---
name: porter-five-forces
description: Porter's Five Forces competitive analysis - industry structure, rivalry, substitutes, entrants, buyer power, and supplier power
type: research
version: v0.1
invocation: sub-skill
parent: competitive-analysis
---

## Pack Availability Guard

Before telling the user to run a skill from another project-local pack, check `.agents/project.json.enabled_packs`. If the target pack is not enabled, recommend `/pack install <pack>` instead of the target skill. Global skills are always valid. Skills from this same pack are valid because the current skill is already running from that pack.

# Porter's Five Forces - Competitive Structure Analysis

Invoke from the parent queue as `/competitive-analysis/frameworks/porter-five-forces`.

This is a framework subskill for `/competitive-analysis`. It analyzes industry structure and competitive pressure. It produces an intermediate artifact for parent synthesis and must not emit downstream next-step routing.

## Report-First Approval Gate

Default to scope-first approval: before synthesized research, inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions in a `review` alignment page plus a concise conversation summary.

Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets or canonical deliverables until final compiled YAML approves the research scope. Minimal pre-approval discovery may identify available files, source categories, and open questions; label it as scope evidence, not findings.

After approved research-scope YAML, perform the research and write only the non-canonical working packet defined in the staged workflow. Then update the `review` alignment page with findings and stop again for feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML artifact approval before creating or updating canonical research, spec, or task files.

Do not include `Recommended next skill`, `Recommended next command`, or downstream routing language. The approval request itself is the next action. Only emit next-skill routing after the approved artifact has been written or updated.

## Staged Research Workflow

Use this staged workflow for synthesized research or report outputs that would create or update canonical research, spec, or task files.

1. **Stage 1 - Scope discovery and approval.** Inspect only enough repository, user, and source context to propose research scope, source plan, assumptions, output paths, and approval questions. Build the `review` HTML alignment page before synthesized research. The page must render the proposed scope, available source categories, known context, assumptions/confidence, proposed working-packet and canonical output paths, and research-scope approval gates. Stop for final compiled YAML approval of the research scope. Do not perform synthesized research, rank candidates, make recommendations, or write working packets, canonical research, spec, or task files in Stage 1.
2. **Stage 2 - Research and artifact review.** Only after approved research-scope YAML with no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback, perform the synthesized research, run required source/code checks, and write only a non-canonical working packet: flat mode uses `research/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`; product-path mode uses `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-<skill>-research.md`. Replace `<skill>` with this skill's `name` value. Raw evidence or search logs may remain as supporting evidence where this skill already requires them, but synthesized deliverables stay in the working packet. Update the `review` HTML alignment page with the full preliminary packet, evidence matrix, assumptions/confidence register, source coverage gaps, proposed canonical file changes, and artifact approval gates. Stop for either feedback-only YAML or final compiled YAML. Feedback-only YAML revises the working packet and page, then remains in Stage 2.
3. **Stage 3 - Finalize approved artifacts.** Consume final compiled YAML for artifact approval only when it has no unresolved `needs-clarification`, unresolved `down` feedback, or other unresolved negative feedback. Apply approved edits first, archive the working packet to `docs/history/archive/YYYY-MM-DD/HHMMSS/<original-working-path>`, remove the active working packet, write the approved canonical artifacts to the unchanged output paths below, and convert the alignment page to `confirmed` with the approval record preserved.

Canonical output paths remain unchanged. Search logs and other supporting evidence remain allowed only where this skill's output contract already requires them.

## Prerequisites

- **Hard**: Parent context from `research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md` or `research/{slug}/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md`. If absent, read `research/icp.md` or `research/{slug}/icp.md` plus repo context; if neither exists, tell the user to run `/competitive-analysis` first and stop.
- **Soft**: Existing `research/competitive-analysis-*.md`, `research/customer-feedback.md`, `research/journey-map.md`, specs, and codebase context.

## Product-Path Scope Resolution

Use the parent `competitive-analysis` product-path scope when present. Otherwise resolve scope by reading `research/.progress.yaml`, selecting active non-archived product paths, and writing under `research/{slug}/` only when that path is active or explicitly named.

## Process

1. Load parent context and identify the relevant category, buyer/customer frame, seeded competitors, and source gaps.
2. Use web search to validate the market boundary and identify evidence for each force.
3. Assess:
   - competitive rivalry
   - threat of new entrants
   - threat of substitutes and DIY alternatives
   - buyer/customer power
   - supplier/platform/channel power
4. Score each force as low, moderate, or high pressure with evidence and confidence.
5. Identify the structural constraints, exploitable gaps, and risks that the parent synthesis should carry forward.
6. Present findings before writing and incorporate factual corrections.

## Output

### `research/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md` (or `research/{slug}/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md`)

```markdown
# Porter's Five Forces Analysis

> Based on: [parent context, sources]
> Date: [current date]
> Methodology: Porter's Five Forces

## Market Boundary
[Category, buyer frame, and competitors included/excluded]

## Force Assessment
| Force | Pressure | Evidence | Confidence | Implication |
|-------|----------|----------|------------|-------------|
| Rivalry | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [what synthesis should consider] |
| New Entrants | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
| Substitutes | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
| Buyer Power | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |
| Supplier Power | Low/Moderate/High | [sources] | High/Medium/Low | [implication] |

## Structural Opportunities
[White-space openings created by force dynamics]

## Structural Risks
[Forces that could undermine the product or category thesis]

## Evidence Matrix
| Claim | Source | Evidence Type | Confidence |
|-------|--------|---------------|------------|
```

## Constraints

- Every competitor or market fact must be source-backed.
- Prefer recent sources from the last 12 months and flag older evidence.
- Do not recommend product features, positioning, architecture, or downstream skills.
- This is a sub-skill; do not emit `Recommended next skill` or `Recommended next command`.

## Alignment Page

When this skill produces durable deliverables (research, specs, plans, reports, prototypes, or any document output), build a full-depth HTML alignment page following `ALIGNMENT-PAGE.md` in this skill's directory. Output: `alignment/porter-five-forces-{topic}.html`.

## Default Shipping Contract

Follow the shared shipping contract convention in CLAUDE.md.
