Everyone already fighting for this money — features, pricing, positioning, and traction compared, their customers' complaints mined, and the gaps nobody covers.
Free & open · no signup · read-only — it ends by asking · nothing leaves your machine
You are working inside this repo — the research workspace for this venture. Mission: build the honest map of everyone competing for this budget — direct, indirect, and the status quo — then find the gaps that are open because they are hard versus open because they are worthless.
Research pass: read the web and any reports at this root; your only write is the report file. Every factual claim carries a source link and access date.
Phase 2 sweeps the codebase through every one of these, citing file and line for each finding.
each competitor's one-line promise in their own words, clustered; the words everyone uses are free differentiation for whoever stops using them
capabilities × tiers × prices from their own pages; note the packaging tricks and what each hides behind Contact Us
mine each vendor's negative reviews: shared gripes are market truths, unique gripes are that vendor's ceiling
review counts and velocity, hiring, marketplace presence, community size; ranked, with sources
who every vendor's pricing, onboarding, or language excludes; is that segment poor, or merely unfashionable
changelog cadence and direction; who is sprinting, who is coasting, who is in maintenance-mode decay
what actually protects each incumbent: data, integrations, contracts, brand, switching costs — versus mere head start
what each incumbent could most easily copy from a new entrant, and how fast
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.
Enumerate the field.
Positioning claims — each competitor's one-line promise in their own words, clustered.
Name each gap and classify it.
Create COMPETITORS.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:competitor-teardown.
/plugin marketplace add GhostlyGawd/goal-prompts/plugin install goal@goal-promptsOr install only this Goal Prompt as /goal-competitor-teardown:
curl -fsSL https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/install | BRIEF=63 shLet an agent fetch it mid-conversation, or pull the raw Goal Prompt by URL.
https://goal-prompts.vercel.app/raw/63.mdNothing hidden — this is the whole Goal Prompt, verbatim. Read it in a minute, edit it, or copy it as-is.
# Goal: Competitor Teardown You are working inside this repo — the research workspace for this venture. Mission: build the honest map of everyone competing for this budget — direct, indirect, and the status quo — then find the gaps that are open because they are hard versus open because they are worthless. Research pass: read the web and any reports at this root; your only write is the report file. Every factual claim carries a source link and access date. ## Phase 1 — Build the roster - Enumerate the field: direct products, adjacent tools stretching in, agencies and consultants, internal builds, and doing-nothing. Scope from NICHE.md and DEMAND.md if present. - For each, pull the primaries: homepage promise, pricing page, changelog or release cadence, review profiles, and public traction signals. ## Phase 2 — Tear down through 8 lenses 1. **Positioning claims** — each competitor's one-line promise in their own words, clustered; the words everyone uses are free differentiation for whoever stops using them 2. **Feature and pricing matrix** — capabilities × tiers × prices from their own pages; note the packaging tricks and what each hides behind Contact Us 3. **Their customers' complaints** — mine each vendor's negative reviews: shared gripes are market truths, unique gripes are that vendor's ceiling 4. **Traction proxies** — review counts and velocity, hiring, marketplace presence, community size; ranked, with sources 5. **The ignored segment** — who every vendor's pricing, onboarding, or language excludes; is that segment poor, or merely unfashionable 6. **Release pulse** — changelog cadence and direction; who is sprinting, who is coasting, who is in maintenance-mode decay 7. **Moat inspection** — what actually protects each incumbent: data, integrations, contracts, brand, switching costs — versus mere head start 8. **The kill zone** — what each incumbent could most easily copy from a new entrant, and how fast ## Phase 3 — Curate - Name each gap and classify it: underserved (evidence of demand, weak supply) or unserved-for-a-reason. - Pull the graveyard: prior startups that tried each gap, and what the record says killed them. ## Phase 4 — Report Create `COMPETITORS.md` at repo root: 1. **The matrix** — roster with positioning, pricing, and traction 2. **Complaint synthesis** — market truths versus per-vendor ceilings 3. **Gap analysis** — gap · evidence it is real · why it is open · graveyard check 4. **The wedge shortlist** — the 2–3 entries a newcomer could actually win Start the report with today's date. If `COMPETITORS.md` already exists from a previous run, read it first and lead with what changed since. ## Rules - Their pages and their customers' words — never marketing-versus-marketing speculation - Every gap must survive the why-is-this-open question in writing - No discernible product or idea to research 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 gap to build positioning around
reports/ directory exists at the repo root, write the report there instead of the root.The candidate field. Turns your edges, interests, and constraints plus live market signals into 10-15 scored venture candidates — divergence before any deep dive.
One niche, fully mapped — the players, buyers, channels, watering holes, jargon, money flows, and unwritten rules — before you decide to enter it.
Proof people actually hurt — verbatim complaints mined from reviews and forums, search and hiring signals, and what they already pay to make the pain stop.
Bottom-up sizing with the arithmetic shown, growth read from primary signals, and the why-now case argued both ways — no analyst-deck TAM theater.
Runs inside these playbooks — curated sequences you can launch with one paste: