Methodology Origins The Horizontal-Vertical Analysis method was proposed by Digital Life Khazix. It integrates diachronic-synchronic analysis in linguistics (Saussure), the longitudinal-cross-sectional research design in social science, the business school case study method, and the core ideas of competitive strategy analysis, forming a general research framework applicable to products/companies/concepts/people. The core principle remains unchanged: the vertical axis pursues temporal depth, the horizontal axis pursues contemporaneous breadth, and the two ultimately converge into a judgment.
Source This Skill comes from KKKKhazix/khazix-skills, created by Digital Life Khazix, under the MIT License. On import, the
context: forkandallowed-toolsfrontmatter fields were added; the content was not modified.
You are conducting a Horizontal-Vertical Analysis deep research. The final output is abeautifully typeset PDF research report。
Preliminary Preparation
Environment Preparation
- Confirm that the PDF conversion script is available: This Skill includes
scripts/md_to_pdf.py(based on WeasyPrint), used to convert the final Markdown report into a beautifully typeset PDF. Make sure the dependencies are installed:pip install weasyprint markdown --break-system-packages。 - Writing Style: This Skill has a complete built-in writing style guide (see the "Writing Style" section below), and no additional skills need to be loaded.
Clarify the Research Subject
After receiving the user input, confirm the following information. If the user has already given enough clarity (for example, "help me research Hermes Agent using Horizontal-Vertical Analysis"), there is no need to ask follow-up questions; start directly:
- Research subject: the specific product name/company name/concept name/person name
- Type: product, company, concept, person, or something else?
- Research motivation(optional): Why study it? What happened recently?
- Special focus(optional): Is there any particular direction you want to go deeper into?
Step One: Online Information Collection
The quality of this methodology depends entirely on the richness and accuracy of the information.Internet search is mandatory, and you cannot rely only on existing knowledge. The value of a research report lies in its depth and completeness, so during the information collection stage it is better to search more; do not let insufficient information cause the later analysis to remain superficial.
Parallel Search Strategy
Use sub-agents to search in parallel to improve efficiency. Suggested division of labor:
- Sub-agent 1 — Vertical information: the research subject's origin, founder background, development history, key events, version iterations, financing, strategic pivots, crises
- Sub-agent 2 — Horizontal information: competitor identification, the characteristics and user reputation of each competitor, industry comparative reviews, market share
- Sub-agent 3(only needed for complex subjects): supplementary information, such as the founder's in-depth background, changes in the industry environment, user community discussions (GitHub issues, Reddit, Twitter/X, Zhihu, etc.)
Guide to Using Sub-agent Online Tools(Write directly into each sub-agent's prompt):
Each sub-agent's prompt must include the following web-access guidelines:
You need to obtain information online. Use the following tools:
- WebSearch: used to search and discover information sources, obtain summaries and keyword results
- WebFetch: used to extract content in a targeted way from a page when a specific URL is already known
- If the web-access skill is installed in the user's environment (check the path
/mnt/.claude/skills/web-access/SKILL.mdto see whether it exists), load it first and follow its guidelines; it provides stronger browser CDP capabilities- Search strategy: first use WebSearch to discover information sources and leads, then after finding specific URLs use WebFetch for in-depth extraction
- Search multiple times with multiple keyword combinations; don't give up after just one search
- First-hand sources are better than second-hand sources: official blogs > original reporting by authoritative media > reposts/aggregations
- Academic research subjects must be checked on arxiv: if the research subject involves academic concepts, algorithms, AI models, technical paradigms, etc., relevant papers must be obtained via the arxiv API. How to call it:
curl -s "https://export.arxiv.org/api/query?search_query=all:关键词1+AND+all:关键词2&max_results=10", or use WebFetch to access the same URL. It returns XML format, including title, authors, abstract, publication date, and PDF link. The keyword combinations and number of results can be adjusted as needed. After finding key papers, use WebFetch to read the paper page (https://arxiv.org/abs/论文ID) to obtain more details.
The prompt should describe the goal ("obtain", "research", "understand"), and should not use verbs that imply specific methods ("search", "crawl"); let the sub-agent determine the best way to obtain information on its own.
Information source priority
First-hand sources are better than second-hand sources; multiple media citing the same error creates the illusion of circular corroboration:
| Information type | First-hand source |
|---|---|
| Product updates/technical decisions | Official blogs, GitHub Release Notes, founder tweets |
| Financing/business data | Official company announcements, SEC/business registration documents |
| User feedback | GitHub Issues, Reddit discussions, Twitter/X, Zhihu posts |
| Industry analysis | Original reporting by authoritative media (not reposts) |
| Academic/technical principles | arXiv papers (export.arxiv.org/api/query), Google Scholar, academic conference proceedings |
Self-check for information sufficiency
After searching is complete, check:
- Vertical: can a complete story be told? Are there obvious information gaps?
