[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M718A1KGQGCKEKFAAT991QDS":3,"skill-same:01M718A1KGQGCKEKFAAT991QDS":76},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":39,"linkOnly":40,"markdownContent":41,"markdownBody":42,"frontMatter":43,"refName":44,"commitSha":45,"skillDirectory":46,"forksCount":47,"repositoryHtmlUrl":48,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":49,"ownerBlogUrl":50,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":51,"install":52,"resources":65},"01M718A1KGQGCKEKFAAT991QDS","competitive-analysis",null,"Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on \"who are the competitors to X\", \"benchmark X against peers\", \"build a market map\", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.","anthropics\u002Ffinancial-services","anthropics","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F76263028?v=4","01M697XGDPXJAVQ8391V2BCYTE","Anthropic","01M7188Y8CSYMMZ40A4B4N518V",41249,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fagent-plugins\u002Fmarket-researcher\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetitive-analysis\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38],"competitive","competitive analysis","analysis","deck","competitor","for","dynamics","framework","competitors","investment","benchmark","request","across","review","when","positioning","map","assessment","landscape","deep","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: competitive-analysis\ndescription: Framework for building competitive landscape decks — market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, strategic synthesis. Use when the user asks for a competitive landscape, competitor analysis, peer comparison, market positioning assessment, strategic review, or investment memo deck. Also triggers on \"who are the competitors to X\", \"benchmark X against peers\", \"build a market map\", or any request to systematically evaluate competitive dynamics across an industry.\n---\n\n# Competitive Landscape Mapping\n\nBuild a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.\n\n## Environment check\n\nThis skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:\n\n- **Add-in** — the deck is open live; build slides directly into it.\n- **Chat** — generate a `.pptx` file (or build into one the user uploaded).\n\nEverything below applies in both.\n\n## Phase 1 — Scope the analysis\n\nCompetitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, use `ask_user_question` to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both \"competitive analysis\" and take completely different shapes.\n\nGather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):\n\n- **Scope** — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?\n- **Competitor set** — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say \"the usual suspects,\" propose a set and confirm.\n- **Audience and depth** — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.\n- **Investment context** — Do they need bull\u002Fbase\u002Fbear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.\n\nIf they've uploaded an Excel\u002FCSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.\n\n## Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build\n\n**Do not create slides until the outline is approved.** Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.\n\nWhen proposing the outline, `ask_user_question` works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix \u002F radar \u002F tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model \u002F segment \u002F posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.\n\n---\n\n## Standards — apply throughout\n\n### Prompt fidelity\n\nWhen the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:\n- **Slide titles and section names** — exact wording. If they say \"Overview and Competitive Scope,\" don't swap in \"FY2024 Competitive Landscape.\"\n- **Chart vs. table** — not interchangeable. \"Embedded chart\" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars\u002Fslices, not a formatted table.\n- **Complete data series** — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.\n- **Exact values and ratios** — \"surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1\" means those ratios, not \"7.6x Lyft.\"\n\n### Source quality, when sources conflict\n\n1. 10-Ks \u002F annual reports (audited)\n2. Earnings calls \u002F investor presentations (management commentary)\n3. Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing)\n4. Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends)\n5. News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)\n\n### Data comparability\n\n- All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly (\"FY24\" vs \"H1 2024\")\n- Same metric definitions across competitors\n- Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date\n- Missing data shows as \"-\" or \"N\u002FA\" with an \"[E]\" flag for estimates — never blank\n- Every number has a citation: \"[Company] [Document] ([Date])\"\n\n### Design\n\n- **Slide titles are insights, not labels.** \"Scale leaders pulling away from niche players\" — not \"Competitive Analysis.\"\n- **Signposts are quantified.** \"Margin below 40%\" — not \"margins decline.