Alignment date: 2026-06-11
Draft Stonk Competitive Analysis Scope Review
reviewcompetitive-analysisStage 1 scope discoveryvisual tier
This page proposes the competitive-analysis scope for Draft Stonk before any synthesized competitive research starts. It is intentionally limited to repo/source context, research boundaries, source plan, framework queue, output paths, and approval gates.
Approval boundary: no competitor research, candidate ranking, working packet, canonical research file, spec file, or task queue will be created until final compiled YAML approves the scope.
Review Boundary
This is a Stage 1 review page. It exists to align on the scope before research starts.
Not done yet: no web research, no competitor facts, no rankings, no market gaps, no pricing conclusions, no working packet, and no canonical competitive-analysis deliverable.
After scope approval, Stage 2 will run the research and write only the non-canonical working packet. Stage 2 will then update this same page for artifact review. Canonical files are reserved for Stage 3 after final artifact approval YAML.
Scope Evidence
The following are observed project facts for scoping only. They are not competitive findings.
| Area | Observed Evidence | Scope Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Mode | research/icp.md exists. No research/.progress.yaml product-path manifest was found. |
Use standard mode in flat research/ scope. |
| Active source of truth | README.md, concept.md, desk-flip-report.md, and CLAUDE.md describe a fresh-start product seed. |
Use the current concept and ICP as active context; archived implementation is historical evidence only. |
| Codebase state | No active package.json, app scaffold, dev server, test command, or build command is present after reset. |
Scope research around the concept and audience, not current app capabilities. |
| Existing competitive artifacts | No research/competitive-analysis*.md files were found. |
Stage 2 would create a first working packet and later first canonical competitive-analysis files after approval. |
| Pack availability | .agents/project.json has business-discovery and customer-lifecycle enabled. |
No downstream routing is emitted in Stage 1; pack state is only recorded for later synthesis rules. |
Product Context
Product
Draft Stonk is a mobile-first fantasy stock draft game: fantasy football, but players draft real stock tickers instead of athletes.
Primary ICP
Finance-curious social retail players in the United States, especially Gen Z and young millennial investors, fantasy-sports-adjacent friend groups, and social market participants.
First Loop
Land, understand the game, make a first stock pick, complete a compact snake draft against simple bots, see equal-dollar standings, and want to replay, share, or invite friends.
Constraints
No real-money trading, cash prizes, brokerage links, account funding flows, investment advice, recommendations, or buy/sell language. Start with local or mock stock data.
This is a context summary from existing repository artifacts, not a competitive conclusion.
Proposed Research Scope
Research should evaluate Draft Stonk's competitive frame as a no-money, no-prize, non-advisory social fantasy stock drafting game for U.S. finance-curious retail players and adjacent friend or club groups.
Included Competitive Categories
- Fantasy-stock, stock-game, and market-simulation products that use contests, portfolios, drafts, rankings, or games.
- Paper-trading and investing simulators that solve adjacent learning or practice needs.
- Education-oriented stock market games and classroom or club competition products.
- Fantasy sports platforms as expectation-setters for drafts, leagues, standings, and social rivalry.
- Informal substitutes: spreadsheets, group chats, Discord threads, watchlists, screenshots, and manual challenges.
- Finance creator/community challenge formats where game outcomes might be confused with advice.
Excluded From This Research
- Product architecture, implementation design, and active app feature changes.
- Positioning recommendations that belong in a later
$positioningworkflow. - Real-money trading, paid-entry contests, gambling mechanics, brokerage workflows, and investment-advice mechanics as product directions. These may be analyzed only as risk or contrast evidence.
- GitHub Actions workflows or CI/CD suggestions.
Framework Plan
The proposed queue includes the three default frameworks and the optional strategic group map because the existing ICP spans multiple substitute categories and buyer/user contexts. Framework execution will still require separate approval and web research by each framework subskill.
| Framework | Slug | Reason To Include | Stage 2/Execution Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Porter's Five Forces | porter-five-forces |
Industry structure, substitutes, entrant pressure, buyer power, supplier/dependency power, and rivalry. | research/competitive-analysis-porter-five-forces.md |
| SWOT | swot |
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats grounded in competitive evidence. | research/competitive-analysis-swot.md |
| Feature/Pricing Matrix | feature-pricing-matrix |
Capability, packaging, and pricing comparison across direct and adjacent alternatives. | research/competitive-analysis-feature-pricing-matrix.md |
| Strategic Group Map | strategic-group-map |
The scope appears to span multiple segments: consumer stock games, paper trading, education, fantasy sports, and informal substitutes. | research/competitive-analysis-strategic-group-map.md |
| Synthesis | competitive-analysis --synthesize |
Combine approved framework outputs into canonical competitive landscape and search log after framework artifacts exist. | research/competitive-analysis.md and research/competitive-analysis-search-log.md |
Source Plan
After approval, research should use current web search extensively. Every competitor fact included in a framework output or synthesis must come from a search result and be cited.
