CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

competitive-landscape

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

42

Quality

42%

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

35%

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

The body is well-structured and concise but provides almost no concrete, actionable guidance — it reads as a generic template. Additionally, its single external reference points to a file that is not present in the bundle.

Suggestions

Replace generic instructions with at least one concrete competitive-analysis method (e.g. a competitor feature matrix template, a positioning-statement formula, or named frameworks like Porter's Five Forces) the model can actually execute.

Add a real validation/checklist step (e.g. 'cross-check each competitor's claimed feature against their public docs') so the workflow has an explicit checkpoint.

Either add the referenced resources/implementation-playbook.md to the bundle or remove the dangling reference so progressive disclosure resolves to a real file.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and not padded with concepts Claude already knows, but it is largely boilerplate template language ('Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs,' 'Apply relevant best practices') that adds little specific signal; it is efficient yet could be tightened into genuinely useful guidance.

2 / 3

Actionability

The instructions are abstract and describe rather than instruct — 'Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes' and 'Provide actionable steps and verification' give no concrete method, framework, command, or example, matching the score-1 anchor of vague direction with no executable guidance.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

There is a light implied sequence (clarify → apply → provide steps → open playbook), but it is generic with no real validation checkpoints; since the skill involves no destructive/batch operation the cap does not apply, yet it still lacks the explicit, sequenced validation steps of a score-3 workflow.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is organized into clear sections and signals one external reference ('If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md'), but that referenced file does not exist in any bundle directory (references/, scripts/, assets/, resources/ are all absent), so the navigation is signaled yet broken rather than a clean one-level-deep structure.

2 / 3

Total

7

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 the skill's purpose clearly and uses domain-relevant vocabulary, but it is generic and lacks an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause. It would benefit from concrete actions and more natural user phrasings.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'Use when...' clause naming concrete triggers (e.g. 'Use when analyzing competitors, building a competitive matrix, or crafting market positioning').

Replace abstract framework verbs with concrete actions a user would request (e.g. 'profile competitors,' 'build a feature comparison matrix,' 'draft positioning statements').

Include common natural phrasings users actually say — 'competitor analysis,' 'market research,' 'benchmarking' — alongside the current terminology.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ('analyzing competition') and several actions ('identifying differentiation opportunities,' 'developing... market positioning strategies'), but these are abstract framework-building verbs rather than concrete operations; it does not reach the multi-action concrete level of the score-3 anchor (e.g. 'Extract text... fill forms... merge documents').

2 / 3

Completeness

It answers 'what' clearly but contains no 'Use when...' clause or explicit trigger guidance for when Claude should invoke it, which per the guidelines caps completeness at 2; the 'when' is only implied by the domain name.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It uses relevant terms a user might say ('competition,' 'differentiation,' 'market positioning,' 'competitive landscape'), but misses common natural variations like 'competitor analysis,' 'competitors,' 'market research,' or 'benchmarking,' so coverage is partial rather than complete.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'competitive landscape / market positioning' framing is a recognizable niche, but the language is fairly high-level and could overlap with general strategy, market-research, or business-planning skills; it lacks the distinct, specific triggers of the score-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.