competitors

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

CLAUDE.md

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 2e679d20b4f3 · 31 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publishercoreyhaines31 GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source foldercoreyhaines31/marketingskills/skills/competitorsThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict2e679d20b4f3A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedPushed today
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,'…

---
name: competitors
description: "When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. 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pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' 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 auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement."
metadata:
  version: 2.3.0
---

# 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.

**Never guess the competitor.** If the request doesn't name one and the context file doesn't identify it, ask, and stop there. Don't draft a polished page around the most likely candidate.

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

### 5. Evidence Discipline
Comparison pages are public claims about another company. Every one should survive the competitor's own team reading it.
- **"Not observed" is not "doesn't have."** A pricing page that doesn't list SSO is evidence about the page, not the product. Write "not listed on their pricing page (as of Mar 2026)" or drop the row. Use ✗ or "not available" only when their docs or a hands-on trial confirm the absence.
- **Date competitor facts.** Pricing and features change. Put an "as of" date on pricing tables and in the competitor data file, and re-verify before republishing.
- **One look is a snapshot.** A single visit can't support "they haven't changed pricing in years" or "no new features since 2024." That needs dated history (changelog, archived pages).
- **State what changed, not why.** "They moved SSO to the Enterprise tier" is a fact. "Because they're squeezing upmarket" is a guess. Leave motive out unless they've said it publicly.
- **Separate fact from interpretation.** Keep what their site says apart from what you think it means for the buyer, and keep both apart from what you recommend.

---

## 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.

**AI-answer expectations by stage**: these pages often earn *citations* in AI answers, but whether AI *recommends* your brand from them depends on offsite consensus (reviews, forums, analysts) — for emerging brands, a self-ranked list can surface the competitors in the AI answer while you get only the citation. Still publish for search intent and category framing, but set expectations accordingly — see ai-seo's citations-vs-recommendations reference for the data.

---

### Format 3: You vs [Competitor]

**Search intent**: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor

**URL pattern**: `/vs/[co

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills
git -C marketingskills checkout 2e679d20b4f3

Works in

1. 2026-10-31
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 2e679d20b4f3

Questions about competitors

• github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/tree/main/skills/compet — the audited source at commit 2e679d20b4f3 and every finding aboveObserved · 31 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology