資料には具体的なスキルの内容や手順が記載されていないため、用途や得られる結果を特定できません。
- 用途を確認したいとき
- 入力や手順を確認したいとき
- 期待する結果を確認したいとき
市場の分類や規模、価格帯、需要の変化、購入経路などを調べ、根拠付きの市場レポートを作るリサーチ工程です。単独ではなく `research-market` から利用します。
Step of the research-market playbook: the worker brief for researching the market itself, including category, size, changes, pricing norms and demand. Run research-market instead; not for direct use.
実行スコア 未検証
インストール方法を見るブランドが事業を行う市場について、分類候補と推奨カテゴリ、市場規模、直近の変化、購入経路、価格帯、注目されるチャネル、需要や季節性を調べ、根拠と日付を添えたレポートを作る工程です。市場規模は調査会社などの推計と、顧客グループごとの購入者数・年間価格を使う積み上げの両面から整理します。情報源ごとの確度や、確認できなかった内容も記録します。
市場全体の見通しや価格の相場、顧客が商品を知って購入するまでの流れを把握したい調査で役立ちます。ただし、この項目は research-market の内部工程として用意されており、単独で直接使うものではありません。
公開ページを使ったウェブ検索・取得を前提とします。ログインや登録、非公式ミラー、スクレイピングされたコピーは使いません。通常は約15件の検索と12ページの確認を行い、各事実にリンク・公開日・確度を付けます。
この紹介文は、公開されている SKILL.md をもとに AI(OpenAI Codex)が作成しました。正確な仕様は下の原文を確認してください。
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
You research the market a brand sells into — not its rivals one by one (competitor research does that) and not who the buyers are and what they say (audience research owns the buyer groups and the customer-quote bank; you size its groups). Do every section before you return. Never stop to ask. What you can't reach goes in "Couldn't read" with what it would have added.
Inputs you get: the brand, what it sells and to whom (from its brand brain first, its website second — say which when they differ), company type, markets (countries), today's date, research-audience's buyer groups if any, the last market report if any (report what changed since).
Worker rules: don't load any skill or playbook and don't start subagents or workflows — this brief is all you need. Standard depth: about 15 searches and 12 page fetches — enough for 8+ pricing pages and the primary pages behind every platform or legal claim; a quarterly full report may go deeper. Every fact carries its link and date inline — the report quotes you directly.
Tools: web search and web fetch. Use them freely. Public pages only: never log in, never sign up, never unofficial mirrors or scraped copies of a site. If a page needs the browser, list it under "Needs the browser" for the main run instead of skipping it silently.
Every fact: a link, the date published, and how sure you are in words — confirmed (from the source), likely (several weaker sources agree), a guess, because… Never a number you made up. Estimates from analysts are quoted as theirs ("Grand View estimates…, 2025"), with the range when sources disagree.
List the 2–3 categories the brand could be filed under (from its own site and brand record, how press and directories file it, what its rivals call themselves — e.g. "AI ad-creative tool" vs "AI coworkers for go-to-market teams"). For each: what buyers call it (search phrasings, review-site categories, subreddit names), who else sits in it, and the evidence that buyers actually use that name. Recommend one, with the reason, and say what changes if the brand picks another (different rivals, different buyers, different price norms). If it isn't the market the brand says it's in (its site, brand record, founder's words), say so and name what you couldn't test. The choice is one of three kinds:
| Kind | When | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Existing category | you compete head-to-head and buyers already search for it | "CRM for startups" |
| Sub-category | you serve a niche of it clearly better | "AI-native sales engagement" |
| New category | nothing buyers search for describes what you do | "revenue orchestration" |
Rules: if buyers already search for the category, use it or a sub-category of it; if you'd spend half your sales calls explaining the category, don't create a new one; create one only when nothing existing fits, and keep its name plain enough to guess. (After April Dunford's positioning method; the positioning branch of research-market writes the full options and messages.) Name the neighbours buyers use instead: a spreadsheet, an agency, an in-house hire, the platform's own free tools, doing nothing.
buyer-groups.md (it counts buyers or companies per group); you add the price and the value, use your own market figures as context, and say plainly where you dispute a count and why. No buyer groups yet → the groups this run can see, counted the same way and marked provisional. Count buyers in the right unit — companies or people who could buy, from directories, registries, platform counts, job-post counts, industry reports — never community member counts. Price from the category's pricing norms (§5). Every input is sourced or labelled "an assumption, because…". Show the arithmetic in one line per group, and the total. If a bottom-up count isn't possible, say why.Open the primary page (the platform's own post, the law's text, the company's release) for every platform or legal claim; if you can't, mark it "not confirmed" — it never goes in the report as fact.
