Approach and advantage
The same comparison structure is applied to each competitor. Keeping claims next to their evidence makes a pricing advantage, missing feature or customer complaint easier to question and update when the source changes.
IntermediateAgent Skill
Competitive Teardown
Build a competitor analysis that connects product features, pricing, customer complaints and buying experience. Competitive Teardown uses the evidence you collect to create comparison scorecards and a decision brief, helping ecommerce or merchant-software teams identify meaningful differences and decide which gaps deserve action.
- Views
- 0
- Copies
- 0
- Favorites
- 0
- Editorial Score
- 78/100
What this Skill does
Start with two to four relevant competitors and dated evidence about their products, pricing and customer experience. The Skill structures a comparison across its documented dimensions, then develops pricing observations, strengths and weaknesses, and opportunities for the team to investigate.
A Python helper can build a matrix from supplied JSON. Your team still collects the source evidence and agrees on the scoring scale; the useful output is the reason behind a difference, not merely the largest total.
What makes it different
What you can use it for
Use it for positioning reviews, feature planning or a competitor-pricing discussion. Stakeholder templates help turn the matrix into a brief explaining which differences matter to the target customer and what the team should investigate next.
Before you install
Inputs to prepare
Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Agent and runtime
Use a Skill-capable agent with file access. Python 3 is required for the bundled Python helpers; inspect their sample schemas before supplying data.
Scope to confirm
The helper does not collect competitor data. Its configurable numeric matrix is distinct from the document’s 1–5 rubric; align scales before comparing totals.
Install and get started
Copy this request into Codex or Claude Code. The assistant downloads the original repository at the specified commit, installs the complete files and checks required dependencies.
- Open Codex or Claude Code with local file and terminal access.
- Copy the request below into the app you are using. The assistant will select that app’s installation directory.
- Check the returned path and file checks. Start a new session if needed, then ask the assistant to use the installed Skill.
Install competitive-teardown in the app I am using and carry out the file installation, not just explain it.
Original repository: https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git
Commit: 6d2f02ea077eead1bee5411a31bcc6db5a11a70c
Skill folder: product-team/skills/competitive-teardown
1. Download this exact source into a new directory. Read SKILL.md and its setup references before running any bundled scripts. Do not substitute another author’s package.
2. For Codex, use ~/.agents/skills/competitive-teardown; for Claude Code, use ~/.claude/skills/competitive-teardown. Install only for my current app. Install the complete Skill folder, including scripts, references, assets and bundled notices. Keep any root license with the installed folder. Check all destination folders first; if any already exist, report differences before replacing them.
3. Compare the source and installed file lists and hashes. Inspect documented runtimes, dependencies and required connections. Configure only the local dependencies needed for this Skill; use an isolated environment when appropriate. Ask me to complete any account login locally, without putting credentials in chat.
4. Report the source commit, actual installation path, file-check results and any remaining runtime setup. Explain how to invoke competitive-teardown in this app. Check discovery separately from file copying; start a new session if needed. Do not run production tasks or claim a successful business outcome from installation alone.Original Skill.md
This is the unchanged source SKILL.md for the reviewed version. Install the complete package to retain referenced scripts, assets, and instructions. Starter prompts below are EcomAgentTools examples.
---
name: "competitive-teardown"
description: "Analyzes competitor products and companies by synthesizing data from pricing pages, app store reviews, job postings, SEO signals, and social media into structured competitive intelligence. Produces feature comparison matrices scored across 12 dimensions, SWOT analyses, positioning maps, UX audits, pricing model breakdowns, action item roadmaps, and stakeholder presentation templates. Use when conducting competitor analysis, comparing products against competitors, researching the competitive landscape, building battle cards for sales, preparing for a product strategy or roadmap session, responding to a competitor's new feature or pricing change, or performing a quarterly competitive review."
