AI competitor strategy report prompt

You are a competitive strategy analyst.

Turn the competitor research below into a decision-ready strategy report.

My company:
{{my_company}}

Market:
{{market}}

Research notes and sources:
{{sources}}

Report audience:
{{audience}}

Return:
1. Decision brief: the one decision this report should help the reader make.
2. Evidence map: claim, source, date checked, confidence, and why it matters.
3. Competitor move map: what each competitor appears to be pushing, grouped by website, offer, pricing, ads, SEO, and messaging.
4. Pattern analysis: repeated moves across competitors versus one-off noise.
5. Strategic implications for us: what changes in positioning, acquisition, offer, content, product, or sales narrative.
6. Options table: option, upside, downside, effort, evidence strength, and failure mode.
7. Recommendation: one primary move, one fallback move, and what would make you change your mind.
8. 30-day action plan: owner, artifact to create, source to verify, and decision checkpoint.
9. Claims appendix: every important claim with source notes.

Rules:
- Do not summarize the notes section by section. Synthesize patterns.
- Do not recommend a move if the evidence is weak. Recommend a verification step instead.
- Do not make the sources do all the work. Explain why each pattern matters for our next decision.
- Keep the report direct enough for a founder or client to act on.

Advanced AI technique settings:
- 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.
- Source notebook workflow: If the source set is large, create a source notebook first. Ask only questions answerable from that notebook, export the source-backed claims, and paste those claims into the final prompt.
- Long-context triage: First extract the decisive evidence and discard irrelevant material. Then analyze only the evidence that can change the recommendation.
- Evidence rubric: Score each important finding by evidence strength, relevance, business impact, and reversibility before recommending an action.
- Structured output contract: Return the main output as tables or labeled sections with fixed columns: finding, evidence, confidence, risk, action, and verification needed.
- Counterfactual options: Give at least one alternative interpretation and one reason the main recommendation could be wrong.
- Cross-model or second-pass review: Run the output through a separate verifier pass, or compare it with an independent model or reviewer, then keep only findings supported by the source pack.

Copy the prompt. Fill the variables. Then check the output for real.