New technology and product shifts, platform changes (ad platforms, app stores, AI assistants, marketplaces), regulation and policy, price moves across the category, new kinds of entrants, consolidation (acquisitions, shutdowns), changes in how buyers talk about the category. For each: what happened, when, the source, and what it means for a brand like this one.
The path from need to purchase for this company type: where buyers first hear of products (search, AI answers, social, communities, creators, events, word of mouth, marketplaces), how they evaluate (review sites, comparison posts, free trials, demos, peers), who signs off (for B2B: the roles involved), how long it takes, and where they buy (self-serve, sales-led, retail, marketplace, app store). Evidence: buyers' own posts and reviews describing how they chose, vendors' funnels, analyst or survey data.
Across 8–15 products in the category (not only the brand's main rivals): the price points, the unit (per seat, per use, per month, per item), free tiers and trials, annual discounts, what sits behind "contact sales", and how prices moved in the last year. A short table and the norm in one line ("most charge per seat at <range>; usage-based is spreading"). Pages where prices aren't public say so. Compare like with like: group the table by what the price buys (a self-serve tool for one user, a team plan, a done-for-you service, a content library) and give a norm per group; never average or take the middle across groups (a $999 service and a $29 tool make no "middle entry price").
Which channels carry this category's buyers' attention: the communities and subreddits, newsletters and podcasts, creators and analysts, events, ad platforms the category spends on (from public ad libraries' counts where readable), and AI answers (ask the same 3–4 category questions in any AI answer you can reach; Google's AI Overview in results counts). Each with a link and why it matters. Also dates that matter in the next 90 days: the category's conferences, speaker applications and calls for papers, award entries, budget and buying seasons — each with its date and deadline.
When buyers buy: seasonal peaks (search interest by month, review and post dates, budget cycles, category events), and what triggers a purchase (a new hire, funding, a failed tool, a season, a life event). Label each line: measured · proxy · known pattern, not measured · unknown.
At most 8 names: the main rivals and the main alternatives buyers name, one line each (what they are, who they're for), and which looks strongest right now and why. No profiles — competitor research does that.
The few numbers the next run will compare, each with date and source: the size top-down and bottom-up (with inputs), the price norm (median entry price and unit within the group the brand sits in), Google Trends for the 1–2 main terms (region, period), whether AI answers name the brand for the 3–4 category questions, the brand's review count and rating on each review site, its rank for "<main rival> alternative" searches, and its main social account's typical engagement. Mentions come from the listening worker. "Couldn't read" where a number wasn't reachable.
## Market — <category> — as of <date>
Which market: <2–3 candidates — what buyers call each — evidence> · recommended: <one, why> · if you picked another: <what changes>
Size, top-down: <publisher, year, figure, what it counts>
Size, bottom-up: <group — likely buyers (source or assumption) × yearly price (source) = total> · total · largest input: <sourced | an assumption>
Share we could win: <figure and its source, or "an assumption, because…", or "not sizable yet — would need …">
Momentum: … — verdict: growing / flat / shrinking, how sure
What's changing: <dated items, newest first, each with "what it means">
How and where they buy: …
Pricing norms: <table, grouped by what the price buys> · the norm per group
Where attention is: …
Demand and seasonality: … (each line labelled)
Competition in brief: …
Baselines: <number — date — source>
Needs the browser: <pages the main run should open>
Couldn't read: <source — why — what it would have added>
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
ログインなしで書き込めます。使ってみた感想、質問、動かなかった環境などを気軽にどうぞ。
まだコメントはありません。最初のコメントを書いてみませんか。
資料には具体的なスキルの内容や手順が記載されていないため、用途や得られる結果を特定できません。
顧客の課題や商品情報、広告事例を調べ、根拠のある広告訴求と静止画・動画・コピー案にまとめます。動画案は実際の制作フォーマットとの相性も確認し、商品単位の角度集として整理します。
Google、Meta、LinkedInなどの広告実績を分析し、成果の出た広告や予算の無駄を特定します。停止・拡大・テスト案や、具体的な予算配分を提案します。
広告費と登録後の成果を照合し、質の高いリード獲得にかかった実コストを算出します。広告素材ごとに拡大・維持・調査・停止の判断材料を整理するスキルです。
Meta広告を始める前にブランド情報を調べ、予算や広告表現に関わる不明点だけを質問して準備を整えます。確認事項と仮定を記録し、ブランド情報とキャンペーン概要を作成します。
広告文や画像内の表現を配信先と商品カテゴリのルールに照らして確認し、直せる箇所を修正しながら、法務や人の判断が必要なリスクを広告ごとに整理します。