Research real rivals on the web, then split the gaps: table stakes you must match vs differentiation bets only you can make.
Free & open · no signup · read-only — it ends by asking · nothing leaves your machine
You are working inside this repo. Mission: place this product against its real competitors — research them on the web — and split the findings into table stakes to match and differentiation bets to make.
Read the repo, search the web. Your only write is the report file.
Phase 2 sweeps the codebase through every one of these, citing file and line for each finding.
features every rival has that users assume exist
onboarding, empty states, pricing pages that clearly work
how the market slices tiers; where this product sits
things this repo already does that rivals don't; are they even surfaced?
the words rivals own vs the words this product could own
review-mining: recurring rival pain points are openings
One structured report at the repo root — or in reports/, if you keep one — the same shape every time, ready for a teammate — or the optional Studio — to act on.
Every Goal Prompt follows the same four steps, so results are consistent and repeatable — no matter which one you run.
From the code and copy.
Table stakes we lack — features every rival has that users assume exist.
Stakes vs bets.
Create COMPETITIVE.md at repo root.
Copy it and paste it into your agent inside the repo you want checked.
Install the goal plugin once — two commands — then just type /goal:competitive-gap-scan.
/plugin marketplace add GhostlyGawd/goal-prompts/plugin install goal@goal-promptsOr install only this Goal Prompt as /goal-competitive-gap-scan:
curl -fsSL https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/install | BRIEF=10 shLet an agent fetch it mid-conversation, or pull the raw Goal Prompt by URL.
https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/raw/10.mdNothing hidden — this is the whole Goal Prompt, verbatim. Read it in a minute, edit it, or copy it as-is.
# Goal: Competitive Gap Scan You are working inside this repo. Mission: place this product against its real competitors — research them on the web — and split the findings into table stakes to match and differentiation bets to make. Read the repo, search the web. Your only write is the report file. ## Phase 1 — Define the arena - From the code and copy: what category is this product in, and for whom, specifically? - Search the web and pick 3–5 real competitors a prospective user would actually compare. - For each: skim their site, pricing, onboarding flow, changelog, and user reviews. ## Phase 2 — Compare through 6 lenses 1. **Table stakes we lack** — features every rival has that users assume exist 2. **Their patterns worth learning** — onboarding, empty states, pricing pages that clearly work 3. **Pricing & packaging norms** — how the market slices tiers; where this product sits 4. **Underleveraged strengths** — things this repo already does that rivals don't; are they even surfaced? 5. **Positioning gaps** — the words rivals own vs the words this product could own 6. **Their users' complaints** — review-mining: recurring rival pain points are openings ## Phase 3 — Curate - Stakes vs bets: match the market minimum, differentiate everywhere else - Every gap names the competitor and the evidence (page, review, doc) - Flag what NOT to copy — features that fit their strategy, not this one ## Phase 4 — Report Create `COMPETITIVE.md` at repo root: 1. **Arena summary** — category, audience, the 3–5 rivals and one line on each 2. **Comparison table** — capability · us · each rival 3. **Table stakes list** — ranked by user expectation, with effort 4. **Differentiation bets** — 3 moves that exploit rival weaknesses using existing strengths 5. **Do-not-copy list** — with reasons Start the report with today's date. If `COMPETITIVE.md` already exists from a previous run, read it first and lead with what changed since. ## Rules - Evidence from the web, cited; no imagined competitor features - Differentiation must trace to something real in this repo - No identifiable product to compare in this repo? Say so in a one-paragraph null report and stop — a null result is a valid finding. - If a `reports/` directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root. - Before asking, present the top findings as a ranked list in plain words - Report only — end by asking which moves to make
reports/ directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.Reconstruct the signup → activation → habit funnel from code, count the steps, and rank every drop-off point.
Find the premium-worthy features, the natural upgrade moments, and the billing friction between users and paying you.
Where an LLM feature genuinely earns its place — automation, drafting, summarization — and where it would be a gimmick.
Titles, metadata, structured data, crawlability, and social unfurls — every place a search engine or a shared link fails to find, index, or render your pages.