prd-v02-competitive-landscape-mapping

# Competitive Landscape Mapping

Understand market reality before defining your position.

## Workflow Position

```
v0.1 Spark (Problem + Value) → Competitive Landscape Mapping → Product Type Classification
       (what hurts)                 (who else solves it)           (how we compete)
```

## Consumes

This skill requires prior work from v0.1:

- **CFD-\* entries (problem statements, from Problem Framing) — Evidence for what users need/want
- **CFD-\* entries (value hypotheses, from User Value Articulation) — Desired outcomes users are seeking
- **PRD.md Why section** — Problem framing and market signals

This skill assumes v0.1 Spark is complete (both problem and value).

## Produces

This skill creates/updates:

- **CFD-\* entries** (competitive intelligence) — Analysis of direct competitors, adjacent solutions, workarounds
- **BR-\* entries** (positioning rules) — Constraints derived from landscape analysis
- **Landscape map artifact** — Current behavior documentation, feature matrix, 1% better hypothesis

All CFD competitive intelligence entries should include:
- `confidence: 2-3/5` (based on evidence tier from public sources + user validation)
- Evidence source (G2 reviews, pricing pages, user interviews, etc.)
- Forward target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate gap with 5+ target users"

Example competitive intelligence entry:
```markdown
CFD-042: Competitive Intelligence — Competitor Landscape Analysis

Type: Competitive Intelligence
Date: 2026-02-01
Confidence: 3/5 (source: public-research + 3-customer-interviews)
Competitors Analyzed: 4 direct + 2 adjacent
Primary Gap: All competitors require enterprise licensing; SMB segment underserved

Feature Matrix: [Link to matrix]
1% Hypothesis: "SMB sales teams can get 80% of [Competitor A] features for 40% of price"
Evidence:
  - CFD-001: 3 SMB teams paying $500/mo but using only 5 of 20 features
  - CFD-015: Value hypothesis shows $12,500/year need for core 5 features only
Next Target: "Would move to 4/5 if we validate with 5+ SMB prospects willing to pay $200/mo"
```

## Workflow Overview

1. **Document current behavior** → What users do TODAY (before competitor search)
2. **Discover alternatives** → Direct, adjacent, workarounds, "do nothing"
3. **Analyze gaps** → Industry/geography gaps, underserved segments
4. **Compare features** → Build comparison matrix
5. **Form hypothesis** → 1% better hypothesis with evidence

## Core Output Template

| Element | Definition | Evidence |
|---------|------------|----------|
| **Current Behavior** | How users solve this today | Observed workflow |
| **Direct Competitors** | Products solving same problem | Revenue/funding proof |
| **Adjacent Solutions** | Products solving related problems | User overlap |
| **Workarounds** | DIY solutions (spreadsheets, manual) | Forum/reddit mentions |
| **Feature Matrix** | Side-by-side capability comparison | Product documentation |
| **Gap Analysis** | Where competition is weak | Reviews, complaints |
| **1% Hypothesis** | How we win | Evidence-anchored |

See `assets/landscape.md` for copy-paste template.

## Step 1: Document Current Behavior

**Before searching competitors**, document what target users do TODAY.

### Capture Format

```
Current Behavior: [What they do]
Tools Used: [Existing tools, if any]
Time Investment: [Hours/week on workaround]
Pain Points: [From v0.1 CFD-IDs]
```

### Why First?
- Prevents solution bias from competitor features
- Reveals workarounds competitors might miss
- Establishes true baseline for improvement claims

## Step 2: Competitor Discovery

### Discovery Categories

| Category | Definition | Search Strategy |
|----------|------------|-----------------|
| **Direct** | Same problem, same segment | "[problem] software" |
| **Adjacent** | Related problem, potential pivot | "[related workflow] tool" |
| **Workarounds** | DIY solutions | Reddit: "how I [task]" |
| **Do Nothing** | Accept status quo | Why hasn't this been solved? |

### Minimum Discovery Checklist
- [ ] 3+ direct competitors (or document why fewer exist)
- [ ] 2+ adjacent solutions
- [ ] 1+ workaround documented
- [ ] "Do nothing" cost quantified

### Create CFD Entry Per Competitor

```
CFD-###: Competitor — [Name]
Type: Competitive Intelligence
Source: [Website, G2, Crunchbase]
Date: YYYY-MM-DD

Overview: [1-2 sentences]
Target Segment: [Who they serve]
Pricing: [Model and range]
Revenue/Funding: [If available]
Key Differentiator: [Their claim]
Weakness Signals: [Reviews, complaints]
```

## Step 3: Gap Analysis

### Industry/Geography Gap Table

| Industry | Competitors Serving | Gap Level |
|----------|--------------------:|-----------|
| [Industry 1] | X of Y | None / Small / Large |
| [Industry 2] | X of Y | None / Small / Large |

### Segment Gap Table

| Segment | Served By | Underserved Signal |
|---------|-----------|-------------------|
| Enterprise | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
| Mid-Market | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
| SMB | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |
| Prosumer | [List] | [Signal or "Well served"] |

### Underserved Signals
- Tier 1: Users paying but complaining (G2 reviews)
- Tier 2: Users building workarounds (Reddit, forums)
- Tier 3: Users asking for solutions (community posts)
- Tier 4: No apparent demand (caution)

## Step 4: Feature Comparison Matrix

Build side-by-side comparison:

| Feature | Us (Planned) | Competitor A | Competitor B | Gap |
|---------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:|-----|
| [Feature 1] | ✅/❌/🔄 | ✅/❌ | ✅/❌ | [Our advantage] |
| [Feature 2] | ✅/❌/🔄 | ✅/❌ | ✅/❌ | [Our advantage] |

**Legend:** ✅ = Has | ❌ = Missing | 🔄 = Planned

### Matrix Requirements
- [ ] Include all "table stakes" features (what everyone has)
- [ ] Identify 1-3 differentiating features
- [ ] Note pricing tier where features unlock
- [ ] Flag features competitors are building (roadmap signals)

## Step 5: 1% Better Hypothesis

### Template

```
We can be 1% better than [Competitor X] by [specific i