competitive-landscape

This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze competitors", "assess competitive landscape", "identify differentiation", "evaluate market positioning", "apply Porter's Five Forces", or requests competitive strategy analysis.

Quality

52%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/competitive-landscape/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

36%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is concise and well-sectioned but offers almost no domain-specific guidance: instructions are generic boilerplate that could describe any analysis skill, and the single progressive-disclosure pointer targets a file that does not exist.

Suggestions

Replace the generic bullet instructions with concrete, domain-specific guidance, e.g. named frameworks (Porter's Five Forces, SWOT, positioning maps), the specific inputs to collect, and the output artifacts to produce.

Create the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or remove the dangling reference) so the progressive-disclosure pointer resolves to real content.

Add a real sequenced workflow with explicit validation, e.g. gather competitor data -> apply framework -> cross-check positioning claims -> present matrix, rather than abstract directives.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with no padding or over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but generic platitudes like "Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes" do not fully earn their place, keeping it just below the top anchor.	4 / 5
Actionability	The instructions are entirely abstract and generic ("Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs", "Apply relevant best practices", "Provide actionable steps and verification") with no domain-specific code, commands, frameworks, or examples; the only concrete pointer is to a resources file that does not exist.	1 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough four-bullet sequence exists but steps are poorly defined, there are no real validation checkpoints, and "validate outcomes" is mentioned only generically rather than as a concrete feedback loop.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Section structure is reasonable (Use when / Do not use / Instructions / Resources) and the reference to the playbook is clearly signaled in a dedicated Resources section, but the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` file is missing, so the one-level-deep navigation is broken.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 20 Passed

Description

68%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description excels at trigger-term quality and distinctiveness, giving Claude clear natural signals for when to invoke the skill. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit 'what' statement, leaving the skill's actual output implied rather than stated.

Suggestions

Lead with an explicit capability statement in third person (e.g. "Analyzes competitors, maps market positioning, and identifies differentiation opportunities using frameworks such as Porter's Five Forces.") before the 'Use when...' triggers.

State concretely what the skill produces (e.g. a competitor matrix, positioning map, or differentiation report) so the 'what' is explicit, not implied.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain and several concrete actions ("analyze competitors", "identify differentiation", "evaluate market positioning", "apply Porter's Five Forces"), but these are framed as user triggers rather than explicit skill capabilities, and there is no statement of what the skill produces.	3 / 5
Completeness	The 'when' is explicit and rich, but the 'what' is only implied through the trigger actions rather than explicitly stated; the description never directly says what the skill does, which anchors it between the 'clear what / weak when' and 'only when without what' levels.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Trigger phrases are natural and comprehensive, covering synonyms ("competitors", "competitive landscape", "competitive strategy") plus a named framework ("Porter's Five Forces") that a user would actually say.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Specific triggers like "Porter's Five Forces" and "competitive landscape" carve a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, though "competitive strategy analysis" has minor overlap with adjacent strategy or market-research skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/competitive-landscape/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.