What does this skill do, and when should you use it?
This skill provides a framework for building competitive landscape decks covering market positioning, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, and strategic synthesis. It requires scoping the analysis and approving an outline before slide production begins. It works in a PowerPoint add-in or chat environment, where it can build slides directly or produce a `.pptx` file. It is aimed at market research, strategic reviews, and investment memo workflows.
It first asks for the analysis scope, competitor set, audience and depth, and whether investment scenarios are required. It then proposes a slide outline and waits for approval. The workflow defines industry metrics and organizes market context, industry economics, target-company profiling, competitor mapping, positioning visualizations, competitor deep-dives, comparative analysis, and strategic synthesis. The resulting deck includes tables, charts, citations, moat assessments, vulnerabilities, and quality checks for layout, overflow, overlap, and readability.
- An investment banker or equity researcher needs a competitive landscape and peer-comparison deck for a target company.
- A strategy team needs to group competitors by business model, segment, or competitive posture.
- An investment team needs to combine market context, company metrics, competitive dynamics, and bull/base/bear scenarios in an investment memo.
- A market researcher needs a market map, positioning matrix, or structured competitor deep-dive.
How do you install this skill?
- The skill assumes environment support for questioning, research connectors, PPT generation, and visual verification, but does not specify dependencies, permission scope, or failure handling.
- Privacy, compliance, retention, and cross-border transfer controls for financial data, uploaded Excel/CSV files, and external research sources are not described.
- Treat market data, valuation figures, competitive judgments, and slide layout as requiring human review; the supplied static material does not prove executable reproduction.
- No Chinese-language output standard or mainland-China network reachability guidance is provided, and overseas data services may affect practical usability.
- Local filesystem
The README says to install through Cowork by opening Settings → Plugins → Add plugin, pasting https://github.com/anthropics/financial-services, and selecting the relevant agent or vertical; alternatively, upload a zip containing a directory under plugins/. For Claude Code, run claude plugin marketplace add anthropics/financial-services, then claude plugin install market-researcher@claude-for-financial-services. The source does not document standalone installation of this individual skill.
tmp="$(mktemp -d)"
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/financial-services.git "$tmp"
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -R "$tmp/plugins/agent-plugins/market-researcher/skills/competitive-analysis" ~/.claude/skills/
rm -rf "$tmp"Generated from the source repository and skill path; it copies only this skill's folder. If the author's install steps above differ, follow those first. To scope it to one project, replace ~/.claude/skills with that project's .claude/skills.
How do you use this skill?
Once installed, send your agent any of these to trigger it:
- Build a competitive landscape deck for company X and its competitors
- Benchmark X against peers.
In an installed Market Researcher environment, submit a request such as “Build a competitive landscape deck for company X and its competitors” or “Benchmark X against peers.” The skill asks for scope, competitors, audience depth, and investment context, then presents an outline. It builds the deck only after the outline is approved.
What are this skill's strengths and limitations?
- Covers the full workflow from scoping through strategic synthesis.
- Emphasizes comparability, citations, exact values, and explicit missing-data handling.
- Supports 2×2 matrices, radar charts, tier diagrams, value-chain maps, and ecosystem maps.
- Supports both PowerPoint add-in workflows and `.pptx` output in chat.
- The source provides no sample output, test results, or standalone test suite.
- The approval-first workflow is not designed for instant, unsupervised slide generation.
- The source does not document built-in web research, automatic data retrieval, or configured data connectors for this skill.
- Citations, cross-company metric consistency, and conclusions still require professional review.
How does this skill compare with similar options?
Side by side with related skills; every score comes from the same FSRS standard.
| Skill | FS score | Stars | Last updated | License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competitive Landscape Analyst this page ✓ Anthropic · Official | 51 · Use with care | ★ 40k | 1mo ago | Apache-2.0 |
| Alpha Insights BizAdvisor | 59 · Recommended | ★ 68 | 3mo ago | MIT |
| Exa Deep Research Orchestrator | 57 · Use with care | ★ 5.1k | 18d ago | MIT |
| hv-analysis: Deep Research Report | 46 · Use with care | ★ 21k | 24d ago | MIT |
| Claude Persona: AI Panel Research & Concept Testing | 57 · Use with care | ★ 57 | 3mo ago | MIT |
How did FollowSkills review this skill?
The skill requires confirmation of scope, competitors, audience, and investment context, and mandates source citations, estimate flags, and human-oriented quality checks. No malware, credential theft, covert exfiltration, or destructive default is evident. Deductions reflect missing explicit handling for sensitive financial data, external connector permissions, data-flow disclosure, rollback, and final publication confirmation boundaries.
The two-phase workflow, comparability rules, data-quality checks, and missing-data treatment make the happy path reasonably coherent, and the referenced files are present in the supplied material. Static evidence does not demonstrate tool availability, key-path tests, diagnosable failure feedback, or concrete execution of visual checks, so the score remains below the static ceiling.
The skill defines clear scenarios including competitive landscapes, peer comparisons, market positioning, and investment memos; it includes trigger phrases, scoping inputs, presentation output expectations, and chat/add-in variants. Deductions reflect unclear non-fit boundaries, unspecified tool and connector prerequisites, absent Chinese-language guidance, and no evidence of mainland-China network reachability.
Information is layered across environment, phases, standards, workflow, and a quality checklist, with supporting framework/schema references and repository-level Apache-2.0 licensing. Deductions reflect the absence of skill-level versioning, changelog, named maintenance responsibility, explicit update path, and complete installation or troubleshooting guidance.
The workflow covers scoping, industry metrics, competitor profiles, comparisons, strategic synthesis, and presentation quality review, with concrete chart, table, citation, and formatting requirements. Deductions reflect no verified generated PPTX output, incompletely defined tool/data-acquisition behavior, and the need for human validation and possible rework.
Requirements for citations, consistent fiscal periods, estimate flags, and source-file fidelity improve auditability, while repository CI provides structural validation evidence. Deductions reflect no committed tests covering the skill's key paths, no third-party execution evidence, and no independent reproducibility material; static review cannot verify the workflow's actual conclusions.
Open a dimension to read why it scored that way
Evidence confidence：Low — Mostly static review, author material or a limited demo; useful for discovery, not high-risk decisions.
See the full review method →