---
# Competitive Teardown
**Tier:** POWERFUL
**Category:** Product Team
**Domain:** Competitive Intelligence, Product Strategy, Market Analysis
---
## When to Use
- Before a product strategy or roadmap session
- When a competitor launches a major feature or pricing change
- Quarterly competitive review
- Before a sales pitch where you need battle card data
- When entering a new market segment
---
## Teardown Workflow
Follow these steps in sequence to produce a complete teardown:
1. **Define competitors** — List 2–4 competitors to analyze. Confirm which is the primary focus.
2. **Collect data** — Use `references/data-collection-guide.md` to gather raw signals from at least 3 sources per competitor (website, reviews, job postings, SEO, social).
_Validation checkpoint: Before proceeding, confirm you have pricing data, at least 20 reviews, and job posting counts for each competitor._
3. **Score using rubric** — Apply the 12-dimension rubric below to produce a numeric scorecard for each competitor and your own product.
_Validation checkpoint: Every dimension should have a score and at least one supporting evidence note._
4. **Generate outputs** — Populate the templates in `references/analysis-templates.md` (Feature Matrix, Pricing Analysis, SWOT, Positioning Map, UX Audit).
5. **Build action plan** — Translate findings into the Action Items template (quick wins / medium-term / strategic).
6. **Package for stakeholders** — Assemble the Stakeholder Presentation using outputs from steps 3–5.
---
## Data Collection Guide
> Full executable scripts for each source are in `references/data-collection-guide.md`. Summaries of what to capture are below.
### 1. Website Analysis
Key things to capture:
- Pricing tiers and price points
- Feature lists per tier
- Primary CTA and messaging
- Case studies / customer logos (signals ICP)
- Integration logos
- Trust signals (certifications, compliance badges)
### 2. App Store Reviews
Review sentiment categories:
- **Praise** → what users love (defend / strengthen these)
- **Feature requests** → unmet needs (opportunity gaps)
- **Bugs** → quality signals
- **UX complaints** → friction points you can beat them on
**Sample App Store query (iTunes Search API):**
```
GET https://itunes.apple.com/search?term=<competitor_name>&entity=software&limit=1
# Extract trackId, then:
GET https://itunes.apple.com/rss/customerreviews/id=<trackId>/sortBy=mostRecent/json?l=en&limit=50
```
Parse `entry[].content.label` for review text and `entry[].im:rating.label` for star rating.
### 3. Job Postings (Team Size & Tech Stack Signals)
Signals from job postings:
- **Engineering volume** → scaling vs. consolidating
- **Specific tech mentions** → stack (React/Vue, Postgres/Mongo, AWS/GCP)
- **Sales/CS ratio** → product-led vs. sales-led motion
- **Data/ML roles** → upcoming AI features
- **Compliance roles** → regulatory expansion
### 4. SEO Analysis
SEO signals to capture:
- Top 20 organic keywords (intent: informational / navigational / commercial)
- Domain Authority / backlink count
- Blog publishing cadence and topics
- Which pages rank (product pages vs. blog vs. docs)
### 5. Social Media Sentiment
Capture recent mentions via Twitter/X API v2, Reddit, or LinkedIn. Look for recurring praise, complaints, and feature requests. See `references/data-collection-guide.md` for API query examples.
---
## Scoring Rubric (12 Dimensions, 1-5)
| # | Dimension | 1 (Weak) | 3 (Average) | 5 (Best-in-class) |
|---|-----------|----------|-------------|-------------------|
| 1 | **Features** | Core only, many gaps | Solid coverage | Comprehensive + unique |
| 2 | **Pricing** | Confusing / overpriced | Market-rate, clear | Transparent, flexible, fair |
| 3 | **UX** | Confusing, high friction | Functional | Delightful, minimal friction |
| 4 | **Performance** | Slow, unreliable | Acceptable | Fast, high uptime |
| 5 | **Docs** | Sparse, outdated | Decent coverage | Comprehensive, searchable |
| 6 | **Support** | Email only, slow | Chat + email | 24/7, great response |
| 7 | **Integrations** | 0-5 integrations | 6-25 | 26+ or deep ecosystem |
| 8 | **Security** | No mentions | SOC2 claimed | SOC2 Type II, ISO 27001 |
| 9 | **Scalability** | No enterprise tier | Mid-market ready | Enterprise-grade |
| 10 | **Brand** | Generic, unmemorable | Decent positioning | Strong, differentiated |
| 11 | **Community** | None | Forum / Slack | Active, vibrant community |
| 12 | **Innovation** | No recent releases | Quarterly | Frequent, meaningful |
**Example completed row** (Competitor: Acme Corp, Dimension 3 – UX):
| Dimension | Acme Corp Score | Evidence |
|-----------|----------------|---------|
| UX | 2 | App Store reviews cite "confusing navigation" (38 mentions); onboarding requires 7 steps before TTFV; no onboarding wizard; CC required at signup. |
Apply this pattern to all 12 dimensions for each competitor.
