Identify competitor strengths and weaknesses from public evidence, not vibes.
This is a working analyst brief. Sources go in. Patterns, risks, and decisions come out.
You are a competitive enablement analyst.
Find the competitor strengths and weaknesses that matter for our sales, marketing, and product decisions.
My company:
{{my_company}}
Competitor:
{{competitor}}
Market:
{{market}}
Sources:
{{sources}}
Return:
1. Strengths customers might believe.
2. Weaknesses visible in public evidence.
3. What we should not attack because evidence is weak.
4. Where our company can credibly contrast.
5. Questions sales should ask prospects.
6. Proof we need before using any claim.
Rules:
- Use only the sources I provide.
- Do not invent metrics, spend, conversion rates, private pricing, customers, or intent.
- Mark unsupported claims as [UNVERIFIED].
- Separate observation, interpretation, and recommendation.
Advanced AI technique settings:
- Source-grounded context pack: Build a source table first with source, date checked, claim, confidence, and business meaning. Use only that table for the final recommendations.
- Source notebook workflow: If the source set is large, create a source notebook first. Ask only questions answerable from that notebook, export the source-backed claims, and paste those claims into the final prompt.
- Evidence rubric: Score each important finding by evidence strength, relevance, business impact, and reversibility before recommending an action.
- Counterfactual options: Give at least one alternative interpretation and one reason the main recommendation could be wrong.
- Structured output contract: Return the main output as tables or labeled sections with fixed columns: finding, evidence, confidence, risk, action, and verification needed.
- Cross-model or second-pass review: Run the output through a separate verifier pass, or compare it with an independent model or reviewer, then keep only findings supported by the source pack.Copy the prompt. Fill the variables. Then check the output for real.
These are selected for this specific competitor research job. Use the prompt-ready instruction when it helps, and skip it when the condition does not fit.
Use when: Use when the answer depends on competitor pages, screenshots, ads, pricing, SEO exports, or reviews.
Prompt move: Build a source table first with source, date checked, claim, confidence, and business meaning. Use only that table for the final recommendations.
Skip when: Skip only for brainstorming with no factual claims.
Use when: Use when you have a stable pack of competitor pages, PDFs, call notes, screenshots, exports, or long research notes.
Prompt move: If the source set is large, create a source notebook first. Ask only questions answerable from that notebook, export the source-backed claims, and paste those claims into the final prompt.
Skip when: Skip when you only have one or two short sources.
Use when: Use when recommendations could change strategy, positioning, pricing, ads, or product priorities.
Prompt move: Score each important finding by evidence strength, relevance, business impact, and reversibility before recommending an action.
Skip when: Skip for prompts that only organize notes without recommending action.
Use when: Use when the output recommends positioning, offer, creative, content, or product moves.
Prompt move: Give at least one alternative interpretation and one reason the main recommendation could be wrong.
Skip when: Skip for factual extraction or source verification.
Use when: Use when the output must be compared, reviewed, or turned into tasks.
Prompt move: Return the main output as tables or labeled sections with fixed columns: finding, evidence, confidence, risk, action, and verification needed.
Skip when: Skip when the desired output is narrative copy.
Use when: Use for high-stakes reports, pricing decisions, client deliverables, or public claims.
Prompt move: Run the output through a separate verifier pass, or compare it with an independent model or reviewer, then keep only findings supported by the source pack.
Skip when: Skip for fast internal drafts.
| Variable | Meaning | Type | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
{{my_company}} | Your company, product, or brand | string | Northstar CRM |
{{competitor}} | The competitor you want to analyze | string | Acme CRM |
{{market}} | The category or market context | string | B2B CRM for agencies |
{{sources}} | URLs, screenshots, notes, exports, or pasted copy | list | Homepage URL, pricing URL, ad screenshots |
The output below is fictional. It shows the shape you are looking for, not a real competitor result.
my_company = AgencyOS
competitor = ClientBoard
market = agency operations software
sources = homepage, reviews, feature page, pricing notesFictional example output:
Strength: competitor explains client portals clearly.
Weakness: project profitability is mentioned but not demonstrated.
Credible contrast: show profitability workflow with real screenshots.
Do not attack: support quality, because the source evidence is too thin.It keeps sales claims evidence-backed.
It finds contrast without cheap shots.
It turns weaknesses into questions, not accusations.
Paste the page copy, ad screenshots, pricing table, SEO notes, or transcript first.
Use it as a source-backed brief: keep strong evidence, downgrade weak evidence, and decide what deserves action.
Ask for observations, risks, and next actions tied to the evidence.
Every factual claim has a source or is marked as unverified.
Pricing, dates, and product claims were checked on the original source.
The output separates observation from interpretation.
The output gives actions you can reject, edit, or test.
Nothing is treated as final just because an AI tool wrote it.
Remove unsupported weaknesses.
Give sales only verified talk tracks.
Build proof for your strongest contrast.