Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'battle card,' or 'competitor teardown.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively.
Check for product marketing context first:
If .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
Before creating competitor pages, understand:
Your Product
Competitive Landscape
Goals
Search intent: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor
URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor] or /[competitor]-alternative
Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"
Page structure:
Search intent: User is researching options, earlier in journey
URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives
Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"
Page structure:
Important: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.
Search intent: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor
URL pattern: /vs/[competitor] or /compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]
Target keywords: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]"
Page structure:
Search intent: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)
URL pattern: /compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]
Page structure:
Why this works: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.
Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences.
Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.
For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.
Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.
Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.
Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.
For detailed templates: See references/templates.md
Create a single source of truth for each competitor with:
For data structure and examples: See references/content-architecture.md
For each competitor, gather:
| Format | Primary Keywords |
|---|---|
| Alternative (singular) | [Competitor] alternative, alternative to [Competitor] |
| Alternatives (plural) | [Competitor] alternatives, best [Competitor] alternatives |
| You vs Competitor | [You] vs [Competitor], [Competitor] vs [You] |
| Competitor vs Competitor | [A] vs [B], [B] vs [A] |
Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"
Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.
For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.
Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Design, implement, and audit inclusive digital products using WCAG 2.2 Level AA standards. Use this skill to generate semantic ARIA for Web and accessibility traits for Web and Native platforms (iOS/Android).
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Whole site or product — a full web accessibility (a11y) audit against WCAG 2.2, following the WCAG-EM methodology. Defines scope, samples representative pages and flows, runs the automated tier (`accessibility-scan`) and the hands-on manual tier (`accessibility-inspect`), and produces one conformance report. Grades each finding by severity and evidence basis, and states per-criterion conformance as pass, fail, or undetermined (needs a human). Use it for 'audit my site for accessibility', 'is this product accessible', 'a11y audit', 'WCAG or Section 508 conformance report', or any multi-page assessment. Assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`) or diff (use `accessibility-diff`). For a single page use `accessibility-scan`; for hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Regression check — diff a live page's web accessibility (a11y) violations against a baseline. By default it compares your uncommitted changes (stash-based); pass `--branch [<name>]` to compare against a branch. Reports the new WCAG violations introduced, the ones fixed, and the count of pre-existing ones. Use it for 'did my change break accessibility', 'what a11y issues did this PR add', or as a CI gate. For a full scan of one page use `accessibility-scan`; for a whole site use `accessibility-audit`.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from `accessibility-scan`/`accessibility-inspect`/`accessibility-audit`, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use `accessibility-scan` (one page, automated), `accessibility-inspect` (one page, manual), or `accessibility-audit` (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use `accessibility-diff`. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
One page, hands-on manual tier — drive a live page through the web accessibility (a11y) checks a rule engine can't decide: keyboard operation and focus order, screen-reader names, roles and states from the accessibility tree, reflow and zoom, reduced motion, form errors, and target size. Grades each finding by evidence basis (verified / confirm-with-a-human / human-required) and severity, and closes every criterion in a ledger: verified, flagged, not exercised, or N/A. Locates and assesses; does not fix (use `accessibility-fix`). Use it for keyboard testing, focus-order checks, screen-reader or a11y-tree review, reflow and zoom at 200%, or 'is this operable, not just lint-clean'. The automated tier is `accessibility-scan`; `accessibility-audit` runs both across a sampled site.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
One page, automated tier — run the web accessibility (a11y) rule engine against a live page and locate every violation it can detect mechanically. Pass a URL, a config target name (e.g. `accesslint:accessibility-scan dev`), or nothing to use the default target from `accesslint.config.json`. Ensures a debuggable Chrome, runs the @accesslint/core engine over CDP, and returns a worklist of live-DOM WCAG 2.2 violations, each grounded to its DOM selector and source `file:line`. Locates; doesn't edit. Use it for 'is this page accessible', 'check a11y on this URL', 'find contrast and alt-text issues', or to verify a UI change. For hands-on keyboard and screen-reader checks use `accessibility-inspect`; for a whole site or product use `accessibility-audit`; to diff against uncommitted changes or a branch use `accessibility-diff`.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。