Track competitor launches across pages, emails, ads, release notes, social posts, and pricing changes.
This is a working analyst brief. Sources go in. Patterns, risks, and decisions come out.
You are a launch intelligence analyst.
Analyze the competitor launch and separate the strategic signal from the launch noise.
My company:
{{my_company}}
Competitor:
{{competitor}}
Market:
{{market}}
Sources:
{{sources}}
Return:
1. Launch summary with source dates.
2. What actually changed.
3. Audience and use case targeted.
4. Messaging, offer, pricing, and product implications.
5. Signals to monitor over the next month.
6. Response options for our company.
Rules:
- Use only the sources I provide.
- Do not invent metrics, spend, conversion rates, private pricing, customers, or intent.
- Mark unsupported claims as [UNVERIFIED].
- Separate observation, interpretation, and recommendation.
Advanced AI technique settings:
- Tool-aware research plan: Before analysis, state which sources or tools should be checked, which facts each tool can verify, and which claims must stay manual.
- Cited answer-engine check: Run a cited search pass for current facts. Keep URLs, dates checked, and quoted claims separate from your own pasted evidence, then downgrade anything without a reliable source.
- Source-grounded context pack: Build a source table first with source, date checked, claim, confidence, and business meaning. Use only that table for the final recommendations.
- Parallel research sharding: Split the work by competitor, channel, or source type. Force every shard to return the same schema, then merge only source-backed findings and mark disagreements.
- Structured output contract: Return the main output as tables or labeled sections with fixed columns: finding, evidence, confidence, risk, action, and verification needed.
- Long-context triage: First extract the decisive evidence and discard irrelevant material. Then analyze only the evidence that can change the recommendation.
- Goal-plan-loop agent workflow: When using an agent or browsing mode, structure the run as /goal: the outcome and decision, /plan: ordered sources, tools, limits, and checks, and /loop: collect, verify, summarize, then repeat until the stop condition is met.
- Autonomous-agent sandbox: Define allowed sources, allowed actions, forbidden claims, budget, stop conditions, and a validation checklist before the agent starts. Require a final source log and a list of unsupported findings.
- Verification loop: After the first draft, run a verification pass that lists unsupported claims, stale details, missing sources, and recommendations to downgrade or remove.Copy the prompt. Fill the variables. Then check the output for real.
These are selected for this specific competitor research job. Use the prompt-ready instruction when it helps, and skip it when the condition does not fit.
Use when: Use with web-enabled research, source notebooks, coding agents, MCP tools, SEO tools, ad libraries, or APIs.
Prompt move: Before analysis, state which sources or tools should be checked, which facts each tool can verify, and which claims must stay manual.
Skip when: Skip when all evidence is already pasted and no tool access is needed.
Use when: Use when the prompt depends on current web facts, public pricing, recently changed pages, search results, product releases, or market claims.
Prompt move: Run a cited search pass for current facts. Keep URLs, dates checked, and quoted claims separate from your own pasted evidence, then downgrade anything without a reliable source.
Skip when: Skip when all evidence is private, pasted, or already date-stamped.
Use when: Use when the answer depends on competitor pages, screenshots, ads, pricing, SEO exports, or reviews.
Prompt move: Build a source table first with source, date checked, claim, confidence, and business meaning. Use only that table for the final recommendations.
Skip when: Skip only for brainstorming with no factual claims.
Use when: Use when researching many competitors, channels, markets, ad libraries, SERPs, or weekly monitoring sources.
Prompt move: Split the work by competitor, channel, or source type. Force every shard to return the same schema, then merge only source-backed findings and mark disagreements.
Skip when: Skip for one competitor, one page, or one narrow teardown.
Use when: Use when the output must be compared, reviewed, or turned into tasks.
Prompt move: Return the main output as tables or labeled sections with fixed columns: finding, evidence, confidence, risk, action, and verification needed.
Skip when: Skip when the desired output is narrative copy.
Use when: Use when pasting many pages, long exports, transcripts, or screenshots.
Prompt move: First extract the decisive evidence and discard irrelevant material. Then analyze only the evidence that can change the recommendation.
Skip when: Skip for short, clean source packs.
Use when: Use when the job includes collecting sources, running checks, writing files, updating a tracker, or repeating the workflow.
Prompt move: When using an agent or browsing mode, structure the run as /goal: the outcome and decision, /plan: ordered sources, tools, limits, and checks, and /loop: collect, verify, summarize, then repeat until the stop condition is met.
Skip when: Skip for a one-off chat answer.
Use when: Use when an agent can browse, click, write files, call tools, collect sources, or repeat a workflow without constant supervision.
Prompt move: Define allowed sources, allowed actions, forbidden claims, budget, stop conditions, and a validation checklist before the agent starts. Require a final source log and a list of unsupported findings.
Skip when: Skip for read-only synthesis from evidence you already pasted.
Use when: Use before sharing research with a client, team, sales deck, ad brief, or website backlog.
Prompt move: After the first draft, run a verification pass that lists unsupported claims, stale details, missing sources, and recommendations to downgrade or remove.
Skip when: Skip only for private rough notes.
| Variable | Meaning | Type | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
{{my_company}} | Your company, product, or brand | string | Northstar CRM |
{{competitor}} | The competitor you want to analyze | string | Acme CRM |
{{market}} | The category or market context | string | B2B CRM for agencies |
{{sources}} | URLs, screenshots, notes, exports, or pasted copy | list | Homepage URL, pricing URL, ad screenshots |
The output below is fictional. It shows the shape you are looking for, not a real competitor result.
my_company = ClipFlow
competitor = VideoNest
market = video editing for marketers
sources = launch page, email, LinkedIn post, pricing page, docs updateFictional example output:
Actual change: new collaboration feature and team plan emphasis.
Signal: moving from solo creators toward small marketing teams.
Response option: update our team workflow page, not rush a matching feature claim.It distinguishes launch messaging from product change.
It creates monitoring follow-ups.
It avoids reactive roadmap decisions.
Paste the page copy, ad screenshots, pricing table, SEO notes, or transcript first.
Use it as a source-backed brief: keep strong evidence, downgrade weak evidence, and decide what deserves action.
Ask for observations, risks, and next actions tied to the evidence.
Every factual claim has a source or is marked as unverified.
Pricing, dates, and product claims were checked on the original source.
The output separates observation from interpretation.
The output gives actions you can reject, edit, or test.
Nothing is treated as final just because an AI tool wrote it.
Collect launch assets with dates.
Mark what changed versus what was already true.
Set one follow-up check for 30 days later.