Research competitor pain points from review platforms (G2, Capterra, Reddit) to find wedge opportunities. SaaS/B2B focus. Use for market validation, competitive analysis, or deciding whether to build. Always concludes with brutally honest viability assessment.
Limited to specific tools
Additional assets for this skill
This skill is limited to using the following tools:
references/output-template.mdreferences/scoring-rubrics.mdResearch competitor pain points from review platforms to identify market opportunities for SaaS/B2B products.
This skill analyzes reviews from G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, Reddit, and other platforms to extract:
Every report concludes with a brutally honest business viability assessment.
Gather from the user:
Ask user to choose research depth:
| Depth | Competitors | Est. Time | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Light (default) | 3-5 top players | 5-10 min | Quick validation, early ideation |
| Medium | 5-10 competitors | 15-25 min | Market entry research |
| Deep | 10+ competitors | 30-45 min | Comprehensive competitive intelligence |
Ask user which execution approach to use:
A) Semi-Automated (WebSearch + WebFetch)
B) Agentic Browsing (Browser MCP)
Track progress via TodoWrite through these steps:
Produce the structured report (see Output Format below):
Ask user via AskUserQuestion:
docs/research/[date]-[topic]-problem-research.md| Platform | Strengths | Search Pattern |
|---|---|---|
| G2 | Structured likes/dislikes, verified users, company size data | "[competitor]" site:g2.com reviews |
| Capterra | Large volume, verified buyers, detailed pros/cons | "[competitor]" site:capterra.com reviews |
| TrustRadius | In-depth tradeoffs section, enterprise focus | "[competitor]" site:trustradius.com |
| Authentic, unfiltered, real frustration | "[competitor]" site:reddit.com (frustrated OR hate OR switching) | |
| GetApp | SMB focus, similar to Capterra | "[competitor]" site:getapp.com reviews |
# Pain-focused searches
"[competitor name]" reviews "what I dislike"
"[competitor name]" vs "looking for alternative"
"switching from [competitor]" OR "left [competitor]"
"[competitor name]" frustrated OR annoying OR terrible
# Feature-focused searches
"[competitor name]" "can't live without"
"[competitor name]" "favorite feature"
"best thing about [competitor name]"
PPS = Frequency Score × Severity Score × Recency Multiplier
Frequency Score (1-5):
| Score | Mentions | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1-2 | Isolated complaint |
| 2 | 3-5 | Notable pattern |
| 3 | 6-10 | Common issue |
| 4 | 11-20 | Widespread problem |
| 5 | 20+ | Systemic failure |
Severity Score (1-4):
| Score | Level | Signal Words |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Annoyance | "wish," "minor," "sometimes" |
| 2 | Friction | "frustrating," "annoying," "confusing" |
| 3 | Blocker | "can't," "impossible," "forced to" |
| 4 | Dealbreaker | "leaving," "nightmare," "unacceptable" |
Recency Multiplier:
| Multiplier | Timeframe | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | >2 years old | Possibly fixed |
| 1.0 | Mixed recency | Standard weight |
| 1.5 | Mostly <6 months | Active problem |
PPS Range: 0.5 to 30
Hidden Gem Score = Pain Frequency × Competitor Gap Score
Competitor Gap Score (0-5):
| Score | Coverage |
|---|---|
| 0 | All major competitors have it |
| 3 | Few competitors address it |
| 5 | No competitor addresses it |
| Factor | What to Look For | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Market Pain Severity | Emotional language, switching behavior | 1-5 |
| Willingness to Pay | Price complaints (good!), "worth any price" | 1-5 |
| Competitor Vulnerability | Ignored complaints, stale products, acquisitions | 1-5 |
| Switching Cost Reality | Data portability, "stuck with" comments | 1-5 |
| Market Timing | Recent pricing changes, feature removal, windows | 1-5 |
| Differentiation Potential | Can you solve 1 thing 10x better? | 1-5 |
See references/scoring-rubrics.md for detailed scoring criteria.
Strong opportunity. Clear pain, achievable solution, winnable market.
Opportunity exists but validate further. Address specific risks identified.
Significant risks. Consider pivoting focus or target segment.
Do not pursue without fundamental changes to the approach.
Every report must answer these questions honestly:
No sugar-coating. No wishful thinking. Data-backed brutal truth.
Target length: 1,500-2,500 words (substantial but scannable)
See references/output-template.md for the complete template.
# Problem Research: [Category]
**Industry:** [Vertical] | **Competitors:** [Count] | **Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
## Executive Summary
[3-4 sentences: Top pain, biggest opportunity, verdict]
## Pain Points Table
| Rank | Pain Point | Freq | Severity | PPS | Sample Quote |
|------|------------|------|----------|-----|--------------|
## Must-Haves Table
| Must-Have | Coverage | Why Non-Negotiable |
|-----------|----------|---------------------|
## Hidden Gems
### Gem 1: [Underserved Need]
- **Evidence:** [Quote]
- **Why ignored:** [Hypothesis]
- **Opportunity:** [S/M/L]
## Opportunity Map
| Wedge | Target | Pain Solved | Defensibility |
|-------|--------|-------------|---------------|
## Viability Assessment
**VERDICT: [GO / PROCEED WITH CAUTION / RECONSIDER / NO-GO]**
### The Brutal Truth
[Unflinching analysis]
### Red Flags / Green Lights
### If You Proceed / Kill Criteria
## Data Sources
| Source | Competitors | Reviews |
|--------|-------------|---------|
When categorizing pain points, use these standard categories:
# Full interactive session
skill problem-research
# With initial context
skill problem-research "Project management software for marketing teams"
# Specific competitor focus
skill problem-research "CRM alternatives to Salesforce for SMBs"
Skill Status: Complete