic-led | ownable | global |
| Studio E | brand-led | brand strategy | micro | productized | manifesto-driven | outcome-led | cult | EU-remote |
Step 2 — pre-filter scoring (client scoping consequence: weight distinctiveness because the client's moat is POV-first, not capability breadth):
| Candidate | Offer overlap (1–5) | Distinctiveness (1–5) | Commercial credibility (1–5) | Craft proximity (1–5) | Tier | Include? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Studio A | 5 | 5 | 3 | 5 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
| Studio B | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | Adjacent | ✓ credibility anchor |
| Agency C | 2 | 1 | 5 | 2 | Aspirational | ✓ scale reference |
| Freelancer D | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | Direct | ✓ cautionary case |
| Studio E | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | Direct | ✓ must-profile |
Step 3 — output handed to benchmark-methodology:
Five candidates (3 Direct, 1 Adjacent, 1 Aspirational), each tagged with
axis positions, tier, and source links. Studio A and Studio E are the
sharpest head-to-head rivals; Freelancer D is the "memorable but
un-hireable" cautionary case to learn from.
brand-discovery — use first to establish the positioning brief and strategic tension that scopes the competitor set.benchmark-methodology — the next step; takes the tiered set and scores each competitor across nine dimensions.No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Design and audit interfaces for Web, iOS, and Android using WCAG 2.2 accessibility guidance. Check screen-reader labels, keyboard navigation, contrast, and control sizes to identify barriers and guide implementation for people using assistive technology.
Investigate unreliable AI agents across 12 layers, including instructions, memory, tool execution, and display. Use code and logs to trace failures, rank findings by severity, and produce an ordered repair plan that prioritizes code changes.
Compare coding agents on tasks from your own codebase. Define success checks, run agents in separate Git working directories, and report pass rates, available API costs, completion time, and consistency across repeated trials.
Design and refine an AI agent’s available actions, tool inputs, and result formats. Define recovery steps for errors, manage the information kept in context, and evaluate changes through completion rates, retries, and cost per successful task.
Diagnose failed AI agent runs by capturing errors, checking likely causes, and choosing small, reversible recovery actions. The workflow produces a structured report of the failure, recovery steps, and evidence, helping explain repeated retries or stalled progress.
Diagnose AI agent runs that fail repeatedly, loop through tools, or lose track of the task. Capture errors and environment details, test a focused recovery action, and produce a report explaining the evidence and outcome.