competitor-alternatives

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.

Quality

44%

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/competitor-alternatives/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

40%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 functions as a thin pointer to a well-structured external guide, which is good progressive disclosure, but it delegates everything else: no quick-start guidance, no workflow steps, and no substantive content beyond boilerplate sections. The duplicated description and generic 'When to Use' filler waste tokens without adding value.

Suggestions

Add a minimal quick-start section inline (e.g., the four page formats with one-line descriptions and when to choose each) so the skill is partially actionable before loading the guide.

Replace the generic 'When to Use' filler with the skill's actual applicability and drop the opening paragraph that duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim.

Since the guide is a 756-line monolith, map topics to its sections (e.g., 'Page formats: guide §Page Formats; Competitor data: guide §Content Architecture') so 'load the relevant sections' is actually navigable.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is short, but the opening paragraph duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim and the 'When to Use' section is generic filler ('applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview'), matching anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation') rather than 4.	3 / 5
Actionability	The only concrete instruction is to read the referenced guide; the body contains no quick-start content, example, or substantive guidance of its own, matching anchor 2 ('minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps') — not 3 because nothing actionable lives in SKILL.md itself, and not 1 because the pointer is a real, specific instruction.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Only a rough 'read the guide, then execute' sequence exists; no steps, checkpoints, or error-recovery structure appear in the body, matching anchor 2 ('rough sequence present but many gaps') — not 3 because even a step list is absent and validation is merely delegated by mention.	2 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Scored against the actual bundle: one clearly signaled, verified, one-level-deep reference (references/detailed-guide.md, a well-sectioned 756-line guide) with a lean overview body, matching anchor 4 — not 5 because the single monolithic guide is not navigated (no topic-to-section mapping despite 'load the relevant sections').	4 / 5
	Total	11 / 20 Passed

Description

48%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 identifies a clear, specific niche but reads as a persona statement rather than a skill description: it is written in second person, lists goals rather than concrete capabilities, and provides no 'when to use' trigger guidance. It would benefit from third-person action verbs and an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural user phrasings.

Suggestions

Rewrite in third person with concrete action verbs, e.g. 'Creates competitor comparison and alternative pages...' (also removes the second-person penalty).

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause with natural trigger phrases such as 'Use when the user asks for alternatives to a competitor, a vs. comparison page, or a page targeting competitive search terms'.

Include common synonyms users would actually say — 'alternatives to [tool]', '[tool] vs [tool]', 'compare' — to improve trigger term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and 1-2 actions ('build pages that rank for competitive search terms', 'position your product') matching anchor 3, but the second-person voice ('You are an expert', 'your product') triggers the rubric's mandatory 1-point specificity penalty, giving 2.	2 / 5
Completeness	Has a clear 'what' (creating competitor comparison and alternative pages) but no 'when' clause at all; the rubric caps completeness at 3 for a missing 'Use when...' — not 4 because trigger guidance is entirely absent, not just implicit.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords ('competitor comparison', 'alternative pages', 'competitive search terms') but misses common user phrasings like 'alternatives to X', 'X vs Y', or 'compare tools', matching anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	'Creating competitor comparison and alternative pages' is a distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against general SEO/copywriting skills, matching anchor 4 — not 5 because it lacks explicit trigger phrases that would fully separate it from adjacent marketing skills.	4 / 5
	Total	12 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills
Path: skills/competitor-alternatives/SKILL.md
Commit: 7b534bc

Reviewed: 5 days 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.