- Horizontal: is the competitor list complete? Are major players missing? Is there enough information on each competitor for comparison?
- Sources: are key facts supported by reliable sources? Is any judgment made based on only a single source?
If the information is insufficient, search more. Don't settle for less.
Step 2: Diachronic / Longitudinal analysis
Along the timeline, fully reconstruct the complete development of the research subject from its birth to the present. This is the main body of the report, and its length should be the greatest.
Content requirements
Tracing the origins: What was the background of its birth? What technology/idea/need was it based on? Who were the founding team or core promoters? What had these people done before, and why were they the ones to do this? What was the industry environment like at the time? Was there a key event or inspiration that directly led to its birth?
Birth node: The clear time of first release/founding/proposal, the original form and positioning, and how it differs from now.
Evolution history: From birth to the present, sort out all key nodes in chronological order. Including but not limited to: major version updates, financing events, team changes, strategic transformations, technical architecture changes, user scale milestones, major partnerships or acquisitions, public relations crises or controversial events.
Decision logic: At each key node, restore as much as possible the reasons behind the decision. Why choose A instead of B? What constraints were faced at the time? Which early decisions "locked in" the later direction of development and were difficult to reverse? What mechanism made it go deeper and deeper (network effects, ecosystem lock-in, technology stack choices, etc.)?
Stage division: Naturally divide the entire history into several stages (emergence period, rapid growth period, transformation period, etc.), each with core characteristics and core contradictions.
Length
6,000-15,000 words. The longer the history and the more nodes the subject has, the closer to the upper limit; new things should be closer to the lower limit. The core principle is to tell the story completely and thoroughly. Every key node is worth expanding, and do not skip important details just to compress. Better to write longer and in more detail than to touch on things lightly.
Step 3: Cross-sectional analysis (Synchronic / Cross-sectional)
Taking the current point in time as a cross-section, conduct a comprehensive comparison between the research subject and competitors/similar products in the same track.
First determine the competitor situation
Handle it in three scenarios:
Scenario A: No direct competitors. If the research subject is a completely new category or a highly exclusive field, skip the one-by-one comparison and instead analyze: Why does it have no competitors? Is the category too new, are the barriers too high, or is the market too small? From which direction is a competitor most likely to emerge in the future? Are there indirect alternatives or previous-generation solutions that can be referenced?
Scenario B: A small number of competitors (1-2). Conduct in-depth comparisons one by one, with detailed analysis of each competitor.
Scenario C: Sufficient competitors (3 or more). Select the 3-5 most representative ones for comparison, and briefly mention the rest.
Comparison dimensions
Adjust flexibly according to the type of research subject, but at least cover the following aspects:
Core difference comparison: Technical route/core methodology/underlying logic, product form/business model/organizational structure, target users/audience/application scenarios, core advantages and obvious shortcomings, pricing strategy/resource investment/scale and volume.
User perspective: What is the real user reputation of each competitor? In community reviews and usage experience, what are the most frequently mentioned advantages and complaints? Is there any deviation between users' actual usage and the official positioning? The comparison should not be written as a text version of a parameter comparison table; it should clearly explain what each competitor has "become," and what the real reasons are that users choose it.
Ecological niche analysis: In the overall map of the track, what position does the research subject occupy? What gap does it fill, or who is it directly competing with? Is the current landscape one of many players flourishing, two strong contenders vying for dominance, or one dominant player?
Trend judgment: Based on the cross-sectional comparison, what is the direction of the research subject in the competitive landscape? What are the opportunities and risks?
Length
3,000-10,000 words. Scenario A should be controlled at around 3,000 words. In Scenario C, each major competitor should have at least 1,500 words of independent analysis, and should not be mentioned only in passing.
Step 4: Cross-sectional and longitudinal intersection insights
This is the essence paragraph of the entire report. Combine the vertical development trajectory with the horizontal competitive landscape to offer a comprehensive, new judgment. Do not write it as an abbreviated version of the preceding content.
Core questions to answer:
- How history shaped the current competitive position: Which decisions and events in the vertical journey determined its position in today's horizontal comparison?
- Vertical comparison of competitors: If the main competitors are also placed on a timeline, how do their origins and evolution paths differ? How did these differences lead to their respective characteristics today?
- Historical roots of advantages: Each of today's core advantages—which historical node or decision can it be traced back to?
- Historical roots of disadvantages: Each of today's core disadvantages—which historical decision can it be traced back to? Have the "good decisions" of the past become today's burdens?
- Future projections: Based on vertical trends and the horizontal competitive landscape, give three scenarios—the most likely, the most dangerous, and the most optimistic—each with logical support.
Length
1500-3000 words.
Writing style
This is not a cold consulting report, but an in-depth study that people can read from beginning to end. The writing style needs to find a balance between "the rigor of a research report" and "Khazix's readability."
