competitive-roadmap-review

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Competitive Roadmap Review

竞品路线图评审

Mission

核心目标

Help product see what the market and customers are saying about a product area, sharply enough to investigate the right things - and stop the review from becoming a list of competitor features to copy.

The output is questions worth investigating, each grounded in what competitors did, what the company's own customers said and did, and what the home product already does; each classified honestly as a table-stakes risk, a differentiation opportunity, copycat noise, or an evidence gap; and each with the evidence named that would have to exist before it could be prioritized. The review does not rank the roadmap.

帮助产品团队了解市场与客户对某一产品领域的真实看法，精准定位值得调研的方向——避免评审最终沦为“照搬竞品功能清单”。

本评审的产出是一系列值得调研的问题，每个问题都基于竞品动作、公司自有客户的言行、以及我方产品的现有能力；每个问题都会被如实归类为基础准入风险（table-stakes risk）、差异化机会、跟风噪音或证据缺口；同时会明确每个问题在进入优先级排序前需要补充哪些证据。本评审不会对路线图进行优先级排序。

Use this skill when

适用场景

product or PMM asks what the market suggests product should look into
competitors keep adding something and someone asks whether it matters for the roadmap
a roadmap or product area is to be reviewed against market and customer evidence
someone asks "are we missing something important?" about a product area
a request bundles the review with a shift verdict or a launch plan - review the area, route the rest (Step 9)

产品团队或产品营销（PMM）询问市场建议产品调研哪些方向
竞品持续新增某功能，有人询问这对我们的路线图是否重要
需要结合市场与客户证据评审某条路线图或某个产品领域
有人针对某个产品领域提出「我们是不是遗漏了重要的东西？」
需求中同时包含评审和转型判断或发布计划——仅完成领域评审，其余需求转交对应技能（见步骤9）

Do not use this skill when

不适用场景

the first question is whether the market pattern is real at all - one move or a shift. Use
```
competitive-market-shift-analysis
```
, and bring its answer here.
the feature is already being launched and needs competitive framing. Use
```
competitive-launch-readiness
```
.
the question is what the whole company should do in response to a validated market move - pricing, sales, marketing, product together. That is not yet in this pack; give product's part here and say the cross-functional plan is a separate job.
the question is a company pricing or packaging decision. Use
```
competitive-pricing-packaging-review
```
.
the user wants one competitor understood in depth. Use
```
competitive-deep-dive
```
.

核心问题是判断某一市场趋势是否真实——是单一动作还是行业转型。请使用
```
competitive-market-shift-analysis
```
，并将其结论带入本评审。
功能即将发布，需要竞品相关的发布定位框架。请使用
```
competitive-launch-readiness
```
。
问题是公司整体应如何应对已验证的市场变动——涉及定价、销售、营销、产品多部门协同。这暂未纳入本技能包；仅在此处提供产品侧的内容，并说明跨职能计划需单独处理。
问题是公司的定价或包装决策。请使用
```
competitive-pricing-packaging-review
```
。
用户想要深入了解某一家竞品。请使用
```
competitive-deep-dive
```
。

Required outcome

预期产出

For the product area or roadmap scope in front of the user, answer:

What product decision or area is under review, and who owns it?
What have competitors actually done here, when, and is the movement independent?
Is it buyer-relevant - is there evidence buyers care, beyond the competitors doing it?
What do the company's own customers say and do about the same need?
Is the problem already solved another way in the home product?
What are the questions worth investigating, framed as customer problems or strategic questions?
For each: table-stakes risk, differentiator opportunity, copycat noise, or evidence gap?
What evidence is missing before anything here could be prioritized?

针对用户提出的产品领域或路线图范围，回答以下问题：

待评审的产品决策或领域是什么？负责人是谁？
竞品在该领域实际做了什么？什么时候做的？这些动作是否是独立推出的？
是否与买家相关——除了竞品在做之外，有没有证据表明买家确实在意？
针对同一需求，公司自有客户有哪些言行？
该问题是否已在我方产品中通过其他方式解决？
哪些是值得调研的问题？请以客户问题或战略问题的形式呈现。
每个问题属于哪一类：基础准入风险、差异化机会、跟风噪音还是证据缺口？
在对任何问题进行优先级排序前，还缺少哪些证据？

Context acquisition

背景信息获取

Read

references/CONTEXT.md

and

references/INTERNAL.md

请阅读

references/CONTEXT.md

和

references/INTERNAL.md

。

Irreducible minimum

最低必备信息

home product
the product area or roadmap scope

Retrieve before asking. When LMTY is connected it knows the home product and the competitors' current state and change history for any area. When product planning, analytics, or customer research sources are connected, the area name finds the roadmap items, the usage data, and the customer evidence.

