AutoGineer
Generated banner for Competitors
Generated logo for Competitors

Competitors

Corey HainesCommunityCreated by Corey Haines

  • Skill
  • Content generator
  • Business and productivity
  • MIT
  • No issues found
Download ZIP

From the author

When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.
— the description by Corey Haines

AutoGineer summary

Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author

This skill provides a structured framework for creating buyer-facing competitor comparison and alternative pages. It emphasizes honesty, evidence-based claims, and a modular content architecture to ensure accuracy and maintainability. By following these guidelines, you can build pages that capture search traffic, assist users in their evaluation journey, and clearly differentiate your product from competitors. The skill covers four primary formats: singular alternatives, plural alternatives, direct 'you vs competitor' comparisons, and 'competitor vs competitor' analyses, while also providing a process for auditing existing competitive assets to ensure claims remain current and defensible.

What it does

  • Drafts SEO-optimized competitor alternative and comparison pages.
  • Provides templates for feature, pricing, and service comparisons.
  • Establishes a centralized data architecture for consistent competitor information.
  • Guides the creation of 'who it's for' sections to build user trust.
  • Includes a rigorous audit process for verifying claims in existing competitive assets.
  • Offers guidance on migration paths to help users switch to your product.

When to use it

  • When you need to create landing pages targeting '[Competitor] alternative' or '[You] vs [Competitor]' search terms.
  • When you need to audit existing comparison pages or sales battle cards for stale or inaccurate claims.
  • When you want to provide potential customers with clear, honest guidance on how your product compares to others.
  • When you need to scale your competitive content while maintaining a single source of truth for competitor data.

Advantages

  • Builds trust through honest, evidence-backed comparisons.
  • Improves SEO performance by targeting high-intent competitive keywords.
  • Reduces maintenance effort through a centralized data architecture.
  • Provides clear, actionable guidance for users evaluating your product against others.
  • Ensures competitive claims are defensible and up-to-date.

Usage examples

“Create a 'vs' page comparing our product to Salesforce.”
The agent will draft a page structure including a TL;DR summary, comparison table, and detailed breakdowns of features, pricing, and ideal use cases for both products.
“Audit our existing 'Notion alternative' page for stale claims.”
The agent will review the page's claims against current data, flag unverifiable or overclaimed statements, and provide a prioritized list of fixes.
“Help me write a 'Best Alternatives to Jira' page.”
The agent will generate a page structure that includes your product alongside 4-7 other real alternatives, providing a balanced view for users researching the market.

Install

  1. Download the skill as a ZIP:

    https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/coreyhaines31/competitors/download

  2. Unzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:

    mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip competitors.zip -d .agents/skills

Documentation by Corey Haines

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 .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.

Never guess the competitor. If the request doesn't name one and the context file doesn't identify it, ask, and stop there. Don't draft a polished page around the most likely candidate.

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

5. Evidence Discipline

Comparison pages are public claims about another company. Every one should survive the competitor's own team reading it.

  • "Not observed" is not "doesn't have." A pricing page that doesn't list SSO is evidence about the page, not the product. