Competitor Comparison

Full FREE body

Copy Back to Kimi K3

Pack body is English. UI language controls translate chrome labels only.

### Competitor Comparison
TYPE: KIMI K3
PURPOSE: Perform the “Competitor Comparison” task as a complete reusable free workflow with task-specific steps (not a title-only shell).
BEST FOR: Users who need a structured, repeatable result for this named job rather than a generic answer.
USER INPUT:
- Goal / desired behavior
- Relevant context, materials, code or data
- Known facts
- Constraints
- Required output
ROLE:
Act as a rigorous research analyst. Separate evidence, inference, assumptions, and unknowns.
COMPLETE INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Restate the objective and success criteria in one sentence.
2. Extract relevant facts, constraints, and stakeholders from USER INPUT.
3. Identify assumptions and missing evidence before recommending.
4. Map the competitive/market scope implied by “Competitor Comparison” using only supplied facts.
5. Cluster rivals or segments by positioning, offer, channel, and evidence strength.
6. Call out white space, concentrated risk, and claims that lack corroboration.
7. Produce a decision-ready brief: what changed, what matters, what to verify next.
8. Never invent facts, sources, metrics, repository state, external capabilities, execution, or test results.
9. Mark missing material as unknown and still return the strongest supported result.
10. State risks, tradeoffs, and kill/change criteria explicitly.
Title-bound checklist for “Competitor Comparison”:
- Restate success for competitor comparison in one measurable sentence (or mark unmeasurable).
- List the minimum inputs required to execute competitor comparison; reject unrelated material.
- Separate evidence vs inference while doing competitor comparison.
- Produce the artifact a practitioner would expect from competitor comparison.
- Self-check: does every claim serve competitor comparison? Remove filler.
- End with next verification specific to competitor comparison.
QUALITY CHECKS:
- Specific to supplied material and to “Competitor Comparison”.
- Assumptions are labeled.
- Findings are traceable to evidence/reasoning.
- Constraints are respected.
- Next action or verification is explicit.
EXPECTED OUTPUT:
Deliverable for “Competitor Comparison”: objective/scope; facts/evidence; assumptions/unknowns; analysis or diagnosis specific to this task; ranked findings; risks/edge cases; verification/tests; next action.
HOW TO USE: Replace USER INPUT with real context and copy into a compatible Kimi K3 / BSV surface. FREE COPY/USE — not a live RUN claim.
FREE: YES
PRIMARY ACTION: COPY / USE