AGENT SKILL

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,' 'switch from competitor,' or 'comparison content.' Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. Emphasizes deep research, modular content architecture, and varied section types beyond feature tables.

License 许可
MIT
最近更新
2026-09-27
Stars
★ 0
Forks
0

01 前言 Front Matter

name
competitor-alternatives
license
MIT
metadata
{ "author": "Alireza Rezvani", "updated": 1772755200000, "version": "1.0.0", "category": "marketing" }
description
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,' 'switch from competitor,' or 'comparison content.' Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. Emphasizes deep research, modular content architecture, and varied section types beyond feature tables.

02 资源文件 3

03 SKILL.md 正文

Competitor & Alternative Pages

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.

Initial Assessment

Check for product marketing context first: If .claude/product-marketing-context.md exists, read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.

Before creating competitor pages, understand:

  1. Your Product

    • Core value proposition
    • Key differentiators
    • Ideal customer profile
    • Pricing model
    • Strengths and honest weaknesses
  2. Competitive Landscape

    • Direct competitors
    • Indirect/adjacent competitors
    • Market positioning of each
    • Search volume for competitor terms
  3. Goals

    • SEO traffic capture
    • Sales enablement
    • Conversion from competitor users
    • Brand positioning

Core Principles

1. Honesty Builds Trust

  • Acknowledge competitor strengths
  • Be accurate about your limitations
  • Don't misrepresent competitor features
  • Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims

2. Depth Over Surface

  • Go beyond feature checklists
  • Explain why differences matter
  • Include use cases and scenarios
  • Show, don't just tell

3. Help Them Decide

  • Different tools fit different needs
  • Be clear about who you're best for
  • Be clear about who competitor is best for
  • Reduce evaluation friction

4. Modular Content Architecture

  • Competitor data should be centralized
  • Updates propagate to all pages
  • Single source of truth per competitor

Page Formats

Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)

Search intent: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor

URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor] or /[competitor]-alternative

Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"

Page structure:

  1. Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
  2. Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
  3. Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
  4. Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
  5. Migration path
  6. Social proof from switchers
  7. CTA

Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)

Search intent: User is researching options, earlier in journey

URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives

Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"

Page structure:

  1. Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
  2. What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
  3. List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
  4. Comparison table (summary)
  5. Detailed breakdown of each alternative
  6. Recommendation by use case
  7. CTA

Important: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.


Format 3: You vs [Competitor]

Search intent: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor

URL pattern: /vs/[competitor] or /compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]

Target keywords: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]"

Page structure:

  1. TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
  2. At-a-glance comparison table
  3. Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
  4. Who [You] is best for
  5. Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
  6. What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
  7. Migration support
  8. CTA

Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]

Search intent: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)

URL pattern: /compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]

Page structure:

  1. Overview of both products
  2. Comparison by category
  3. Who each is best for
  4. The third option (introduce yourself)
  5. Comparison table (all three)
  6. CTA

Why this works: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.


Essential Sections

TL;DR Summary

Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences.

Paragraph Comparisons

Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.

Feature Comparison

For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.

Pricing Comparison

Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.

Who It's For

Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.

Migration Section

Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.

For detailed templates: See references/templates.md


Content Architecture

Centralized Competitor Data

Create a single source of truth for each competitor with:

  • Positioning and target audience
  • Pricing (all tiers)
  • Feature ratings
  • Strengths and weaknesses
  • Best for / not ideal for
  • Common complaints (from reviews)
  • Migration notes

For data structure and examples: See references/content-architecture.md


Research Process

Deep Competitor Research

For each competitor, gather:

  1. Product research: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations
  2. Pricing research: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs
  3. Review mining: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes
  4. Customer feedback: Talk to customers who switched (both directions)
  5. Content research: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog

Ongoing Updates

  • Quarterly: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
  • When notified: Customer mentions competitor change
  • Annually: Full refresh of all competitor data

SEO Considerations

Keyword Targeting

Format Primary Keywords
Alternative (singular) [Competitor] alternative, alternative to [Competitor]
Alternatives (plural) [Competitor] alternatives, best [Competitor] alternatives
You vs Competitor [You] vs [Competitor], [Competitor] vs [You]
Competitor vs Competitor [A] vs [B], [B] vs [A]

Internal Linking

  • Link between related competitor pages
  • Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
  • Create hub page linking to all competitor content

Schema Markup

Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"


Output Format

Competitor Data File

Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.

Page Content

For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.

Page Set Plan

Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.


Task-Specific Questions

  1. What are common reasons people switch to you?
  2. Do you have customer quotes about switching?
  3. What's your pricing vs. competitors?
  4. Do you offer migration support?

Proactive Triggers

Proactively offer competitor page creation when:

  1. Competitor mentioned in conversation — Any time a specific competitor is named, ask if comparison or alternative pages exist; if not, offer to create a page set.
  2. Sales team friction — User mentions prospects comparing them to a specific tool; immediately offer a vs-page for sales enablement.
  3. SEO gap identified — Keyword research shows competitor-branded terms with no coverage; propose a full alternative page set with prioritized build order.
  4. Switcher testimonial available — When a customer quote about switching surfaces, offer to build a migration-focused alternative page around it.
  5. Pricing page review — When reviewing pricing, note that pricing comparison tables belong on dedicated competitor pages, not the pricing page itself.

Tools

Tool Invocation Output
Comparison matrix builder python3 scripts/comparison_matrix_builder.py --input competitors.json --markdown (no input = embedded demo; --json for pipelines) Feature-by-feature comparison matrix ready to paste into the vs-page comparison table

Feed it the Competitor Intelligence File data (features + pricing per competitor); its markdown output is the canonical comparison table for every Vs Page below — don't hand-build the table.


Output Artifacts

Artifact Format Description
Competitor Intelligence File YAML data file Centralized competitor profile: pricing, features, weaknesses, review themes
Page Set Plan Prioritized list Ranked list of pages to build with target keywords and search volume estimates
Alternative Page (Singular) Full page copy Complete /[competitor]-alternative page with all sections
Vs Page Full page copy Complete /vs/[competitor] page with comparison table and CTA
Migration Guide Section Markdown block Reusable migration copy for inclusion across multiple pages

Communication

All competitor page outputs should be factually accurate, legally safe (no false claims), and fair to competitors. Acknowledge genuine competitor strengths — pages that only disparage competitors lose credibility with evaluators. Reference marketing-context for ICP and positioning before writing any comparison copy. Quality bar: every claim must be verifiable from public sources or customer quotes.


Related Skills

  • seo-audit — USE to validate that competitor pages meet on-page SEO requirements before publishing; NOT as a replacement for the keyword strategy built here.
  • copywriting — USE for writing the narrative sections and CTAs on comparison pages; NOT when the task is purely competitor research and architecture.
  • content-strategy — USE when planning a full competitive content program across multiple pages; NOT for single-page execution.
  • competitive-intel — USE when C-level strategic competitive analysis is needed beyond page creation; NOT for tactical page writing.
  • marketing-context — USE as foundation before any competitor page work to align positioning; always load first.

04 同仓库更多 Skills

azhri1990
azhri1990/project-genesis

syllabus

Generates a curated supplementary reading list from any course syllabus using Consensus academic search. Grill-me intake (syllabus input format + course audience + year range) plus a grouping forcing-options checkpoint before any search runs — so the reading list matches the course's level and recency need. Parses the syllabus to extract topics and learning outcomes, searches Consensus for recent peer-reviewed papers per topic, and produces a professionally formatted .docx with clickable Consensus links, plain-language summaries calibrated to audience level, and Bloom-higher-order discussion questions tied to course learning goals. Use when the user uploads a syllabus, course outline, or curriculum document and wants supplementary readings (e.g., 'create a reading list from this syllabus', 'find recent papers for my course') — even casual mentions with a syllabus attached should trigger this skill.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/project-genesis

