CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

competitive-landscape

Comprehensive frameworks for analyzing competition, identifying differentiation opportunities, and developing winning market positioning strategies.

45

Quality

48%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/competitive-landscape/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

46%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 largely generic, offering high-level directives instead of concrete frameworks, templates, or commands, and it references a resources file that does not exist in the bundle.

Suggestions

Provide concrete, executable guidance: named frameworks (e.g., Porter's Five Forces, SWOT, feature-gap matrix), a competitor-profile template, and a worked example rather than 'apply relevant best practices.'

Add explicit validation checkpoints to the workflow, such as 'verify each competitor claim against a cited source before synthesizing' and a 'stop and ask' step for missing inputs.

Fix progressive disclosure by either creating the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md with the promised detailed patterns and examples, or removing the dangling reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and free of padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but a few generic lines ('Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes') could be tightened. Not score 5 because not every token earns its place, and not score 3 because there is no noticeable verbosity.

4 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is high-level and abstract ('Clarify goals... Apply relevant best practices... Provide actionable steps') with no concrete code, commands, frameworks, or worked examples. Not score 3 because there is no partially executable detail, and not score 1 because it does give some direction rather than being purely descriptive.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence is present (clarify goals, apply best practices, validate outcomes) but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops, only a vague 'validate outcomes.' Not score 4 because checkpoints are missing rather than minor, and not score 2 because a coherent sequence is present.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body attempts one-level-deep references to 'resources/implementation-playbook.md,' but no such file or resources/ directory exists in the bundle, so the reference is broken and effectively no detail is reachable. Not score 3 because the structure is too thin and the reference is non-functional, and not score 1 because there is at least nominal section organization.

2 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Description

50%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 states a clear domain and a few abstract actions but omits any explicit 'Use when' trigger guidance, capping completeness. Trigger terms are relevant but lack common synonyms users would naturally say.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete trigger phrases (e.g., 'Use when analyzing competitors, building a competitive matrix, or positioning a product in a crowded market').

Replace abstract verbs with specific actions and deliverables (e.g., 'Build competitor feature matrices, map positioning/perceptual grids, identify whitespace opportunities').

Include natural synonyms and file/format cues users actually say, such as 'competitor analysis,' 'market landscape,' and 'positioning map.'

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions ('analyzing competition, identifying differentiation opportunities, and developing winning market positioning strategies'), but the actions remain fairly abstract and lack comprehensive coverage of specific techniques. Not score 4 because no several distinct executable actions are listed, and not score 2 because it goes beyond a bare domain mention.

3 / 5

Completeness

Has a clear 'what' (frameworks for analyzing competition and positioning) but no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, which per the rubric caps completeness at 3. Not score 4 because 'when' guidance is entirely absent rather than weakly present.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords like 'competition,' 'differentiation,' and 'market positioning,' but misses common natural variations users say ('competitor analysis,' 'market landscape,' 'market research'). Not score 4 because keyword coverage is moderate rather than good, and not score 2 because more than one generic keyword is present.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The competitive-landscape niche is somewhat specific but the phrasing is broad enough to overlap with general strategy, market-research, or business-analysis skills. Not score 4 because overlap risk with closely related strategy skills remains, and not score 2 because it is more specific than a generic 'helps with documents'-level description.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills
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.