\"\n- **Ratings show the actual.** \"●●● $160B\" — not just \"●●●.\"\n- **Charts are real chart objects** — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.\n\n**Typography** — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:\n- Slide titles: 28-32pt bold\n- Section headers: 18-20pt bold\n- Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)\n- Table text: 14pt\n- Sources\u002Ffootnotes: 14pt, gray\n- Same element type = same size throughout the deck\n\n**Charts:**\n- Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area\n- Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line\u002Fbar (≤4 series)\n- More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table\n- Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend\n\n**Tables:**\n- Light gray header row, bold\n- Right-align numbers, left-align text\n- Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders\n\n**Color:** 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.\n\n### What's strict vs. flexible\n\n| Always | Case-by-case |\n|---|---|\n| Exact titles\u002Fsections when user specifies | Creative titles when they don't |\n| Chart when user says chart; table when they say table | Visualization type when unspecified |\n| Every competitor\u002Fdata point they list | Number of competitors when unspecified |\n| Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified |\n| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |\n| No overlapping elements | Which dimensions to compare |\n\n---\n\n## Analysis workflow\n\n### Step 0 — Industry-defining metrics\n\nBefore anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.\n\n| Industry | Key metrics |\n|---|---|\n| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV\u002FCAC, Rule of 40 |\n| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |\n| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer\u002Fseller ratio, repeat rate |\n| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |\n| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |\n\nIndustry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.\n\n### Step 1 — Market context\n\nSize, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.\n\nCorrect: \"Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)\"\nWrong: \"The market is large and growing rapidly\"\n\n### Step 2 — Industry economics\n\nMap how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:\n- **Vertically structured** — value chain layers, typical margin at each\n- **Platform\u002Fnetwork** — ecosystem participants, value flows between them\n- **Fragmented** — consolidation dynamics, margin differences by scale\n\n### Step 3 — Target company profile\n\n```\n| Metric | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Revenue | $4.96B |\n| Growth | +26% YoY |\n| Gross Margin | 45% |\n| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |\n| Customers | 134K |\n| Retention | 92% |\n| Market Share | ~15% |\n```\n\nMulti-segment companies add a breakdown:\n\n```\n| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |\n| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |\n| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |\n| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |\n```\n*Note corporate costs if applicable\n\n### Step 4 — Competitor mapping\n\nGroup by whichever lens fits (this is a good `ask_user_question` decision if the user hasn't specified):\n- By business model — platform \u002F vertical \u002F horizontal\n- By segment — enterprise \u002F SMB \u002F consumer\n- By posture — direct \u002F adjacent \u002F emerging\n- By origin — incumbent \u002F disruptor \u002F new entrant\n\n### Step 5 — Positioning visualization\n\n| Type | When |\n|---|---|\n| 2×2 matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |\n| Radar\u002Fspider | Multi-factor comparison |\n| Tier diagram | Natural clustering into strategic groups |\n| Value chain map | Vertical industries |\n| Ecosystem map | Platform markets |\n\nSee `references\u002Fframeworks.md` for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.\n\n### Step 6 — Competitor deep-dives\n\nTwo tables per competitor.\n\n**Metrics:**\n```\n| Metric | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Revenue | $X.XB |\n| Growth | +XX% YoY |\n| Gross Margin | XX% |\n| Market Cap | $X.XB |\n| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |\n| Customers | XXK |\n| Retention | XX% |\n| Market Share | ~XX% |\n```\n\n**Qualitative:**\n```\n| Category | Assessment |\n|---|---|\n| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |\n| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |\n| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |\n| Strategy | Current priorities |\n```\n\n### Step 7 — Comparative analysis\n\n```\n| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |\n| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |\n| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |\n```\n\n### Step 8 — Strategic context\n\nM&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See `references\u002Fschemas.md` for the M&A transaction table format.