---
## Templates
> Full template markdown is in `references/analysis-templates.md`. Abbreviated reference below.
### Feature Comparison Matrix
Rows: core features, pricing tiers, platform capabilities (web, iOS, Android, API).
Columns: your product + up to 3 competitors.
Score each cell 1–5. Sum to get total out of 60.
**Score legend:** 5=Best-in-class, 4=Strong, 3=Average, 2=Below average, 1=Weak/Missing
### Pricing Analysis
Capture per competitor: model type (per-seat / usage-based / flat rate / freemium), entry/mid/enterprise price points, free trial length.
Summarize: price leader, value leader, premium positioning, your position, and 2–3 pricing opportunity bullets.
### SWOT Analysis
For each competitor: 3–5 bullets per quadrant (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities for us, Threats to us). Anchor every bullet to a data signal (review quote, job posting count, pricing page, etc.).
### Positioning Map
2x2 axes (e.g., Simple ↔ Complex / Low Value ↔ High Value). Place each competitor and your product. Bubble size = market share or funding. See `references/analysis-templates.md` for ASCII and editable versions.
### UX Audit Checklist
Onboarding: TTFV (minutes), steps to activation, CC-required, onboarding wizard quality.
Key workflows: steps, friction points, comparative score (yours vs. theirs).
Mobile: iOS/Android ratings, feature parity, top complaint and praise.
Navigation: global search, keyboard shortcuts, in-app help.
### Action Items
| Horizon | Effort | Examples |
|---------|--------|---------|
| Quick wins (0–4 wks) | Low | Add review badges, publish comparison landing page |
| Medium-term (1–3 mo) | Moderate | Launch free tier, improve onboarding TTFV, add top-requested integration |
| Strategic (3–12 mo) | High | Enter new market, build API v2, achieve SOC2 Type II |
### Stakeholder Presentation (7 slides)
1. **Executive Summary** — Threat level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), top strength, top opportunity, recommended action
2. **Market Position** — 2x2 positioning map
3. **Feature Scorecard** — 12-dimension radar or table, total scores
4. **Pricing Analysis** — Comparison table + key insight
5. **UX Highlights** — What they do better (3 bullets) vs. where we win (3 bullets)
6. **Voice of Customer** — Top 3 review complaints (quoted or paraphrased)
7. **Our Action Plan** — Quick wins, medium-term, strategic priorities; Appendix with raw data
## Related Skills
- **Product Strategist** (`product-team/product-strategist/`) — Competitive insights feed OKR and strategy planning
- **Landing Page Generator** (`product-team/landing-page-generator/`) — Competitive positioning informs landing page messaging
Get started
Starter prompts for the main use cases—copy and use them directly.
01Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard
Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard Use for: Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard. Prepare: Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Show prompt and variablesHide prompt and variables
Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard
Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard Use for: Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard. Prepare: Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Use the installed competitive-teardown Skill. Task: Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard. Inputs: [INPUT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Check missing information first. Produce a reviewable result with evidence, assumptions, and next steps. The helper does not collect competitor data. Its configurable numeric matrix is distinct from the document’s 1–5 rubric; align scales before comparing totals.Replace these variables
[INPUT]- Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
[CONSTRAINTS]- Scope, allowed actions, output format, and review requirements.
02Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs
Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs Use for: Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs. Prepare: Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Show prompt and variablesHide prompt and variables
Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs
Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs Use for: Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs. Prepare: Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Use the installed competitive-teardown Skill. Task: Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs. Inputs: [INPUT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Check missing information first. Produce a reviewable result with evidence, assumptions, and next steps. The helper does not collect competitor data. Its configurable numeric matrix is distinct from the document’s 1–5 rubric; align scales before comparing totals.Replace these variables
[INPUT]- Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
[CONSTRAINTS]- Scope, allowed actions, output format, and review requirements.
03Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan
Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan Use for: Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan. Prepare: Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Show prompt and variablesHide prompt and variables
Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan
Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan Use for: Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan. Prepare: Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
Use the installed competitive-teardown Skill. Task: Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan. Inputs: [INPUT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Check missing information first. Produce a reviewable result with evidence, assumptions, and next steps. The helper does not collect competitor data. Its configurable numeric matrix is distinct from the document’s 1–5 rubric; align scales before comparing totals.Replace these variables
[INPUT]- Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions.
[CONSTRAINTS]- Scope, allowed actions, output format, and review requirements.
Worked example: Build an evidence-linked comparison of two competitors
Synthetic pages, reviews and job-posting clues for HarborMug, TideCup and PeakSip support a comparison of pricing, checkout, care information and service rather than feature counts alone.
Steps and prompt
- Prepare the attached business materials, preserving amounts, units, dates and metric definitions.
- Compare our offer with the two competitors in the supplied research pack. Build a 12-dimension scorecard using a consistent 1–5 scale, support each rating with evidence, and calculate competitor averages without including our own score. Recommend a credible positioning gap, prepare SWOT and specify three product or merchandising actions.
- Submit the exact prompt below. Read the primary deliverable on the right and download all deliverables for the team handoff.
Case input files: business-inputs.zip
Use the competitive-teardown Skill.
Compare our offer with the two competitors in the supplied research pack. Build a 12-dimension scorecard using a consistent 1–5 scale, support each rating with evidence, and calculate competitor averages without including our own score. Recommend a credible positioning gap, prepare SWOT and specify three product or merchandising actions.
The attached business materials are:
- inputs/HarborMug-jobs.json
- inputs/HarborMug-site.json
- inputs/PeakSip-jobs.json
- inputs/PeakSip-site.json
- inputs/TideCup-jobs.json
- inputs/TideCup-site.json
- inputs/brief.json
- inputs/merchant.json
- inputs/native-scale.json
- inputs/reviews.csv
Deliver a complete result.md report that the operations team can read, plus any finished files needed for this task. Keep supporting calculations and evidence with the deliverables. Write the report in English; use the requested target language for customer-facing copy. The business datasets are fictional examples unless the brief explicitly names a live public website.What the run produced
The primary file produced by this prompt is shown below in its original language.
HarborMug competitive decision report
Recommend keeping the $24 item price and positioning HarborMug around a recognizable blue mug with clear costs and care information before purchase. TideCup is the primary experience benchmark; PeakSip is the budget benchmark. Competitive threat is medium within this comparison: HarborMug is only $1 above PeakSip delivered, but TideCup provides easier care and checkout for $3 more. Prioritize purchase clarity and lid guidance before a price cut.
All data in this report is synthetic supplied research, not independent market validation; review counts, site traces and task timings describe the pack, and recommendations have not been implemented or shown to improve sales.
Scope and evidence
The comparison uses each brand’s site snapshot, reviews and hiring snapshot: three source types per brand. Each has pricing and 24 reviews; job counts are HarborMug 0, TideCup 2 (customer support and retail operations), and PeakSip 0. The collection checkpoint is met. Hiring suggests areas of attention only; it does not establish capacity, team size, technology or future launches. No live website is named.
Source keys throughout refer to the accompanying evidence/ files. Site facts come from the named brand’s -site.json; review references use IDs in reviews.csv; merchant economics and policy come from merchant.json.
12-dimension scorecard
All dimensions use 1 = weak or undocumented, 2 = below average, 3 = adequate, 4 = strong, 5 = exceptional. Scores 2 and 4 are intermediate anchors under the Skill’s 1/3/5 rubric. Equal weights apply; totals are out of 60 and means out of 5. Competitor average always means (TideCup + PeakSip) / 2, excluding HarborMug. Gap is HarborMug minus that average.
