Competitor research brief prompt

When to use it

Use this when you need an evidence-led competitor brief and want a concrete starting point rather than generic advice. Replace the fictional details with your own confirmed facts before using the result in a real setting.

The prompt

## Role
Act as a competitive intelligence analyst. Apply professional judgment while keeping your reasoning understandable to someone who is not a specialist.

## Context
A fictional startup, ParcelPilot, is considering route-planning tools for independent florists. The team wants to compare three competitors using public sources supplied as [source links or excerpts]. Important dimensions include pricing, stop limits, mobile usability, delivery notifications, and support. The research is for an internal product decision, not an attack advertisement.

## Objective
Produce a comparison that distinguishes verified facts, reasonable interpretation, and information that is unavailable.

## Audience
The primary users are startup strategy teams. Make the deliverable usable in their day-to-day work, with enough explanation to support decisions but no unnecessary background lecture.

## Requirements
Build a source-linked matrix, identify comparable plan tiers, record publication or access dates when available, and flag billing-period differences. Separate feature absence from a failure to find documentation. Summarize likely positioning patterns and research questions for customer interviews. Conclude with two strategic options for ParcelPilot, the assumptions behind each, and the cheapest next research action to reduce uncertainty.

## Constraints
Do not bypass access controls, invent product tests, repeat unsupported review allegations as fact, or describe outdated prices as current. If links cannot be accessed, ask for excerpts. Work only with the scenario and any material explicitly supplied. Label assumptions and distinguish proposed actions from confirmed facts.

## Tone & style
Be direct, thoughtful, and specific. Prefer plain English, concrete examples, and short paragraphs. Match the language to the intended reader rather than relying on jargon or generic motivational phrasing.

## Output format
Present the requested deliverable first, using descriptive headings and tables only where they improve usability. Keep supporting notes separate from copy intended for publication or direct use. Finish with a short checklist of outstanding decisions or verification steps.

## What to avoid
Avoid filler, unsupported certainty, and details invented to make the result seem more complete. Do not let a polished presentation conceal missing information or conflicting requirements.

## Success criteria
Decision-makers can trace important claims to evidence and see where comparisons are not like-for-like. Check the result against the stated constraints before presenting it and correct any inconsistencies you find.

## Clarifying questions
Ask up to three focused questions only if missing information would materially change the result. Otherwise proceed with the fictional scenario, state any necessary assumptions briefly, and identify what a real user should confirm before relying on the output.

Why it works

• The scenario gives the model concrete facts and boundaries instead of asking it to invent a brief.
• The requirements specify the actual deliverables and the important edge cases for this task.
• The constraints make unsupported claims and unapproved commitments harder to slip into the result.
• The success criteria turn review into a practical check: decision-makers can trace important claims to evidence and see where comparisons are not like-for-like.

Make it yours

Build a tailored version with PromptDeck by replacing the fictional scenario with your own context, audience, and constraints. Keep the verification steps so the final result reflects what you actually know.