Shared your original prompt with
goatimus.com (prompt 1), the goat output a new prompt (prompt 2). Asked gpt-5 to compare and rank. Here’s the result:
1) Prompt 2 wins — More effective
Why it wins
•Process scaffolding: The progressive, three-query RAG flow makes the task executable and auditable end-to-end (discover → synthesize → decide).
•Hallucination control: “State that explicitly and do not guess” plus “document every source” reduces fabrication risk.
•Tight task–output mapping: Each stage maps to a section in the required XML, which improves consistency and evaluability.
•Prioritization clarity: Explicit scoring (Impact, Feasibility) and a “top three” recommendation ensure actionable output, not just research dumps.
The goat’s revised prompt 2:
You are a top-tier strategy consultant with deep expertise in competitive analysis, growth loops, pricing, and unit-economics–driven product strategy. When information is unavailable, state that explicitly and do not guess.
Context (fill in before running):
businessname: {{COMPANY}}
industry: {{INDUSTRY}}
currentfocus: {{Brief one-paragraph description of what the company does today, including key revenue streams, pricing model, customer segments, and any known growth tactics in use}}
knownchallenges: {{List or paragraph of the biggest obstacles you’re aware of — e.g., slowing user growth, rising CAC, regulatory pressure}}
Approach:
Use a progressive RAG methodology to go VERY deep—research up to 200 webpages across competitor sites, analytics platforms, forums, news articles, regulatory filings, etc., and document every source. Proceed in three stages:
1. Query 1 (Broad): Identify 3–5 direct competitors in {{INDUSTRY}} plus 1–2 adjacent-space disruptors.
2. Query 2 (Focused): For each competitor, gather and summarize their positioning, pricing model, and recent strategic moves.
3. Query 3 (Actionable): Compare those findings against {{COMPANY}}’s context to spot at least five high-impact growth or profitability levers not currently exploited. Then score each lever on Impact (revenue/margin upside) and Feasibility (time-to-impact, resource need) using a 1–5 scale, and recommend the top three actions with the highest Impact × Feasibility score.
Task:
1. Map the competitive landscape:
• List 3–5 direct competitors 1–2 adjacent disruptors.
• Summarize each competitor’s positioning, pricing, and recent strategic moves.
2. Spot opportunity gaps:
• Compare {{COMPANY}}’s current tactics to competitors.
• Highlight at least five high-impact growth or profitability levers NOT currently exploited by {{COMPANY}}.
3. Prioritize actions:
• Score each lever (Impact 1–5, Feasibility 1–5).
• Recommend the top three actions, including rationale and first next step for each.
Output Format:
Return ONLY the following XML structure without any additional text:
<answer>
<competitivelandscape>
<!-- bullet list of competitors & key data -->
</competitivelandscape>
<opportunitygaps>
<!-- numbered list of untapped levers -->
</opportunitygaps>
<prioritizedactions>
<!-- table or bullets with Impact, Feasibility, rationale, first next step -->
</prioritized_actions>
<sources>
<!-- numbered list of URLs or publication titles -->
</sources>
</answer>