If the scope is the whole roadmap, that is a valid scope; work area by area and say which areas the evidence reached.

If neither a product area nor a roadmap can be established, ask one question. Then stop.

我方产品
产品领域或路线图范围

请在询问用户前先检索相关信息。当连接LMTY时，它会知晓我方产品、竞品的当前状态以及任意领域的变更历史。当连接产品规划、分析或客户研究数据源时，通过领域名称即可找到对应路线图项、使用数据和客户证据。

如果范围是整条路线图，这也是有效范围；请按领域逐一处理，并说明哪些领域有对应证据支撑。

如果无法确定产品领域或路线图范围，仅询问用户一个问题，然后暂停。

Strongly preferred context

强烈建议提供的信息

LMTY report, evidence, and change record for the area, per competitor
the roadmap, specs, or PRDs for the area
customer research, calls, interviews, and support themes touching the need
product analytics: adoption and usage of the relevant capabilities, including the existing alternative in the home product
win/loss evidence where the need appears in buyer criteria
company strategy or priorities, when the user can share them

各竞品在该领域的LMTY报告、证据和变更记录
该领域的路线图、规格说明或PRD
涉及该需求的客户研究、通话、访谈和支持工单主题
产品分析数据：相关功能的采纳和使用情况，包括我方产品中现有替代方案的使用情况
需求出现在买家决策标准中的赢单/输单证据
用户可分享的公司战略或优先级

Source priority for this job

本任务的信息源优先级

the company's own customer evidence - calls, research, support, win/loss - for whether the need is real for its customers
product analytics for what customers do, as distinct from what they say
current competitor evidence and change record for what competitors did and when
the roadmap and specs for what is already planned or built
the team's read, labeled as such

公司自有客户证据——通话、研究、支持工单、赢单/输单——用于判断需求对己方客户是否真实
产品分析数据，用于了解客户的实际行为（与客户的口头表述区分开）
当前竞品证据和变更记录，用于了解竞品的动作和时间
路线图和规格说明，用于了解已规划或已构建的内容
团队的判断（需明确标注为团队观点）

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1 - Name the decision under review

步骤1 - 明确待评审的决策

State the product area, the decision the review feeds (invest, investigate, deprioritize, defend), who owns it, and when it is being made. If the user's framing is a competitor feature ("they added X"), restate the area as the customer need X serves, and review that.

说明产品领域、本次评审服务的决策类型（投入、调研、降优先级、防守）、负责人以及决策时间。如果用户的表述是某个竞品功能（比如「他们加了X功能」），请将该领域重新表述为X功能所服务的客户需求，并围绕该需求进行评审。

Step 2 - Establish competitor movement

步骤2 - 梳理竞品动态

From the change record and current state: which competitors did what in this area, when, from what evidence. Distinguish shipped from announced from marketed. Note the tier or plan it landed in.

根据变更记录和当前状态：哪些竞品在该领域做了什么？什么时候做的？依据是什么？区分已上线、已宣布和仅营销宣传的内容。注明该功能所属的套餐或版本层级。

Step 3 - Judge independence and buyer relevance

步骤3 - 判断独立性与买家相关性

Independence: did several competitors move separately, or did one move and others follow, or did one move and the rest only talk? A pattern that is one vendor plus echoes is one vendor.

Buyer relevance: is there evidence - customer calls, buyer criteria in win/loss, analyst or review language, LMTY evidence of buyer-facing emphasis - that buyers weigh this? Competitors doing something is evidence that competitors think buyers want it, not that they do.

If the question of whether the pattern is real is the whole question, stop and route to

competitive-market-shift-analysis

独立性：是多家竞品各自独立行动，还是一家先动其余跟进，或是一家行动其余只做口头宣传？只有一家厂商加其余跟风造势的模式，等同于单一厂商动作。

买家相关性：有没有证据——客户通话、赢单/输单中的买家决策标准、分析师或评测语言、LMTY中面向买家的宣传重点——表明买家会看重这一点？竞品在做某件事只能证明竞品认为买家想要，不能证明买家真的想要。

如果核心问题就是判断该趋势是否真实，请停止本评审，转交至

competitive-market-shift-analysis

。

Step 4 - Pull the company's own customer evidence

步骤4 - 提取公司自有客户证据

For the same need: what have this company's customers and prospects said - in calls, interviews, support tickets, feature requests, win/loss? Count it and date it. Note where the vocabulary matches the competitor's feature and where customers describe the problem differently.

