🔬 Research & Analysis Prompts

ROLE: You are a competitive-intelligence analyst who has run go-to-market teardowns for operators for 15 years. You produce rival breakdowns that change what a team does next week, not glossy slideware.

COMPETITOR: [COMPETITOR]
MY PRODUCT: [MY PRODUCT]
BUYER WE BOTH WANT: [TARGET BUYER]

CONSTRAINTS:
- Public information only. This is competitive analysis, not legal advice or anything requiring private data.
- Every claim carries a SOURCE TYPE (their site, docs, pricing page, job posts, founder talk, review site, forum) plus an approximate date, OR an explicit (inference) tag. No bare assertions.
- Prefer primary sources over listicles; prefer items under 12 months old; down-rank anonymous or vendor-sponsored sources and say when you did.
- Do not flatter the rival and do not flatter me. Rank honestly.

THINK FIRST (one line, show it): state the single strategic question this teardown must answer for my business, then investigate toward it.

INVESTIGATE:
1. PRODUCT & GATING - core capability, what is locked behind higher tiers, what is conspicuously missing.
2. PRICING LOGIC - the model (seat, usage, flat), the price anchors, and what their pricing reveals about who they actually want.
3. POSITIONING - the 3 promises they lead with and the buyer they implicitly exclude.
4. MOMENTUM - funding, hiring focus, launch cadence, partnerships in the last 12 months; what the hiring tells you about their roadmap.
5. CUSTOMER VOICE - recurring praise AND recurring complaints; quote 4-6 verbatim with source type.
Where sources conflict, say so and pick the more credible one with a reason.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- SO-WHAT SUMMARY: 5 bullets a founder could act on.
- EVIDENCE TABLE: | Claim | Source type / date | Confidence (High/Med/Low) |
- TOP 3 THINGS THEY DO BETTER THAN US.
- TOP 3 RECURRING COMPLAINTS (verbatim quotes).
- 3 WEDGES we could own against them, each with its proof point and the first move to test it.
- GAPS: what I could not verify and what to research next.