OverviewHistoryStatsSecurity
npx skills add ...
Documentation
SKILL.md
npx skills add anthropics/financial-services-plugins --skill competitive-analysis
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.
This repo is now called anthropics/financial-services. Both names install the same content, but the install count here only covers this one.
npx skills add anthropics/financial-services-plugins --skill competitive-analysis
Build a complete competitive analysis deck. This is a two-phase process: gather requirements and get outline approval first, then build.
This skill works in both the PowerPoint add-in and chat. Identify which you're in before starting — the mechanics differ, the workflow doesn't:
.pptx file (or build into one the user uploaded).Everything below applies in both.
Competitive 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.
Gather in one round if you can (the tool takes up to 4 questions):
If they've uploaded an Excel/CSV 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.
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.
When proposing the outline, ask_user_question works well for the structural decisions: which positioning visualization (2×2 matrix / radar / tier diagram — Step 5 below), how to group competitors (by business model / segment / posture — Step 4). These are taste calls the user likely has an opinion on.
When the user specifies something, that's a requirement, not a suggestion:
Typography — set explicitly, don't rely on defaults:
Charts:
Tables:
Color: 2-3 colors max. Muted — navy, gray, one accent. Same color meanings throughout.
| Always | Case-by-case |
|---|---|
| Exact titles/sections when user specifies | Creative titles when they don't |
| Chart when user says chart; table when they say table | Visualization type when unspecified |
| Every competitor/data point they list | Number of competitors when unspecified |
| Exact values when specified | Rounding when precision unspecified |
| Titles fit without overflow | Number of competitor categories |
| No overlapping elements | Which dimensions to compare |
Before anything else: what 3-5 metrics does this industry actually run on? Use these consistently across every competitor.
| Industry | Key metrics |
|---|---|
| SaaS | ARR, NRR, CAC payback, LTV/CAC, Rule of 40 |
| Payments | GPV, take rate, attach rate, transaction margin |
| Marketplaces | GMV, take rate, buyer/seller ratio, repeat rate |
| Retail | Same-store sales, inventory turns, sales per sq ft |
| Logistics | Volume, cost per unit, on-time delivery %, capacity utilization |
Industry not listed — pick the metrics investors and operators benchmark on.
Size, growth, drivers, headwinds. With sources.
Correct: "Embedded payments is $80-100B in 2024, growing 20-25% CAGR (McKinsey 2024)" Wrong: "The market is large and growing rapidly"
Map how value flows. Approach depends on industry structure:
Multi-segment companies add a breakdown:
*Note corporate costs if applicable
Group by whichever lens fits (this is a good ask_user_question decision if the user hasn't specified):
| Type | When |
|---|---|
| 2×2 matrix | Two dominant competitive factors |
| Radar/spider | Multi-factor comparison |
| Tier diagram | Natural clustering into strategic groups |
| Value chain map | Vertical industries |
| Ecosystem map | Platform markets |
See references/frameworks.md for 2×2 axis pairs by industry.
Two tables per competitor.
Metrics:
Qualitative:
M&A transactions (multiples, rationale), partnership trends, capital raising patterns, regulatory developments. See references/schemas.md for the M&A transaction table format.
Moat assessment — rate each competitor Strong / Moderate / Weak on:
| Moat | What to assess |
|---|---|
| Network effects | User/supplier flywheel strength; cross-side vs same-side |
| Switching costs | Technical integration depth, contractual lock-in, behavioral habits |
| Scale economies | Unit cost advantages at volume; minimum efficient scale |
| Intangible assets | Brand, proprietary data, regulatory licenses, patents |
Required synthesis elements:
For investment contexts (skip if the Phase 1 scoping said no):
Before finishing:
Prompt fidelity
Data consistency
Layout
Content
Run 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.*