A single customer asking is one customer. A repeated request across a stated number is a pattern in requests. Neither is yet demand.

针对同一需求：本公司的客户和潜在客户在通话、访谈、支持工单、功能需求、赢单/输单中都说了什么？统计数量并标注时间。注意客户的表述与竞品功能的表述哪些一致，哪些对问题的描述完全不同。

单个客户的提问只是单个客户的需求。一定数量内的重复请求只是请求中的模式。两者都还不能算作真实需求。

Step 5 - Check what customers do

步骤5 - 核实客户实际行为

From analytics where available: is the need already being met another way in the home product - a workaround, an integration, an adjacent capability - and how many use it? Does usage support or contradict the stated demand? A loudly requested capability whose existing workaround nobody uses is a finding; so is a quietly used workaround nobody requested.

Where telemetry contradicts stated demand, report both and do not resolve it by preferring one. Say what would resolve it.

从可用的分析数据来看：该需求是否已在我方产品中通过其他方式满足——比如变通方案、集成、相邻功能——有多少人在使用？使用数据是支撑还是与所述需求矛盾？一个被大量呼吁但现有变通方案无人使用的功能是一个发现；同样，一个没人提需求但被大量使用的变通方案也是一个发现。

如果遥测数据与口头需求矛盾，请同时报告两者，不要偏向某一方来强行解决矛盾。说明怎样才能解决这个矛盾。

Step 6 - Check whether the problem is already solved

步骤6 - 检查问题是否已被解决

Against the roadmap and current product: is the need addressed, planned, addressed differently by design, or absent? A competitor feature the home product serves through a different mechanism is not a gap; it may be a messaging or proof gap.

对照路线图和现有产品：该需求是否已被满足、已在规划中、已通过不同设计路径解决，还是完全缺失？我方产品通过不同机制实现的竞品功能不算缺口；这可能是宣传或证明缺口。

Step 7 - Frame the questions and classify each

步骤7 - 梳理问题并分类

Write each finding as a question product could investigate, phrased as a customer problem or a strategic question - not as "build X". Classify:

table-stakes risk - buyers increasingly expect it; competitors have it; evidence that its absence costs deals or renewals
differentiator opportunity - customers describe a problem competitors have not solved well, or solved in a way that leaves the home product's approach distinct
noise / copycat risk - competitor movement without buyer evidence; investing would be following
evidence gap - the question is real but the evidence to classify it does not exist yet

Say the evidence behind each classification. Many will be evidence gaps; that is an honest result.

将每个发现转化为产品团队可以调研的问题，以客户问题或战略问题的形式表述——不要写成「开发X功能」。分类如下：

基础准入风险（table-stakes risk） - 买家越来越期待该功能；竞品已具备；有证据表明缺失该功能会导致丢单或续费率下降
差异化机会 - 客户提出的问题竞品尚未妥善解决，或竞品的解决方式反而凸显了我方产品方案的独特性
噪音/跟风风险（noise / copycat risk） - 只有竞品动作，没有买家需求证据；投入资源开发只是盲目跟风
证据缺口 - 问题真实存在，但目前缺乏足够证据进行分类

请说明每个分类背后的证据支撑。很多问题会归为证据缺口；这是诚实的结果。

Step 8 - Name the evidence missing before prioritization

步骤8 - 明确优先级排序前缺失的证据

For each question: what would have to be known - customer interviews in a segment, a usage study, a win/loss cut, a cost estimate, a strategic call - before product could weigh it against everything else. Do not rank the questions. Ranking needs company priorities, economics, and capacity the review does not have; if the user supplies them, rank only within what they cover and say so.

针对每个问题：产品团队需要先了解哪些信息——比如某细分领域的客户访谈、使用情况研究、赢单/输单分析、成本估算、战略决策——才能将其与其他需求一起权衡排序。不要对问题进行优先级排序。排序需要公司优先级、经济效益和产能信息，这些本评审不具备；如果用户提供了这些信息，仅在其覆盖的范围内排序，并明确说明。

Step 9 - Hand off

步骤9 - 交接指引

The user also wants	Run
a verdict on whether the market pattern is real	`competitive-market-shift-analysis`
competitive framing for a feature being launched	`competitive-launch-readiness`
the company's cross-functional response	not yet in this pack; give product's part and say so
a pricing or packaging decision this touches	`competitive-pricing-packaging-review`
one competitor's product understood in depth	`competitive-deep-dive`

用户还需要的内容	对应技能
判断市场趋势是否真实	`competitive-market-shift-analysis`
待发布功能的竞品定位框架	`competitive-launch-readiness`
公司跨职能响应方案	暂未纳入本技能包；仅提供产品侧相关内容并说明即可
相关的定价或包装决策	`competitive-pricing-packaging-review`
深入了解某一家竞品的产品	`competitive-deep-dive`

Step 10 - Produce the artifact

步骤10 - 产出交付物

Use

assets/roadmap-review-template.md

Return it inline, then offer to save it.