\n\n### Step 9 — Synthesis\n\n**Moat assessment** — rate each competitor Strong \u002F Moderate \u002F Weak on:\n\n| Moat | What to assess |\n|---|---|\n| Network effects | User\u002Fsupplier flywheel strength; cross-side vs same-side |\n| Switching costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |\n| Scale economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |\n| Intangible assets | Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |\n\n**Required synthesis elements:**\n- Durable advantages (hard to replicate) — map to moat categories\n- Structural vulnerabilities (hard to fix)\n- Current state vs. trajectory\n\n**For investment contexts** (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):\n\n```\n| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |\n|---|---|---|\n| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |\n| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |\n| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |\n```\n\n---\n\n## Quality checklist\n\nBefore finishing:\n\n**Prompt fidelity**\n- Slide titles match what the user specified, verbatim\n- Charts where they said chart; tables where they said table\n- Every competitor\u002Fyear\u002Fdata point they listed is present\n- Exact values and formats as specified\n\n**Data consistency**\n- Source-file values extracted directly, not recalculated\n- Same metric shows the same value on every slide it appears\n- Same decimal precision as the source\n\n**Layout**\n- Titles fit without overflow\n- No overlapping elements\n- All text within containers, no clipping\n\n**Content**\n- Every number has a citation\n- All metrics from the same fiscal period (or flagged)\n- Slide titles state insights, not topics\n- Charts are real chart objects\n\nRun standard visual verification checks on every slide — this catches overlaps, overflow, and low-contrast text that don't show up when you're reading back the XML.\n","# Competitive Landscape Mapping\n\nBuild a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.\n\n## Environment check\n\nThis skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:\n\n- **Add-in** — the deck is open live; build slides directly into it.\n- **Chat** — generate a `.pptx` file (or build into one the user uploaded).\n\nEverything below applies in both.\n\n## Phase 1 — Scope the analysis\n\nCompetitive analysis means different things to different people. Before any research or slide-building, use `ask_user_question` to pin down what they actually want. Don't guess — a 20-slide peer benchmarking deck and a 5-slide market map are both \"competitive analysis\" and take completely different shapes.\n\nGather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):\n\n- **Scope** — Single target company with competitors around it? Or multi-company side-by-side with no protagonist?\n- **Competitor set** — Which companies are in scope? If the user names them, use exactly those. If they say \"the usual suspects,\" propose a set and confirm.\n- **Audience and depth** — Quick read for someone already in the space, or a full primer? This drives whether you need market sizing, industry economics, and history — or can skip to the comparison.\n- **Investment context** — Do they need bull\u002Fbase\u002Fbear scenarios and signposts? That's Step 9 below; skip it if this is a strategic review rather than an investment thesis.\n\nIf they've uploaded an Excel\u002FCSV with competitor data, confirm which columns map to which metrics before you start pulling numbers. Source-file fidelity matters: use values exactly as given, don't recalculate or re-round.\n\n## Phase 2 — Outline, approve, then build\n\n**Do not create slides until the outline is approved.** Propose slide titles and one-line content notes, present them to the user, get a yes. A competitive deck is 10-20 slides of interlocking content — rebuilding because slide 4 was wrong is expensive. The outline is the cheap iteration point.\n\nWhen proposing the outline, `ask_user_question` works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix \u002F radar \u002F tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model \u002F segment \u002F posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.\n\n---\n\n## Standards — apply throughout\n\n### Prompt fidelity\n\nWhen the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:\n- **Slide titles and section names** — exact wording. If they say \"Overview and Competitive Scope,\" don't swap in \"FY2024 Competitive Landscape.\"\n- **Chart vs. table** — not interchangeable. \"Embedded chart\" means a real chart object with data labels on the bars\u002Fslices, not a formatted table.\n- **Complete data series** — if they list 7 competitors, include all 7. If they show 2015-2025, include every year.\n- **Exact values and ratios** — \"surpasses DoorDash 4:1, Lyft 8:1\" means those ratios, not \"7.6x Lyft.\"\n\n### Source quality, when sources conflict\n\n1. 10-Ks \u002F annual reports (audited)\n2. Earnings calls \u002F investor presentations (management commentary)\n3. Sell-side research (analyst estimates, useful for private company sizing)\n4. Industry reports (McKinsey, Gartner — market sizing, trends)\n5. News (recent developments only; verify against primary sources)\n\n### Data comparability\n\n- All competitor metrics from the same fiscal year; flag exceptions explicitly (\"FY24\" vs \"H1 2024\")\n- Same metric definitions across competitors\n- Convert to USD for international; note the exchange rate and date\n- Missing data shows as \"-\" or \"N\u002FA\" with an \"[E]\" flag for estimates — never blank\n- Every number has a citation: \"[Company] [Document] ([Date])\"\n\n### Design\n\n- **Slide titles are insights, not labels.** \"Scale leaders pulling away from niche players\" — not \"Competitive Analysis.\"\n- **Signposts are quantified.** \"Margin below 40%\" — not \"margins decline.\"\n- **Ratings show the actual.** \"●●● $160B\" — not just \"●●●.\"\n- **Charts are real chart objects** — not text tables dressed up to look like charts.\n\n**Typography** — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:\n- Slide titles: 28-32pt bold\n- Section headers: 18-20pt bold\n- Body text: 14-16pt (never below 14pt)\n- Table text: 14pt\n- Sources\u002Ffootnotes: 14pt, gray\n- Same element type = same size throughout the deck\n\n**Charts:**\n- Legend inside the chart boundary, not floating over the plot area\n- Right-side legend for pies (≤6 slices), bottom legend for line\u002Fbar (≤4 series)\n- More than 6 series → split into multiple charts or use a table\n- Pie charts show percentages on slices, not just in the legend\n\n**Tables:**\n- Light gray header row, bold\n- Right-align numbers, left-align text\n- Enough cell padding that text doesn't touch borders\n\n**Color:** 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.\n\n### What's strict vs. flexible\n\n| Always | Case-by-case |\n|---|---|\n| Exact titles\u002Fsections when user specifies | Creative titles when they don't |\n| Chart when user says chart; table when they say table | Visualization type when unspecified |\n| Every competitor\u002Fdata point they list | Number of competitors when unspecified |\n| Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified |\n| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |\n| No overlapping elements | Which dimensions to compare |\n\n---\n\n## Analysis workflow\n\n### Step 0 — Industry-defining metrics\n\nBefore anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.\n\n| Industry | Key metrics |\n|---|---|\n| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV\u002FCAC, Rule of 40 |\n| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |\n| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer\u002Fseller ratio, repeat rate |\n| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |\n| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |\n\nIndustry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.\n\n### Step 1 — Market context\n\nSize, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.\n\nCorrect: \"Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)\"\nWrong: \"The market is large and growing rapidly\"\n\n### Step 2 — Industry economics\n\nMap how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:\n- **Vertically structured** — value chain layers, typical margin at each\n- **Platform\u002Fnetwork** — ecosystem participants, value flows between them\n- **Fragmented** — consolidation dynamics, margin differences by scale\n\n### Step 3 — Target company profile\n\n```\n| Metric | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Revenue | $4.96B |\n| Growth | +26% YoY |\n| Gross Margin | 45% |\n| Profitability | $373M Adj. EBITDA |\n| Customers | 134K |\n| Retention | 92% |\n| Market Share | ~15% |\n```\n\nMulti-segment companies add a breakdown:\n\n```\n| Segment | Revenue | Rev YoY | Rev % | EBITDA | EBITDA YoY | Margin |\n|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Seg A | $25.1B | +26% | 57% | $6.5B | +31% | 26% |\n| Seg B | $13.8B | +31% | 31% | $2.5B | +64% | 18% |\n| Seg C | $5.1B | -2% | 12% | -$74M | -16% | -1% |\n| Total | $44.0B | +18% | 100% | $6.5B* | - | 15% |\n```\n*Note corporate costs if applicable\n\n### Step 4 — Competitor mapping\n\nGroup by whichever lens fits (this is a good `ask_user_question` decision if the user hasn't specified):\n- By business model — platform \u002F vertical \u002F horizontal\n- By segment — enterprise \u002F SMB \u002F consumer\n- By posture — direct \u002F adjacent \u002F emerging\n- By origin — incumbent \u002F disruptor \u002F new entrant\n\n### Step 5 — Positioning visualization\n\n| Type | When |\n|---|---|\n| 2×2 matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |\n| Radar\u002Fspider | Multi-factor comparison |\n| Tier diagram | Natural clustering into strategic groups |\n| Value chain map | Vertical industries |\n| Ecosystem map | Platform markets |\n\nSee `references\u002Fframeworks.md` for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.\n\n### Step 6 — Competitor deep-dives\n\nTwo tables per competitor.