Core elements borrowed from Khazix's style
The following style elements are directly applied to report writing (for detailed definitions, please refer to the khazix-writer skill):
Rhythm: Sentences vary in length, and transitions between paragraphs are natural. Don't make every paragraph the same length; the technique of making a single sentence its own paragraph to create a sense of weight can be used. Good rhythm is like a wave—each time it drifts a little off the main line, then a "tie-back-to-the-main-line sentence" pulls it back.
Narrative-driven, not list-driven: The vertical section needs a story arc, with setup, development, turn, and resolution. For example, why a product suddenly took off at a certain point in time, what the buildup behind it was, and what the turning point was. Don't write it as a running account like "released A in January 2023, released B in March 2023."
Knowledge is "pulled out casually while chatting": Naturally bring in background knowledge during the telling, not "now let me give everyone a science lesson."
Dare to make judgments: Encouraged to give opinions and insights, but every opinion must be supported by facts. First lay out the facts, then give the judgment. Clearly label speculation. When expressing judgments, use a stance that acknowledges subjectivity, such as "I think" or "my judgment is," rather than a condescending definitive conclusion.
Layer-by-layer rhetorical peeling: Don't state the conclusion directly; unfold it in the manner of "phenomenon → surface explanation → deeper questioning → core insight." Let readers participate in the thinking process.
Cultural elevation: In the intersection insights section, connect to larger cultural/philosophical/historical references. It's not a forced elevation, but the feeling of "naturally thinking of it while chatting."
Circular echo: Details and hooks planted at the beginning or in the vertical section should be called back in the intersection insights or the ending. The sense of closure in cause and effect before and after is the key to turning the report from an "information stream" into a "work."
Elements not borrowed from Khazix's style
The following elements suit WeChat public account articles but not research reports, and need restraint:
- Excessive colloquialism: Reports can have a conversational feel, but don't fill every page with "this thing," "bro, no," "so damn good." An occasional touch is fine, but the density should be much lower than in WeChat official account articles.
- Remove subheadings: WeChat official account articles aim to flow smoothly without subheadings. Research reports are different—if a 10,000-30,000 word piece has no clear structure and navigation, readers will get lost. Reports need a clear chapter structure.
- Punctuation bans can be relaxed: WeChat official account articles ban colons and em dashes. In research reports they can be used normally, because what reports need is information delivery efficiency. But the habit of using 「」 can be kept.
- Fixed ending: Don't add the WeChat official account's like/share/star ending.
Absolute no-go zones (still apply)
The following AI-flavored markers should be avoided no matter the style:
- Clichés: "first... second... finally," "in summary," "it is worth noting that," "it is not hard to find"
- Empty adjectives: "empower," "grip point," "build a closed loop"
- Textbook openings: "in today's era of rapid AI development," "with the continuous advancement of technology"
- High-frequency landmine words: "to put it plainly," "what does it mean?" "this means," "essentially," "in other words," "undeniably"
- Vague tool names: don't say "AI tool" or "a certain model"; say the specific name
- Fabricated scenarios: if some information cannot be found, honestly mark it as "this information is temporarily unavailable"; never fabricate
Write in plain language
Avoid consulting-firm-style clichés and empty generalizations. Use specific details and examples instead of general statements. For example, don't write "the company achieved rapid growth at this stage"; write "from $10 million ARR in mid-2024 to $1 billion by the end of 2025, the growth curve was almost vertical."
Step 5: Generate the PDF report
After the report is written, use the scripts/md_to_pdf.py script included with this Skill to convert the Markdown into a beautifully typeset PDF.
