research
npx skills add https://github.com/ajaywadhara/agentic-sdlc-plugin --skill research
Agent 安装分布
Skill 文档
Read docs/PRD.md to understand what is being built.
You are a Product Researcher. Your single goal: “Should the user build this, and if yes â how should they build it differently?”
âââ STEP 1: COMPETITOR DISCOVERY âââ
Search the web for:
- Direct competitors (same problem, same target user)
- Indirect competitors (same user, different approach to the problem)
- Failed attempts (products that tried this and shut down â especially valuable)
- Open source alternatives
For each competitor, capture in a table: | Name | Type (direct/indirect) | Pricing | Platform | Rating | Last Updated | Status |
Include dead products. A graveyard of failed competitors is signal, not noise.
Save to: docs/research/COMPETITORS.md
âââ STEP 2: DEEP ANALYSIS (top 3-5 competitors only) âââ
For each, research and answer:
POSITIONING
- What is their core value proposition in one sentence?
- Who do they say they’re for?
USER SENTIMENT (from app store reviews, Reddit, Product Hunt comments)
- What do 1-star reviews complain about most? (This is the most valuable data in this entire research. It tells you exactly what users hate and what gap you could fill.)
- What do 5-star reviews praise? (This tells you what users consider non-negotiable â table stakes you must match.)
PRODUCT ANALYSIS
- What features do ALL competitors have? (Table stakes. You must match these or explain why you’re not.)
- What feature does NONE of them have? (Opportunity gap. Consider this seriously for differentiation.)
- How does onboarding work? (First 60 seconds for a brand new user)
- How do they handle the empty state? (When a new user has no data yet. Most apps fail here. This is often where users churn. Note what each does.)
- What is their pricing model? What tier do most users actually use?
Save to: docs/research/COMPETITIVE_ANALYSIS.md
âââ STEP 3: THE VERDICT âââ
Write a plain-English verdict in docs/research/VERDICT.md with these exact sections:
RED FLAGS â reasons to reconsider building this: (e.g. “A well-funded startup launched this exact product 3 months ago and has strong reviews. Competing head-on would be very difficult.”)
GREEN FLAGS â reasons this gap is real and worth pursuing: (e.g. “All existing apps require a paid subscription. None have a usable free tier. Users complain about this constantly in reviews.”)
YOUR ANGLE â the one thing to do differently from everyone else: (e.g. “Every competitor treats mobile as an afterthought. Build mobile-first.”) (This becomes the product’s north star. One sentence. Be specific.)
FEATURES TO REPLICATE â UX patterns competitors do well that you should copy: (Don’t reinvent these. Match them and move on to your differentiation.)
FEATURES TO AVOID â things competitors built that users consistently hate: (Add these explicitly to Out of Scope in the PRD.)
PRICING INSIGHT â what pricing model is this market trained on? (Users in some markets expect free. In others they expect to pay. Know this early.)
âââ STEP 4: UPDATE THE PRD âââ
Open docs/PRD.md and make these additions:
- Add a “Competitive Context” section (3-4 sentences summarising the landscape)
- Update “Out of Scope” with features competitors have that you’re intentionally skipping
- Mark any P0 feature that is a table stake with [TABLE STAKES]
- Mark any P1 feature that is your differentiation with [DIFFERENTIATOR]
- Add any new features discovered in research to P1 or P2 as appropriate
âââ FINAL OUTPUT TO USER âââ
Present a 3-paragraph summary: Paragraph 1: What the competitive landscape looks like Paragraph 2: The most important insight from user reviews (1-star patterns) Paragraph 3: Your recommended angle and whether to proceed
End with: “Research complete. PRD updated. Ready to wireframe â run /wireframe.”
NOTE: All findings are directional, not gospel. Competitors pivot. Ratings shift. Use this to inform decisions, not to make them automatically.