\n\n**Metrics:**\n```\n| Metric | Value |\n|---|---|\n| Revenue | $X.XB |\n| Growth | +XX% YoY |\n| Gross Margin | XX% |\n| Market Cap | $X.XB |\n| Profitability | $XXXM EBITDA |\n| Customers | XXK |\n| Retention | XX% |\n| Market Share | ~XX% |\n```\n\n**Qualitative:**\n```\n| Category | Assessment |\n|---|---|\n| Business | What they do (1 sentence) |\n| Strengths | 2-3 bullets |\n| Weaknesses | 2-3 bullets |\n| Strategy | Current priorities |\n```\n\n### Step 7 — Comparative analysis\n\n```\n| Dimension | Company A | Company B | Company C |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Scale | ●●● $160B | ●●○ $45B | ●○○ $8B |\n| Growth | ●●○ +26% | ●●● +35% | ●●○ +22% |\n| Margins | ●●○ 7.5% | ●○○ 3.2% | ●●● 15% |\n```\n\n### Step 8 — Strategic context\n\nM&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See `references\u002Fschemas.md` for the M&A transaction table format.\n\n### Step 9 — Synthesis\n\n**Moat assessment** — rate each competitor Strong \u002F Moderate \u002F Weak on:\n\n| Moat | What to assess |\n|---|---|\n| Network effects | User\u002Fsupplier flywheel strength; cross-side vs same-side |\n| Switching costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |\n| Scale economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |\n| Intangible assets | Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |\n\n**Required synthesis elements:**\n- Durable advantages (hard to replicate) — map to moat categories\n- Structural vulnerabilities (hard to fix)\n- Current state vs. trajectory\n\n**For investment contexts** (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):\n\n```\n| Scenario | Probability | Key driver |\n|---|---|---|\n| Bull | 30% | Market share gains, margin expansion |\n| Base | 50% | Current trajectory continues |\n| Bear | 20% | Competitive pressure, margin compression |\n```\n\n---\n\n## Quality checklist\n\nBefore finishing:\n\n**Prompt fidelity**\n- Slide titles match what the user specified, verbatim\n- Charts where they said chart; tables where they said table\n- Every competitor\u002Fyear\u002Fdata point they listed is present\n- Exact values and formats as specified\n\n**Data consistency**\n- Source-file values extracted directly, not recalculated\n- Same metric shows the same value on every slide it appears\n- Same decimal precision as the source\n\n**Layout**\n- Titles fit without overflow\n- No overlapping elements\n- All text within containers, no clipping\n\n**Content**\n- Every number has a citation\n- All metrics from the same fiscal period (or flagged)\n- Slide titles state insights, not topics\n- Charts are real chart objects\n\nRun standard visual verification checks on every slide — this catches overlaps, overflow, and low-contrast text that don't show up when you're reading back the XML.\n",{"name":5,"description":7},"main","60565064557ca77b12f62aa7877f365d111c129d","plugins\u002Fagent-plugins\u002Fmarket-researcher\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetitive-analysis",5750,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics","https:\u002F\u002Fanthropic.com","2026-11-13 03:13:59",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":53,"prompt":63,"zipAvailable":64},[54,57,60],{"tool":55,"command":56},"npx","npx skills add anthropics\u002Ffinancial-services --skill competitive-analysis",{"tool":58,"command":59},"bunx","bunx skills add anthropics\u002Ffinancial-services --skill competitive-analysis",{"tool":61,"command":62},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add anthropics\u002Ffinancial-services --skill competitive-analysis","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fagent-plugins\u002Fmarket-researcher\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetitive-analysis\u002FSKILL.md",true,[66,72],{"path":67,"resourceType":68,"resourceTypeDesc":69,"sizeBytes":70,"sourceHtmlUrl":71},"references\u002Fframeworks.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",492,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fagent-plugins\u002Fmarket-researcher\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetitive-analysis\u002Freferences\u002Fframeworks.md",{"path":73,"resourceType":68,"resourceTypeDesc":69,"sizeBytes":74,"sourceHtmlUrl":75},"references\u002Fschemas.md",1790,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fagent-plugins\u002Fmarket-researcher\u002Fskills\u002Fcompetitive-analysis\u002Freferences\u002Fschemas.md",[77,103,125,146,174,191],{"skillNo":78,"name":79,"nameZh":6,"description":80,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":81,"categories":82,"keywords":83,"publishedAt":39},"01M718K18RVV0Z7T7JR4DDYCR9","value-creation-plan","Structure post-acquisition value creation plans with revenue, cost, and operational levers mapped to an EBITDA bridge. Includes 100-day priorities, KPI targets, and accountability frameworks. Use when planning post-close execution, preparing operating partner materials, or building a board-ready value creation roadmap. Triggers on \"value creation plan\", \"100-day plan\", \"post-close plan\", \"EBITDA bridge\", \"operating plan\", or \"value creation levers\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fprivate-equity\u002Fskills\u002Fvalue-creation-plan\u002FSKILL.md",[],[84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,33,99,100,101,102],"value","creation","value creation plan","plan","operating","ready","bridge","planning","frameworks","kpi","triggers","execution","plans","use","roadmap","materials","with","cost","acquisition",{"skillNo":104,"name":105,"nameZh":6,"description":106,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":107,"categories":108,"keywords":109,"publishedAt":39},"01M718JXVXRBT0736V7KDW3EHC","unit-economics","Analyze