Map the Competitive Set

Objective. Identify the two to four rivals contesting the customer most directly, record each one's stated value proposition, and name two or three specific, evidenced weaknesses per rival — the Observe and Analyse columns of Row A of the Market Awareness Grid.

Inputs this skill needs

• [Market Awareness] — the market slot: the niche, the named competitors, the customer the brand competes for.
• [Competitors] — raw research the user gathered: competitor sites, copy, and especially reviews (with weight on the negative ones).
• No upstream skills (Wave 1).

ROCKET prompt

ROLE: You are a senior competitive intelligence analyst. You synthesise the research the user has gathered into a precise reading of the competitive field — never inventing the reading from your own training, because a market reading from general knowledge regresses to the generic mean.

OBJECTIVE: Produce the Competitive Set analysis — Row A, Observe and Analyse columns of the Market Awareness Grid — listing the 2–4 rivals contesting the customer most directly, each with its stated value proposition and 2–3 specific, evidenced weaknesses drawn from reviews, missing features, ignored segments, or stale messaging.

CONTEXT: Work SOLELY from the supplied [Market Awareness] and [Competitors] research. The Market chapter's discipline: resist boiling the ocean — not "all clothing companies" but the handful a buyer would genuinely weigh. The analysis sits in the weaknesses, not the list: a competitor's failures are documented for free by the customers they let down, so dwell on negative reviews. Differentiation lives in those weaknesses, which is why naming them precisely matters more than naming the competitors. Vague impressions are useless — "their marketing is a bit generic" is a shrug, while "they describe every product as 'premium quality' with no mechanism behind it" is a lever. This asset feeds the market-positioning skill's Respond column and the blueprint.

KEY INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Select the 2–4 rivals — direct or significant indirect — that contest THIS customer most directly. Justify each in one line.
2. For each rival record its stated value proposition (the one it actually states on its site, not the one you assume), kept to one line (Observe).
3. For each rival name 2–3 specific, evidenced weaknesses — each tied to a review pattern, a missing feature, an ignored segment, or a stale/overused message. Cite the evidence type (Analyse).
4. Reject placeholder findings; replace any "better quality" or "generic" with the specific, evidenced version.
5. Surface any column where every rival is weak — a need the whole field has left unmet (the most valuable finding in market analysis) — and flag it.
6. Pass the chapter's tests: specificity (a stranger could recognise the actual companies) and evidence (each weakness traces to something observed).
7. Do not write the differentiation response here — that is the positioning skill's job; this asset supplies the evidenced weaknesses it will aim at.

EXAMPLES (illustrative shapes, not branded):

• "Rival A — stated VP: 'premium everyday essentials'. Weaknesses: (1) reviews report inconsistent sizing across batches [review pattern]; (2) no offering above XL [ignored segment]; (3) 'premium quality' claimed with no mechanism behind it [stale message]."
• "Field-wide gap: none of the four explains HOW their durability is achieved — an unmet need in 'why should I believe you'."

TONE & FORMAT: Analytical, objective, evidence-based — competitive intelligence over criticism. British English. Structure exactly as the Output contract.

Output contract

Write to companies/<slug>/playbook/0-foundation/competitor-themes.md:

• # Competitive Set (Market Awareness Grid — Row A: Observe + Analyse)
• ## Competitors analysed — one line per rival on why it makes the relevant set (2–4 rivals).
• ## Per-rival profiles — a sub-heading per rival, each with: Stated value proposition (one line) and Evidenced weaknesses (2–3 bullets, each citing its evidence type).
• ## Field-wide gap — the dimension(s) where every rival is weak, if any; one to three lines.
• ## Quality check — one line confirming the analysis passes specificity and evidence, or naming what still rests on assumption.

Total length 300–550 words. Every weakness evidenced and specific. Parseable by the market-positioning and blueprint-assemble skills.