The supplied 1–5 scores are treated as a starting point. PeakSip pricing is revised from 5 to 3: lowest price is valuable, but $8 shipping disclosed at the final step and an account gate do not support exceptional transparency. Other supplied scores are retained against the evidence below. The supplied 1–10 conversion is not used. The Skill’s auxiliary script uses 1–10 normalization and includes our product in its gap average; the supporting calculation uses direct 1–5 arithmetic instead.
| Dimension | HarborMug | TideCup | PeakSip | Competitor average | Our gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Features | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.50 | -0.50 |
| Pricing | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.50 | -0.50 |
| Ux | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3.00 | +0.00 |
| Performance | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3.00 | +0.00 |
| Docs | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3.00 | +0.00 |
| Support | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.50 | -0.50 |
| Integrations | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| Security | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| Scalability | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.00 | +0.00 |
| Brand | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3.50 | -0.50 |
| Community | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1.50 | -0.50 |
| Innovation | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.50 | -0.50 |
| Total /60 | 26 | 34 | 24 | 29.00 | −3.00 |
| Mean /5 | 2.17 | 2.83 | 2.00 | 2.42 | −0.25 |
Integrations, security and scalability retain the requested SaaS-oriented dimensions. All score 1 because connectors, certifications and wholesale tiers are undocumented. These are evidence gaps, not proof of unsafe checkout or poor physical-product capacity. They do not justify investment in software certifications for a mug business. Removing these three shared floors for sensitivity leaves means of 2.56, 3.44 and 2.33 respectively; the ranking stays the same. Performance means the supplied web trace, not insulation, durability or uptime.
Evidence for every rating
Each cell pairs its score with its evidence; columns cite the respective site file’s dimension_observations field.
| Dimension | HarborMug evidence | TideCup evidence | PeakSip evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Features | 3: 500ml insulated steel; hand wash | 4: 500ml; dishwasher-safe body; lid hand wash | 3: 500ml; hand wash; carry loop |
| Pricing | 3: 24 + 5 shipping; free >=50; delivered one-unit total $29 | 4: 28 + 4 shipping; free >=50; delivered one-unit total $32 | 3: 20 + 8 shipping; free >=50; delivered one-unit total $28 |
| Ux | 3: guest checkout 4 steps; care below fold | 4: guest checkout 3 steps; care before CTA | 2: account gate; 6 steps; fee at final step |
| Performance | 3: trace 1.2s; no uptime history | 3: trace 1.1s; no uptime history | 3: trace 1.3s; no uptime history |
| Docs | 3: care and return FAQ present | 4: searchable care and returns guide | 2: care FAQ lacks lid instructions |
| Support | 2: email only; response SLA absent | 3: chat + email; 1 business day SLA | 2: email only; response SLA absent |
| Integrations | 1: 0 merchant-facing connectors documented | 1: 0 merchant-facing connectors documented | 1: 0 merchant-facing connectors documented |
| Security | 1: no certifications documented | 1: no certifications documented | 1: no certifications documented |
| Scalability | 1: no wholesale tier documented | 1: no wholesale tier documented | 1: no wholesale tier documented |
| Brand | 3: blue harbor visual identity | 4: coherent coastal identity | 3: recognizable mountain identity |
| Community | 1: no customer forum | 2: small monthly customer gallery | 1: no customer forum |
| Innovation | 2: 2 releases in example data quarter | 3: 3 releases in example data quarter | 2: 1 release in example data quarter |
Three performance scores remain 3 because 1.1–1.3 second traces without methodology or uptime history cannot demonstrate durable superiority. Innovation scores reflect only the supplied quarter’s release counts; release significance is unknown. Brand scores reflect visual coherence, not measured awareness. TideCup’s pricing 4 reflects its stronger care proposition and modest shipping fee, tempered by threshold discoverability. No score reaches 5 because exceptional execution is not established.