Conversion process
- First complete the Markdown manuscript: Write the complete report in standard Markdown format and save it as
{研究对象英文名}-hv-analysis-{yyyy-mm-dd}.md(lowercase English, hyphen-separated, for examplereact-hv-analysis-2026-04-14.md） - Install dependencies(if not installed):
pip install weasyprint markdown --break-system-packages - Run the conversion script：
python [skill目录]/scripts/md_to_pdf.py input.md output.pdf --title "研究对象名称" --author "数字生命卡兹克" - The script will automatically generate an intermediate HTML file (for debugging) and the final PDF
Built-in typesetting specifications of the script
md_to_pdf.py already has a complete CSS typesetting scheme built in, no manual adjustment needed:
- Page: A4, margins top 25mm/left and right 20mm/bottom 20mm
- Cover page: automatically generated, including title (28pt dark blue), subtitle "Horizontal and Vertical Analysis Method In-Depth Research Report," author information, decorative divider line
- Color scheme: H1 title=#1a5276 dark blue, H2=#1e8449 green, H3=#2e86c1 light blue, H4=#5b2c6f purple, body text=#2c3e50 dark gray
- Fonts: CSS fallback chain
"Droid Sans Fallback", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif, automatically handles mixed Chinese and English typesetting - Body text: 10.5pt, line spacing 1.75, justified, orphan/widow control
- Blockquote: 3pt dark blue vertical line on the left + light gray background
- Table: full width, dark blue header with white text, zebra-striped rows
- Header: "Report Title | Vertical-Horizontal Analysis Method In-Depth Research Report" (not displayed on the cover page)
- Footer: "Page X" (not displayed on the cover page)
- The first H1 in Markdown will be automatically extracted as the cover title and will not appear again in the body text
Markdown Writing Notes
To enable the script to correctly parse and generate the best PDF output:
- Use
# 标题on the first line as the report title (automatically used for the cover page) - Immediately after the title, you may use the
> 研究时间：... | 所属领域：... | 研究对象类型：...format to write a metadata line, which will be extracted to the cover page - Use
##as the main section headings (vertical analysis, horizontal analysis, vertical-horizontal intersection, etc.) - Use
###and####as subsection headings - Use standard Markdown table syntax for tables
- Use
>syntax for quotes - Use
**文本**
End Content
Add the following at the end of the Markdown manuscript:
- Information Sources: A list of all cited sources, with URLs and access times noted
- Methodology Note: Briefly explain the origin of the vertical-horizontal analysis method (1-2 sentences is sufficient)
Report Structure Template
封面页
目录
一、一句话定义
[用一句话说清楚这个东西是什么]
二、纵向分析：从诞生到当下
[完整的纵向叙事，6000-15000字]
三、横向分析：竞争图谱
[横向对比分析，3000-10000字]
四、横纵交汇洞察
[交叉分析和未来推演，1500-3000字]
五、信息来源
[所有引用的来源列表]
File Naming and Delivery
File naming follows the {研究对象英文名}-hv-analysis-{yyyy-mm-dd} format (lowercase English, hyphen-separated). The Markdown and PDF files share the same name with different extensions and are saved to the user's working directory. For example:react-hv-analysis-2026-04-14.md and react-hv-analysis-2026-04-14.pdf。
Adaptation for Different Types of Research Subjects
The core principle remains unchanged (the vertical axis pursues depth over time, the horizontal axis pursues breadth in the same period), but the emphasis differs:
When researching a product: The vertical axis focuses on version iterations, evolution of technical approaches, user growth curves, and key product decisions; the horizontal axis focuses on feature comparisons, performance comparisons, user experience, and pricing.
When researching a company: The vertical axis focuses on the founding team, financing history, strategic pivots, organizational changes, and key personnel changes; the horizontal axis focuses on business model differences, market share, revenue comparisons, and organizational structure differences.
When researching a concept(technical paradigm, business model, cultural phenomenon): The vertical axis focuses on the origin of the concept (who proposed it, based on what theory/need), how it became popular, and what debates and evolutions it underwent; the horizontal axis focuses on the differences from similar concepts, their respective applicable scenarios, and the arguments of different camps.
When researching a person: The vertical axis focuses on personal experiences, career trajectory, key decisions, growth curve, and changes in public statements; the horizontal axis focuses on comparisons with other people in the same field (differences in approach, style, achievements, influence, and path choices).
Length Overview
| Section | Word Count Range | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Vertical Analysis | 6,000 - 15,000 words | The main body of the report; do not skim the surface |
| Horizontal Analysis | 3,000 - 10,000 words | Adjust according to the number of competitors |
| Vertical-Horizontal Intersection | 1,500 - 3,000 words | The highlight section, providing new judgments |
| Full Text Total | 10,000 - 30,000 words | Do not fear length; depth and completeness are where the value lies |
Quality inspection checklist
Self-check before delivery:
- Is the vertical axis a narrative storytelling style? Does it read with causal logic and the context of the times? Is it not a chronological流水账?
- Is the background and motivation of the founder/initiator sufficiently deep?
- Has every key node been expanded and written out, without skipping important details just to compress?
- Is the decision logic reconstructed? Not just "what happened," but also "why it was chosen this way"?
- Is the judgment of the competitive landscape scenarios on the horizontal axis correct (A/B/C)? Is the competitor analysis deep enough?
- Does the user word-of-mouth section quote real users' voices? Not just official publicity?
- Does the intersection of the vertical and horizontal axes produce new judgments, rather than an abridged version of the previous content?
- Do the three scenarios of future projection all have logical support?
- Does the writing style have rhythm and readability? Is it not a cold consulting report?
- Has none of the absolute forbidden zones been violated?
- Are all key facts annotated with information sources?
- Is information that cannot be found honestly marked as "temporarily unavailable," without fabrication?
- Is the PDF layout aesthetically pleasing, clearly structured, and highly readable?
- Is the total word count within the range of 10,000-30,000 words?