five-forces-analysis

Installable Ships in market-research-agent — or copy the raw skill below.

Paste into Claude Code, Claude.ai, the desktop app, or the browser extension — ⌘/Ctrl+V.

ExperimentalNo security review

Five Forces Analysis

Apply Porter's Five Forces — adapted for digital markets — to frame the competitive structure of an industry or market segment. The output is a scored brief with evidence, force-level interpretations, and strategic implications for the engagement.

When this skill applies

User asks for a "Five Forces," "industry analysis," "market structure," or "competitive landscape" assessment
User needs to frame why a client's market is attractive, threatened, or structurally difficult before a strategy engagement
User wants to contextualize a platform-selection recommendation within broader market dynamics
Pre-envision framing: "What's the competitive pressure shaping how [client] must compete online?"

Skip for: single-competitor teardown → competitor-teardown; market sizing → market-sizing; SEO gap → seo-content-gap.

Inputs

Parameter	Required	Default
`industry-or-market`	Yes	—
`--client`	No	—
`--platform-lens`	No	off
`--output`	No	`brief`

Workflow

Step 1 — Define the market boundary

Confirm the market scope with the user:

What product/service category is the client competing in?
What geography (global, NA, UK, EU, specific verticals)?
What customer segment (B2B, B2C, B2B2C, enterprise, SMB)?

State the boundary explicitly at the top of the output — ambiguous market definitions produce meaningless Five Forces readings.

Step 2 — Score each force

For each of the five forces, collect at least two pieces of cited evidence (analyst report, news source, observable market data), score the force intensity, and write an interpretation. See reference.md § Force Intensity Anchors.

Force 1 — Competitive Rivalry

Digital-market adaptation: rivalry intensity is amplified by global reach, zero marginal cost of digital distribution, and shorter product-lifecycle cycles. Assess:

Number and concentration of significant players
Rate of product/feature imitation (copy-cat velocity)
Switching costs for buyers (low switching = high rivalry)
Price transparency and race-to-zero dynamics
Investment in brand differentiation vs. commodity features
Network effects (do they reduce or amplify rivalry?)

Score: Low / Moderate / High / Very High. Cite evidence.

Force 2 — Threat of New Entrants

Digital-market adaptation: entry barriers are lower for software products (no physical distribution) but higher for trusted-brand and data-network effects. Assess:

Capital requirements (infrastructure, talent, regulation)
Regulatory / compliance barriers (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS, accessibility law)
Brand and trust barriers — how long does it take to earn market credibility?
Technology barriers — proprietary data, AI models, platform ecosystem lock-in
Incumbent retaliation history (do leaders price-match or acquire entrants?)
Venture and PE funding flows into the space (proxy for entrant confidence)

Score: Low / Moderate / High. Cite evidence.

Force 3 — Bargaining Power of Suppliers

Digital-market adaptation: key suppliers are often cloud infrastructure providers, platform vendors, AI API providers, and talent pools. Assess:

Supplier concentration (few dominant vendors vs. many alternatives)
Switching cost from a key supplier (e.g., migrating off Azure, SAP, or Sitecore)
Supplier forward-integration threat (does the supplier compete with the client?)
Talent supply constraints (specialized skills scarcity)
Open-source availability as a counterweight to proprietary supplier power

If --platform-lens is active, add:

DXP vendor power (Sitecore, Optimizely, Umbraco, AEM, Contentful) — analyze licensing leverage, cloud-native migration forcing functions, and vendor consolidation trends
Azure/Microsoft supply dependency for RBA-positioned clients

Score: Low / Moderate / High. Cite evidence.

Force 4 — Bargaining Power of Buyers

Digital-market adaptation: buyers are better informed than ever (G2, Gartner Peer Insights, RFP processes, analyst reports), and switching is easier in composable architectures. Assess:

Buyer concentration (few enterprise buyers vs. many SMB buyers)
Purchase volume and multi-year contract norms
Buyer price sensitivity and budget cycle dynamics
Buyer switching costs (data migration, training, integration tear-up)
Buyer ability to self-build or use open-source (build vs. buy threat)
Buyer access to competitive information and benchmarking

Score: Low / Moderate / High. Cite evidence.

Force 5 — Threat of Substitutes

Digital-market adaptation: substitutes in digital markets often come from outside the apparent industry boundary (e.g., a no-code builder substituting for a DXP; a generative AI tool substituting for a content agency workflow). Assess:

Performance-to-price improvement trajectory of substitutes
Switching cost to the substitute (is migration painful or trivial?)
Buyer propensity to experiment (innovation-forward vs. risk-averse sector)
Platform convergence threats (does a super-platform absorb multiple point solutions?)
AI-native products that restructure how the job gets done (not just a cheaper version of the same thing)

If --platform-lens is active, add:

Composable / headless architecture as a substitute for traditional monolithic DXP
AI-generated content tools as a partial substitute for content strategy and production services
Low-code/no-code site builders substituting for DX implementation services

Score: Low / Moderate / High. Cite evidence.

Step 3 — Overall industry attractiveness rating

Aggregate the five force scores into an overall attractiveness judgment:

Attractiveness	Meaning
Attractive	Forces mostly Low-to-Moderate; margins defensible; competitors profitable
Moderately attractive	Mixed; 2–3 forces manageable; requires clear differentiation
Challenging	3+ forces at High intensity; structural pressure on margins and growth
Unattractive	All or nearly all forces at High/Very High; structural reasons to reconsider market position

Step 4 — Strategic implications

For each force at Moderate or higher intensity, write one strategic implication for the client. Framing:

"Because [force] is [intensity], [client] should consider [strategic response]."
Flag which implications are in RBA's scope to address (platform selection, content strategy, experience design, data architecture) vs. out of scope (pricing, M&A, regulatory lobbying).

Step 5 — Self-check before returning

Every force score is supported by at least two pieces of cited evidence (source name + date)
Market boundary is stated and agreed before analysis proceeds
Digital-market adaptations are applied — do not produce a Forces analysis that would look identical for a brick-and-mortar market
Strategic implications distinguish RBA-addressable items from out-of-scope items
Platform-lens notes are clearly marked as optional depth, not core findings

Return the Five Forces brief as markdown.

Reference file

reference.md — Force Intensity Anchors, evidence source quality guide, DXP platform lens scoring guidance

Technical details

Plugin

market-research-agent

Author

Dakota Smith

Skill name

five-forces-analysis

Maturity

experimental

Security review

No security review

Owners

strategy

Argument hint

<industry-or-market> [--client <company-or-domain>] [--platform-lens] [--output brief|workshop-deck|narrative]

Allowed tools

Read
Write
WebFetch(domain:www.ibisworld.com)
WebFetch(domain:www.statista.com)
WebFetch(domain:www.gartner.com)
WebFetch(domain:hbr.org)
WebFetch(domain:www.forrester.com)
WebFetch(domain:scopy.me)
WebFetch(domain:flevy.com)

Source

plugins/market-research-agent/skills/five-forces-analysis/SKILL.md

Edit this skill on GitHub — opens GitHub's web editor. No git knowledge needed.