Offer and pricing comparison
All prices are USD, same domestic address, tax excluded, no discounts. Each offer is per physical unit, with no subscription, trial or enterprise tier.
| Buying criterion | HarborMug | TideCup | PeakSip |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capacity | 500ml | 500ml | 500ml |
| Distinctive feature | Insulated stainless steel; blue identity | Dishwasher-safe body; lid hand wash | Carry loop; hand wash |
| Item price | $24 | $28 | $20 |
| Shipping below $50 | $5 | $4 | $8 |
| One delivered | $29 | $32 | $28 |
| Two delivered | $53 | $56 | $48 |
| Three delivered | $72 | $84 | $60 |
| First quantity reaching free shipping | 3 | 2 | 3 |
PeakSip is the price leader at all three quantities. TideCup is the convenience premium and strongest overall experience in this pack, rather than a proven economic value leader. HarborMug occupies the middle: $1 (3.57%) above PeakSip delivered for one mug and $3 (9.38%) below TideCup. At two units the gap to PeakSip grows to $5, while TideCup is still only $3 more. HarborMug should not imply a two-mug order gets free shipping: $48 of merchandise is below $50.
Keep the $24 price initially. Surface delivered cost early, explain the $50 threshold, and compete on clear expectations. Avoid blanket free shipping without a contribution test. For one unit, current revenue including shipping is $29; subtract $8 unit cost and $4 shipping cost to obtain $17 before ads, payment fees, packaging, tax and returns. Free shipping at $24 would leave $12, a $5 reduction. These are partial contribution estimates, not net profit. Competitor costs are unavailable, so their margins cannot be compared.
Positioning map and credible gap
The map uses observable axes rather than market share: horizontal = delivered price for one mug, vertical = checkout steps (fewer is easier).
| Position | Delivered price (X) | Checkout steps (Y) | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| PeakSip | $28 | 6 | Budget, higher friction |
| HarborMug today | $29 | 4 | Mid-price, intermediate friction |
| TideCup | $32 | 3 | Premium, easier purchase |
| HarborMug proposed | $29 | 3 or fewer, target | Accessible price with clearer purchase information |
The opportunity is clear buying information near the budget end, plus practical lid guidance that all three review sets request. TideCup already leads care discovery, so “clear care” alone is not unique. Combine an upfront $29 one-unit delivered price, prominent hand-wash restrictions, guest purchase and validated lid instructions. This is a positioning hypothesis for buyers willing to hand-wash, not an established market segment or an exclusive claim. Do not claim dishwasher safety, leakproof performance, superior heat retention, health benefits or environmental guarantees.
Ready customer-facing draft (English)
No separate target language is specified in the pack, so this draft uses English.
Your everyday mug, in harbor blue.
500ml insulated stainless steel. $24 per mug + $5 domestic shipping: $29 for one, before tax.
Hand-wash only. Not microwave safe.
Free domestic shipping on merchandise orders of $50 or more. Two mugs total $48 plus $5 shipping.
Dispatch within 2 business days. Delivery takes 3–5 business days after dispatch. Domestic delivery only.
Returns: unused items within 30 days; final refund requires merchant approval.
Add to cart · Care & returns
This is a draft for review, not a published offer. It makes no replacement-part availability promise.
UX and voice of customer
| Same task: find care, buy one mug, locate returns | HarborMug | TideCup | PeakSip |
|---|---|---|---|
| Supplied task time | 90 seconds | 60 seconds | 150 seconds |
| Checkout | Guest, 4 steps | Guest, 3 steps | Account gate, 6 steps |
| Main friction | Care below fold | Shipping threshold needs extra click | Fee at final step; account gate |
| Documentation | Care/return FAQ | Searchable care/return guide | Missing lid instructions |
| Support | Email, no SLA | Chat + email, 1 business day SLA | Email, no SLA |
All have responsive web observations, product search, FAQ links and no native app. Card payment is at checkout, not signup; onboarding wizards and app-store ratings do not apply. No keyboard shortcuts are supplied. Site task times are pack observations, not tests performed for this report.