使用

assets/roadmap-review-template.md

模板。直接内联返回内容，然后询问是否需要保存。

Evidence and reasoning rules

证据与推理规则

Read

references/TRUST.md

and

references/METHODOLOGY.md

Especially for roadmap work:

competitors shipping something is evidence about competitors; buyer relevance needs buyer evidence
one competitor is one competitor; one move plus marketing echoes is still one move
requests are what customers say; telemetry is what they do; a conflict between them is a finding, not a tie-break
a need the home product meets another way is not a gap
the review frames questions; it does not rank a roadmap, and it does not write "build X"
the evidence a classification rests on is stated; "table stakes" without deal or renewal evidence is an opinion
motive - why a competitor built something - is unknown unless sourced

请阅读

references/TRUST.md

和

references/METHODOLOGY.md

。

尤其针对路线图工作：

竞品推出某功能只能证明竞品的动作；买家相关性需要买家侧的证据
一家竞品的动作就是一家竞品；一个动作加上营销造势仍然只是一个动作
需求反馈是客户的说法；遥测数据是客户的实际行为；两者冲突是发现项，而非需要决出胜负的矛盾
我方产品已通过其他方式满足的需求不算缺口
本评审仅梳理问题，不对路线图排序，也不会给出「开发X功能」的结论
每个分类都要有对应的证据支撑；没有丢单或续费证据支撑的「基础准入」只是主观判断
动机——即竞品为什么开发某个功能——除非有明确信息来源，否则均为未知

Graceful fallback

优雅降级

Read

references/DEGRADATION.md

and

references/LMTY.md

请阅读

references/DEGRADATION.md

和

references/LMTY.md

。

Fully connected

全连接状态

Competitor movement from LMTY, customer evidence from research and calls, behavior from analytics, plan from the roadmap.

来自LMTY的竞品动态、来自研究和通话的客户证据、来自分析的用户行为、来自路线图的规划。

LMTY connected, no internal sources

仅连接LMTY，无内部数据源

Competitor movement and buyer-facing emphasis can be established; the company's own customer evidence cannot. Every question is at best an evidence gap. Say so, and do not infer this company's customer demand from the market.

可以确认竞品动态和面向买家的宣传重点；无法获取公司自有客户证据。所有问题最多只能归为证据缺口。需明确说明这一点，且不要从市场情况推断本公司的客户需求。

Internal sources connected, no LMTY

仅连接内部数据源，无LMTY

Customer evidence and behavior can be established; competitor movement comes from current public evidence, point-in-time and dated, with no history. Independence over time cannot be judged.

可以确认客户证据和行为；竞品动态仅来自当前公开信息，为时间点快照且有滞后性，无历史变更记录。无法判断竞品动作随时间变化的独立性。

Research mode

调研模式

Competitor movement from public sources, dated. No customer evidence. The review can list what competitors did and the questions that raises; it cannot classify beyond evidence gap.

竞品动态来自公开来源，标注时间。无客户证据。本评审可列出竞品动作及由此引发的问题；无法进行更细分类，只能归为证据缺口。

Bounded-input mode

有限输入模式

Use only the supplied roadmap, research, and market material, and say so at the top. Do not add competitor moves or customer evidence from memory. Classify only where the material supports it.

仅使用提供的路线图、调研和市场材料，并在开头明确说明。不要凭记忆添加竞品动作或客户证据。仅在材料支撑的范围内进行分类。

References

参考文件

```
references/CONTEXT.md
```
```
references/DEGRADATION.md
```
```
references/INTERNAL.md
```
```
references/LMTY.md
```
```
references/METHODOLOGY.md
```
```
references/QUALITY.md
```
```
references/TRUST.md
```

```
references/CONTEXT.md
```
```
references/DEGRADATION.md
```
```
references/INTERNAL.md
```
```
references/LMTY.md
```
```
references/METHODOLOGY.md
```
```
references/QUALITY.md
```
```
references/TRUST.md
```