market-landscape-scan

Market Landscape Scan

Purpose

Map a market's structure using a workflow, not a one-shot answer: search plan → segmentation →
player mapping → dynamics → whitespace → next-step options. The output is the landscape view that
everything downstream stands on — sizing needs to know the segments, positioning needs to know the
players, and competitor deep-dives need to know who's worth the effort. This skill maps structure,
not magnitude: it tells you who plays where and why, not how big the prize is.

Input

Works best with: the market, segment, or problem space to map — in your words, not an analyst
category — and the decision this landscape should support (market entry, new product line,
re-positioning, build-vs-buy).
Also useful: any boundary narrower than global — geography, buyer size, price band — and players
you already know about, so the scan spends its effort on what you don't.

Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
don't re-ask.

Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (market, decision,
boundary) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go unanswered — that's the
autonomous-investigation contract.

Example invocation: Run a market landscape scan on developer-facing API observability tools, EU-only — this supports a Q4 market-entry decision.

Key Concepts

Governing protocol: this skill honors the autonomous-investigation

contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step.

Discipline mix: primarily OSINT (analyst and review coverage, press, communities) with

GEOINT/DEMOINT for segment reality-checks and FININT for funding signals — see
intelligence-collection-disciplines.

Buyer-view segmentation. Map the market as buyers experience it, not as vendors or analysts

carve it — and note where the two disagree. Analyst quadrants are a map someone else drew for their
own purposes; the disagreement between vendor categories and buyer reality is often where the
opportunity hides.

Non-consumption is a competitor. "They use spreadsheets" belongs on the player map. Treating

substitutes and non-consumption as competitors is the most commercially useful habit in market
analysis — the biggest rival is usually the status quo, and it never shows up in a quadrant.

The dead-zone test. Every whitespace claim must survive the question "or is it a dead zone?"

Empty space is either opportunity or evidence of no demand; the honest counter-reading is mandatory,
not optional.

Do-not-invent list (this domain's fabrication risks): companies, products, funding rounds,

market share, growth rates, customer claims.

Application

Credit inline context, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):

1. What market or problem space, in your words?
2. What decision should this landscape support?
3. Any boundary — geography, buyer size, price band?
If unanswered, proceed with labeled assumptions.

Show the 3-bullet search plan — what you'll search, source types (analyst and review sites,

company and pricing pages, funding databases, industry press, trade bodies, practitioner
communities), and how facts will be separated from inference. Continue unless revised.

Research in Just Enough Mode and emit the schema below exactly — it is the stable base

that quarterly re-scans diff against.

Output schema (do not reorder)

~~~markdown

Market Landscape Snapshot

1. Scope

Market / problem space: | Boundary: | Decision supported: | As-of date:

2. How This Market Segments

[3-5 segments as buyers experience them, each 1 bullet]

[Where vendor categories disagree with buyer reality: 1 bullet]

3. Player Map

Direct players

[Name]: [who they serve; wedge; 1 momentum signal; URL]

Adjacent players (could enter)

[Name]: [why adjacency matters; URL]

Substitutes and non-consumption

[What buyers do instead]: [why it persists]

Emerging entrants

[Name]: [what bet they're making; funding/traction signal; URL]

Cap the full map at 12 players; strongest signal only.

4. Dynamics

Where the money is: [2 bullets, labeled]

Where the momentum is: [2 bullets, labeled]

Consolidation or fragmentation: [1 bullet]

Technology or regulatory shifts in play: [1-2 bullets]

5. Whitespace and Dead Zones

[Apparent gap]: opportunity or dead zone? [evidence either way]

[2-3 of these, each with the honest counter-reading]

6. So What?

3 implications for the decision named in Scope

2 players to deep-dive next

3 assumptions to validate

Each bullet: label, confidence, URL where relevant.
~~~

A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in template.md.

Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)

Run competitive-research-snapshot on the deep-dive players

Run tam-sam-som-calculator sizing on the most promising segment

Draft a positioning hypothesis against this landscape (positioning-statement)

Schedule-ready version: what should a quarterly re-scan watch?

Accept 1, 2, 3, 4, 1 and 2, Verbose Mode, or a custom path.

Examples

Segmentation catching a vendor/buyer disagreement (all names fictional):

> Vendors in this space market three categories: "observability platforms," "APM," and "log
> management." Buyers in practitioner forums segment differently — Fact
> (community thread, Jun 2026): by who gets paged (dev-owned vs.
> ops-owned) and by cost model tolerance (per-seat vs. per-GB). Two "different" vendor categories
> compete head-to-head for dev-owned/per-seat buyers — Inference (same buyers evaluating both in
> review-site comparisons). The category language is marketing architecture, not market structure.

A whitespace claim surviving the dead-zone test:

> Apparent gap: nobody serves sub-50-employee agencies at self-serve pricing. Opportunity or dead
> zone? Two prior entrants targeted exactly this and pivoted upmarket within 18 months — Fact
> (funding announcements, URLs). Their stated reason was willingness-to-pay,
> not demand — Inference (founder postmortem cites CAC/LTV, not lack of interest). Verdict:
> conditional whitespace — viable only with a radically cheaper acquisition motion. Assumption to
> validate: the segment's tooling budget clears $50/month.

See examples/sample.md for a complete worked scan (fictional FSM-software
market) whose output feeds the competitive-research-snapshot example — the chain's schemas
demonstrated end to end. examples/sample-industrial.md runs the
same schema in a fictional industrial market, where the substitutes and freshest signals change
completely.

Common Pitfalls

Adopting the analyst map. Reciting a quadrant is not a landscape scan — quadrants exclude

substitutes, lag emerging entrants, and segment by what's convenient to rank. Use them as one
OSINT source, labeled, never as the frame.

Omitting non-consumption. A player map without "what buyers do instead" flatters every vendor

on it and hides the real competitor: inertia.

Whitespace romanticism. Declaring every empty cell an opportunity. If the counter-reading is

missing, the analysis is a pitch, not intelligence.

Player-map sprawl. Twenty players with two facts each beats nothing, but twelve with the

strongest signal each beats it badly. The cap is the discipline.

Scope drift between re-scans. Changing the boundary or schema between runs silently breaks

comparability — a re-scan of a different scope is a new baseline, and should say so.

References

autonomous-investigation (Workflow) — the governing protocol

intelligence-collection-disciplines (Component) — discipline sources and signal chains

competitive-research-snapshot (Workflow) — deep-dive on the players this scan surfaces

tam-sam-som-calculator (Component) — sizes the segments this scan maps

positioning-statement (Component) — positions against this landscape

Adapted from market-intelligence/market-landscape-scan-prompt.md in the

https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts repo.