TideCup does three things better: care appears before the CTA, checkout has one fewer step, and support has a stated response standard. HarborMug has three useful counters: a $3 lower delivered price than TideCup, guest checkout versus PeakSip’s gate, and an existing FAQ versus PeakSip’s incomplete lid guidance. The latter is a relative documentation advantage, not proof HarborMug’s lid guidance is complete.
Each review set contains the same category split: 12 praise (50%), 6 UX complaints (25%), 4 requests (16.67%) and 2 bug reports (8.33%); each mean rating is 3.00/5. Repeated authored wording limits inference about actual demand.
The top three distinct UX complaints, six mentions per brand, are HarborMug’s “Care information is below the fold” (R13–R18), TideCup’s “Shipping threshold takes an extra click” (R13–R18), and PeakSip’s “Account gate interrupts checkout” (R13–R18). The shared request is lid replacement instructions (R19–R22 for each brand); the shared bug is a cart quantity retry (R23–R24). Praise favors HarborMug’s blue finish, TideCup’s care discovery and PeakSip’s item price (R1–R12 respectively). Counts are within this pack and do not estimate population prevalence.
SWOT
Each quadrant contains the three highest-priority signals. Competitor opportunities mean opportunities for HarborMug to respond; threats mean threats to HarborMug.
| Brand | Strengths | Weaknesses | Opportunities for HarborMug | Threats to HarborMug |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HarborMug | $29 delivered, below TideCup (site pricing); guest checkout (site UX); recognizable finish (R1–R12) | Care below fold (R13–R18); email without SLA (site support); cart retry (R23–R24) | Match care visibility validated by TideCup praise; provide lid guidance requested across all brands; show costs earlier than PeakSip’s final-step fee | TideCup’s dishwasher-safe body (site features); PeakSip’s $28 delivered price (site pricing); TideCup’s chat and response standard (site support) |
| TideCup | Easier cleaning of body (site features); 3-step guest checkout (site UX); searchable guides and chat SLA (site docs/support) | Threshold harder to locate (R13–R18); incomplete lid guidance demand (R19–R22); quantity retry (R23–R24) | Offer $3 lower delivered entry price (both sites); put threshold next to CTA (R13–R18); validate lid guide before rivals address requests (R19–R22) | Stronger care discovery earns praise (R1–R12); gallery and 3 releases support ongoing engagement (site community/innovation); support and retail hiring may reinforce experience, uncertain (jobs) |
| PeakSip | Lowest delivered price (site pricing); carry loop (site features); budget appeal praised (R1–R12) | Account gate and 6 steps (site UX, R13–R18); $8 fee appears late (site pricing/UX); care FAQ lacks lid guidance (site docs) | Emphasize guest buying for $1 more delivered (sites); disclose $29 before checkout (site UX contrast); supply validated lid guidance (R19–R22) | Lowest price persists at 1–3 units (basket calculations); mountain identity supports recognition (site brand); carry loop offers a concrete physical feature (site features) |
Do not interpret zero hiring as stagnation. TideCup’s two roles are a monitoring signal, not proof that service will improve. HarborMug cannot defend the proposed gap if competitors copy simple information placement; execution and accurate documentation matter more than a slogan.
Three prioritized actions
| Horizon / owner | Finished specification | Effort and dependencies | Acceptance and measurement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quick win, 0–4 weeks / merchandising | Use the customer-facing draft above as the product-page purchase block. Place care, $29 one-unit total, $50 threshold and returns link before the CTA; retain guest purchase. | Low; verify tax treatment and approved dispatch wording. Keep current item and shipping prices. | On mobile and desktop, buyers can locate care, one-unit total and return rule before adding to cart. Compare task completion and checkout completion against a recorded baseline; no lift is assumed. |
| Medium term, 1–3 months / product and support | Create a lid-care and replacement guide covering exact compatible model, disassembly/reassembly, cleaning, part identification and how to request help. Publish replacement availability only after inventory and compatibility validation. | Moderate; physical lid inspection and supplier instructions needed. Current evidence cannot supply safe step-by-step disassembly. | Product review confirms each instruction on the actual mug; support can identify a lid from the guide. Track repeat lid questions and failed self-service attempts, with count and denominator. |
| Strategic, 3–12 months / ecommerce operations | Simplify HarborMug checkout toward 3 guest steps and fix quantity updates: preserve selection, update shipping/total immediately, prevent duplicate additions, display recoverable errors. | Moderate to high; platform assessment and engineering effort required. Use TideCup’s 3-step experience as the benchmark. | Verify quantity changes 1→2→3→1 produce totals $29→$53→$72→$29 without retry or duplicate order on mobile/desktop. Track retry incidence and abandonment against baseline before release. |
Sequence these actions in that order. The first improves information with existing facts, the second addresses the repeated cross-brand request, and the third removes a shared reliability problem while narrowing TideCup’s checkout lead. Do not fund an across-the-board discount or dishwasher-safety claim on this evidence.