| Source Category | Purpose | Recency Preference | Evidence Use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Official product and pricing pages | Validate features, packages, price posture, contest mechanics, and target users. | Current pages; archived only for history when current pages are unavailable. | Feature/pricing matrix, profile facts, GTM patterns. |
| App Store, Google Play, Product Hunt, review sites | Gather user-facing claims, review volume, sentiment patterns, and friction signals. | Prefer last 12 months. | User sentiment, adoption signals, feature gaps. |
| Education and competition references | Assess classroom, club, stock-pitch, and simulation alternatives without treating them as primary product directions. | Current programs and 2025-2026 activity. | Segment map, institutional contrast, risk boundaries. |
| Fantasy sports platforms and rules pages | Use as category expectations for drafts, standings, leagues, social rivalry, and onboarding metaphors. | Current product/rules pages. | Substitute analysis, feature expectations, user mental model contrast. |
| Social/community/user discussion | Capture observable demand and dissatisfaction, while treating anecdotal signals with caution. | Prefer recent public posts. | Qualitative gaps and risk signals only when sourced. |
| Terms, legal, and compliance framing | Identify how comparable products handle prizes, no-advice language, simulated trading, and contest risk. | Current terms and disclaimers. | Threats, non-goal contrast, compliance implications. |
Visual Coverage Plan
This chart is a proposed evidence-coverage allocation for Stage 2. It is not a market finding and does not imply competitor weighting.
Proposed Source Coverage Allocation
| Category | Proposed Allocation |
|---|---|
| Official product and pricing | 25 |
| User sentiment and reviews | 20 |
| Education and competitions | 18 |
| Fantasy sports expectations | 14 |
| Terms and compliance framing | 13 |
| Recent activity and news | 10 |
Output Paths
| Artifact | Path | When It Can Be Written |
|---|---|---|
| Prompt history | prompts/competitive-analysis/skill-prompt-20260611-135129-stage1-scope.md |
Already required before substantive skill work. |
| Stage 1 alignment page | alignment/competitive-analysis-draft-stonk.html |
Now, as the scope approval artifact. |
| Central alignment index | alignment/index.html |
Now, to list active alignment pages. |
| Stage 2 working packet | research/_working/preliminary-competitive-analysis-research.md |
Only after final compiled YAML approves this scope with no unresolved negative feedback. |
| Mode A framework queue | tasks/todo.md |
Only after scope approval, and only with selected framework steps plus synthesis. Current Stage 1 does not create task files. |
| Framework outputs | research/competitive-analysis-*.md |
Produced later by approved framework subskills, each with its own staged review. |
| Canonical synthesis | research/competitive-analysis.md and research/competitive-analysis-search-log.md |
Only in Stage 3 after framework outputs exist and final artifact approval YAML is provided. |
Assumptions and Confidence
| Item | Status | Confidence | What Could Change It |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flat research scope | Observed: no product-path manifest and no non-archived product research directories. | High | User names a product path or provides a manifest update. |
| Standard mode | Observed: research/icp.md exists and meaningful concept docs exist. |
High | User asks to validate a new concept instead of the current Draft Stonk ICP. |
| Strategic group map inclusion | Inferred from multiple substitute categories and buyer/user contexts in the ICP. | Medium | User chooses the core-only queue or narrows the scope to direct stock-game competitors. |
| Competitor set | Not established in Stage 1. | Unproven | Stage 2 web search and approved framework research. |
| Market gaps and white space | Not established in Stage 1. | Unproven | Stage 2 evidence and later synthesis across approved framework outputs. |
Approval Gates
Scope and Non-Goals Gate
Approve, revise, or block the proposed research scope and non-goals before research begins.
Required: Should Stage 2 use the proposed Draft Stonk competitive scope?
Framework Selection Gate
Approve which framework steps should be queued after scope approval.
Required: Which framework queue should be used?
Source Coverage Gate
Approve the evidence categories and source emphasis before web research starts.
Required: Is the proposed source plan sufficient for Stage 2?
Artifact Destination and Proposed File Changes Gate
Approve the staged artifact locations and mutation rules. This combines artifact destination and proposed file changes because the decision is path and timing approval.
Required: May Stage 2 write the working packet and, after scope approval, queue selected framework steps in tasks/todo.md?
Coverage Checkpoint Gate
Confirm the next approval checkpoint so the staged workflow stays bounded.
Required: After Stage 2 research, should the agent stop again with a working packet review page before canonical files?
Compile YAML
Use feedback-only YAML for emphasis requests, concerns, or clarification before final approval. Use final answers only when every required gate question is answered.