本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

competitors

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(4)

  • SKILL.md8.1 KB
  • evals/evals.json6.5 KB
  • references/content-architecture.md7.4 KB
  • references/templates.md5.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

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。

Competitor & Alternative Pages

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.

Initial Assessment

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:

  1. Your Product

    • Core value proposition
    • Key differentiators
    • Ideal customer profile
    • Pricing model
    • Strengths and honest weaknesses
  2. Competitive Landscape

    • Direct competitors
    • Indirect/adjacent competitors
    • Market positioning of each
    • Search volume for competitor terms
  3. Goals

    • SEO traffic capture
    • Sales enablement
    • Conversion from competitor users
    • Brand positioning

Core Principles

1. Honesty Builds Trust

  • Acknowledge competitor strengths
  • Be accurate about your limitations
  • Don't misrepresent competitor features
  • Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims

2. Depth Over Surface

  • Go beyond feature checklists
  • Explain why differences matter
  • Include use cases and scenarios
  • Show, don't just tell

3. Help Them Decide

  • Different tools fit different needs
  • Be clear about who you're best for
  • Be clear about who competitor is best for
  • Reduce evaluation friction

4. Modular Content Architecture

  • Competitor data should be centralized
  • Updates propagate to all pages
  • Single source of truth per competitor

Page Formats

Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)

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:

  1. Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
  2. Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
  3. Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
  4. Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
  5. Migration path
  6. Social proof from switchers
  7. CTA

Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)

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:

  1. Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
  2. What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
  3. List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
  4. Comparison table (summary)
  5. Detailed breakdown of each alternative
  6. Recommendation by use case
  7. CTA

Important: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.


Format 3: You vs [Competitor]

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:

  1. TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
  2. At-a-glance comparison table
  3. Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
  4. Who [You] is best for
  5. Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
  6. What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
  7. Migration support
  8. CTA

Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]

Search intent: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)

URL pattern: /compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]

Page structure:

  1. Overview of both products
  2. Comparison by category
  3. Who each is best for
  4. The third option (introduce yourself)
  5. Comparison table (all three)
  6. CTA

Why this works: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.


Essential Sections

TL;DR Summary

Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences.

Paragraph Comparisons

Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.

Feature Comparison

For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.

Pricing Comparison

Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.

Who It's For

Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.

Migration Section

Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.

For detailed templates: See references/templates.md


Content Architecture

Centralized Competitor Data

Create a single source of truth for each competitor with:

  • Positioning and target audience
  • Pricing (all tiers)
  • Feature ratings
  • Strengths and weaknesses
  • Best for / not ideal for
  • Common complaints (from reviews)
  • Migration notes

For data structure and examples: See references/content-architecture.md


Research Process

Deep Competitor Research

For each competitor, gather:

  1. Product research: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations
  2. Pricing research: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs
  3. Review mining: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes
  4. Customer feedback: Talk to customers who switched (both directions)
  5. Content research: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog

Ongoing Updates

  • Quarterly: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
  • When notified: Customer mentions competitor change
  • Annually: Full refresh of all competitor data

SEO Considerations

Keyword Targeting

FormatPrimary 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]

Internal Linking

  • Link between related competitor pages
  • Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
  • Create hub page linking to all competitor content

Schema Markup

Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"


Output Format

Competitor Data File

Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.

Page Content

For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.

Page Set Plan

Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.


Task-Specific Questions

  1. What are common reasons people switch to you?
  2. Do you have customer quotes about switching?
  3. What's your pricing vs. competitors?
  4. Do you offer migration support?

Related Skills

  • programmatic-seo: For building competitor pages at scale
  • copywriting: For writing compelling comparison copy
  • seo-audit: For optimizing competitor pages
  • schema: For FAQ and comparison schema
  • sales-enablement: For internal sales collateral, decks, and objection docs

レビュー

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。

同じリポジトリのスキル

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

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。

tensology/decisionsai172026年10月13日 更新

tensology のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する