Decision limits
No comparative insulation, leak or durability tests are provided, so functional superiority cannot be the positioning claim. Actual lid construction and replacement stock are unknown, so the guide specification is complete but detailed instructions require product validation. Actual payment, packaging and return costs are missing, so the contribution calculation cannot authorize a margin-safe price cut. The small repeated review sets cannot establish market demand or forecast conversion gains.
Stakeholder briefing
- Decision: medium competitive threat; retain $24 and improve clarity. Recognizable blue identity is HarborMug’s strongest review signal; transparent buying near the budget end is the opportunity.
- Position: $29 / 4 checkout steps today, versus PeakSip $28 / 6 and TideCup $32 / 3. Target $29 / ≤3 steps.
- Scorecard: HarborMug 26/60, TideCup 34/60, PeakSip 24/60; competitor mean 29/60. Features, pricing, support, brand and innovation each trail the competitor average by 0.5; UX and docs are at that average.
- Economics: one-unit delivered difference to PeakSip is $1. Free shipping would reduce partial contribution by $5 per single order under supplied costs.
- Experience: TideCup sets the care, checkout and service benchmark; HarborMug already avoids PeakSip’s account gate.
- Customer voice: act on buried care, shared lid-guide requests and quantity retries; review proportions are descriptive only.
- Roadmap: purchase block first, validated lid guide second, checkout simplification third. Supporting evidence and calculations accompany this report.
Merchant business data is synthetic. Website observations, when present, come from the public URLs listed in the report.
Risks and operating notes
Known limits
The helper does not collect competitor data. Its configurable numeric matrix is distinct from the document’s 1–5 rubric; align scales before comparing totals.
Evidence and review
Source and package files reviewed: GitHub 6d2f02ea077e. This is a static review, not an installation or business-outcome test.
Before acting on the result
Use authorized inputs and keep secrets out of prompts. Review customer-facing claims, calculations, code changes, and any proposed external action before applying them.
Frequently asked questions
What does it do, and what is the advantage?
Compare competitors using sourced scorecards, pricing analysis, SWOT, and UX reviews. The document supplies a 12-dimension rubric and stakeholder templates; a Python helper builds matrices from supplied JSON.
How do I install it and start?
Choose the method for your agent and install the complete package, not just the displayed SKILL.md. Two to four competitors, dated pricing, reviews, product evidence, and documented scoring assumptions. Start a new agent session and explicitly ask to use competitive-teardown. Try one use case below with a small sample and review the output.
Which situations is it useful for?
Build an evidence-backed competitor scorecard; Compare pricing models and customer tradeoffs; Turn review complaints into a prioritized response plan
What limitations should I know?
The helper does not collect competitor data. Its configurable numeric matrix is distinct from the document’s 1–5 rubric; align scales before comparing totals.
What was checked for this page?
Source and package files reviewed: GitHub 6d2f02ea077e. This is a static review, not an installation or business-outcome test.
Alireza Rezvani
Source and package files reviewed: GitHub 6d2f02ea077e. This is a static review, not an installation or business-outcome test.
Original pageGitHubSource repositoryMITUsage terms
Source and package files reviewed: GitHub 6d2f02ea077e. This is a static review, not an installation or business-outcome test.
No reviews yet.