competitor-alternatives
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.
87
81%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
99%
1.13xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
89%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a strong skill description with excellent trigger term coverage and completeness. The explicit 'Use when' clause with numerous natural language triggers makes it highly discoverable, and the cross-reference to sales-enablement reduces conflict risk. The main weakness is that it describes the purpose and formats but lacks specific concrete actions the skill performs.
Suggestions
Add specific actions the skill performs, such as 'Creates feature comparison tables, writes positioning copy, analyzes competitor weaknesses, generates SEO-optimized headlines'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (competitor comparison/alternative pages) and mentions four formats, but doesn't list concrete actions like 'write comparison tables,' 'analyze competitor features,' or 'generate positioning statements.' The description tells what it's for but not what specific actions it performs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (create competitor comparison/alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement, covering four formats) and when (explicit 'Use when' clause with comprehensive trigger terms). Also includes helpful scope boundary referencing sales-enablement skill. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'battle card,' 'competitor teardown,' and 'how do we compare to X.' These are realistic phrases users would naturally use. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Highly distinctive with specific niche (competitor comparison content) and clear differentiation from related skills via the explicit callout 'For sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.' The trigger terms are specific to this use case and unlikely to conflict. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a solid, actionable skill with clear page format templates and good progressive disclosure through external references. The main weaknesses are some verbosity in explaining principles Claude already understands and missing validation checkpoints in the workflow for verifying competitor data accuracy before content creation.
Suggestions
Remove or condense the 'Core Principles' section - Claude understands honesty and depth; focus on the specific implementation patterns instead.
Add explicit validation steps to the research process, such as 'Verify pricing on competitor's current website before publishing' and 'Cross-check feature claims against competitor changelog'.
Trim verbose introductions like 'Your goal is to build pages that rank...' - jump directly to the assessment checklist.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is reasonably efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation (e.g., 'Honesty Builds Trust' principles that Claude already understands, verbose section introductions). Could be tightened by removing obvious guidance and focusing on the specific templates and structures. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete page structures, URL patterns, specific section breakdowns, keyword targeting tables, and clear output formats. The guidance is specific enough to execute immediately with defined page formats and research processes. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The research process and page creation steps are listed but lack explicit validation checkpoints. No feedback loops for verifying competitor data accuracy or content quality before publishing. The 'Initial Assessment' section provides good sequencing but the overall workflow could benefit from explicit validation steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-structured with clear overview sections and appropriate references to external files (references/templates.md, references/content-architecture.md). Content is organized logically with related skills linked at the end. The main document serves as a clear hub without being monolithic. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
- Repository
- coreyhaines31/marketingskills
- Commit
9d4d29a
- Reviewed
Table of Contents
Is this your skill?
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.