unit economics for PE targets — ARR cohorts, LTV\u002FCAC, net retention, payback periods, revenue quality, and margin waterfall. Essential for software\u002FSaaS, recurring revenue, and subscription businesses. Use when evaluating revenue quality, building a cohort analysis, or assessing customer economics. Triggers on \"unit economics\", \"cohort analysis\", \"ARR analysis\", \"LTV CAC\", \"net retention\", \"revenue quality\", or \"customer economics\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fprivate-equity\u002Fskills\u002Funit-economics\u002FSKILL.md",[],[110,111,112,113,114,115,24,116,94,117,97,33,118,21,119,120,121,122,123,124],"unit","economics","unit economics","cohort analysis","recurring","essential","retention","recurring revenue","saas","analyze","targets","arr","customer","revenue","cohort",{"skillNo":126,"name":127,"nameZh":6,"description":128,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":129,"categories":130,"keywords":131,"publishedAt":39},"01M718JV1463SCF8XND52PRN03","returns-analysis","Build quick IRR\u002FMOIC sensitivity tables for PE deal evaluation. Models returns across entry multiple, leverage, exit multiple, growth, and hold period scenarios. Use when sizing up a deal, stress-testing assumptions, or preparing IC returns exhibits. Triggers on \"returns analysis\", \"IRR sensitivity\", \"MOIC table\", \"what's the return at\", \"model the returns\", or \"back of the envelope\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fprivate-equity\u002Fskills\u002Freturns-analysis\u002FSKILL.md",[],[132,21,133,134,135,136,137,24,138,139,140,94,141,97,33,142,31,143,144,145],"returns analysis","returns","back","leverage","quick","model","sensitivity","testing","up","exit","growth","deal","build","models",{"skillNo":147,"name":148,"nameZh":6,"description":149,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":150,"categories":151,"keywords":160,"publishedAt":39},"01M718JRJYHENXRTAS2WES2J4E","portfolio-monitoring","Track and analyze portfolio company performance against plan. Ingests monthly\u002Fquarterly financial packages (Excel, PDF), extracts KPIs, flags variances to budget, and produces summary dashboards. Use when reviewing portfolio company financials, preparing board materials, or monitoring covenant compliance. Triggers on \"review portfolio company\", \"monthly financials\", \"how is [company] performing\", \"covenant check\", or \"portfolio update\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fprivate-equity\u002Fskills\u002Fportfolio-monitoring\u002FSKILL.md",[152,157],{"categoryNo":153,"categoryName":154,"taxonomyType":155,"taxonomyTypeDesc":156},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000002","文档处理","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":158,"categoryName":159,"taxonomyType":155,"taxonomyTypeDesc":156},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000004","电子表格",[161,162,163,164,165,166,167,168,94,97,33,32,169,119,99,170,171,87,172,173],"portfolio monitoring","monitoring","portfolio","financials","PDF","xlsx","performance","company","check","packages","track","covenant","how",{"skillNo":175,"name":176,"nameZh":6,"description":177,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":178,"categories":179,"keywords":180,"publishedAt":39},"01M718JPCC86RSTX0ZH4XK26J7","ic-memo","Draft a structured investment committee memo for PE deal approval. Synthesizes due diligence findings, financial analysis, and deal terms into a professional IC-ready document. Use when preparing for investment committee, writing up a deal, or creating a formal recommendation. Triggers on \"write IC memo\", \"investment committee memo\", \"deal write-up\", \"prepare IC materials\", or \"recommendation memo\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fprivate-equity\u002Fskills\u002Fic-memo\u002FSKILL.md",[],[181,182,183,89,184,24,185,140,94,186,97,187,33,21,99,188,143,189,190,28],"ic memo","memo","recommendation memo","professional","recommendation","writing","document","draft","write","financial analysis",{"skillNo":192,"name":193,"nameZh":6,"description":194,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":195,"categories":196,"keywords":200,"publishedAt":39},"01M718JK2B01WZQPFHVHKY25PD","deal-sourcing","PE deal sourcing workflow — discover target companies, check CRM for existing relationships, and draft personalized founder outreach emails. Use when sourcing new deals, prospecting companies in a sector, or reaching out to founders. Triggers on \"find companies\", \"source deals\", \"draft founder email\", \"check if we've seen this company\", or \"outreach to founder\".","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fprivate-equity\u002Fskills\u002Fdeal-sourcing\u002FSKILL.md",[197],{"categoryNo":198,"categoryName":199,"taxonomyType":155,"taxonomyTypeDesc":156},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000005","邮件与沟通",[201,202,143,203,204,205,24,168,94,206,207,208,97,209,33,210,211,169,188,212],"sourcing","deal sourcing","target","discover","email","emails","prospecting","new","Existing","workflow","founders","find"]