pulse

Multi-source recency research skill that takes the pulse of any topic across Reddit, Hacker News, the open web, and optionally X/Twitter within a configurable recent window (default 30 days). Forcing intake clarifies topic specificity, angle (trend/sentiment/problems/opportunities/comparison), time window, and platform scope before searching. Returns a synthesized briefing with citations, engagement metrics, and cross-platform pattern analysis. Use when the user requests multi-source recency intelligence on a topic (e.g., 'pulse on [topic]', 'what's happening with [topic]', 'what are people saying about [topic]', 'current conversation about [topic]', 'take the pulse of [topic]', 'trending: [topic]', 'find me info on [topic]'), and for competitor research, trend discovery, tool comparisons, and audience sentiment analysis.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/project-genesis

patent

Patent prior-art and landscape intelligence skill — not generic patent help. Commits to one of five sub-use-cases via forcing intake (novelty search / freedom-to-operate / competitive landscape / acquisition diligence / litigation prior-art) before any search runs. Searches Google Patents, Espacenet, USPTO, and optionally Lens.org for citation-graph signals. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict, ranked closest art (claim-text extracted), CPC-class-aware landscape, family-resolved hits, geographic coverage, FTO flags where applicable, strategy recommendations, and full audit log. Use when the user asks for patent searching or analysis (e.g., 'prior art search for [invention]', 'freedom to operate analysis for [product]'). Produces search signal, not legal advice — always recommends consulting a patent attorney before filing or licensing decisions. Trademark, copyright, and trade-secret questions are out of scope.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/project-genesis

notebooklm

Browser automation skill for controlling Google's NotebookLM. Use when the user wants anything done in NotebookLM (e.g., 'open NotebookLM', 'check my [name] notebook', 'ask my notebook about X', 'add [source] to NotebookLM', 'generate a Video Overview from my notebook', 'use NotebookLM Studio'). Handles reading and querying notebooks, adding sources (URLs, text, files, YouTube links, synthesized content), generating Studio outputs (Audio/Video Overviews, Mind Maps, Reports incl. Briefing Doc/Study Guide/FAQ, Flashcards, Quiz, slide decks, infographics — discover the exact set from the live Studio panel; the UI evolves fast), and creating new notebooks. Requires browser automation environment — fails gracefully when unavailable.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/project-genesis

litreview

Academic literature orientation skill that searches papers via free keyless APIs (PubMed E-utilities + OpenAlex) by default — with the Consensus MCP as an optional enhancement lane when connected — builds a strategic search plan using PICO (default) or SPIDER / Decomposition / hybrid as fallbacks, and synthesizes findings into a formatted Word (.docx) research guide. Grill-me intake (research question specificity + framework hint + tentative depth) before the recon search; a second forcing checkpoint after Phase 2 confirms framework + sub-areas + depth before searches consume budget. Configurable depth (5/10/20 queries) controls coverage vs. speed. Output is a 'launching pad' — an orientation guide that lets a researcher dive in confidently, not a finished review. Use when the user starts literature-oriented research (e.g., 'litreview on [topic]', 'literature review on [topic]', 'I'm starting a literature review on X', 'I'm writing a paper on X', 'help me research X', 'I'm doing research on X', 'can you help me research X'). Do NOT use for single one-off paper searches wanting a quick list — that's a plain PubMed/OpenAlex (or Consensus) query.

★ 0
azhri1990
azhri1990/project-genesis

grants

NIH grant research skill for clinical researchers. Grill-me intake (research idea + career stage + preliminary data + environment + submission posture + known institute targets) locks down the funding strategy before any search runs. Runs a 5-facet Consensus positioning analysis (with draft Significance/Innovation language), maps the research to the right NIH institutes and study sections via RePORTER, finds NOSIs and funded overlap, and produces an editable Word document (.docx) with budget/scope-aware mechanism recommendations, submission timelines, and a mandatory program officer recommendation. Use when the user asks about research funding or makes any grant-related request (e.g., 'grants for [topic]', 'find grants for my research idea', 'what grants match my research', 'help me find NIH funding', 'grant opportunities for my research'). NIH-only scope — non-NIH funders (PCORI, DOD CDMRP, VA, foundations) are out of scope and flagged at intake.

★ 0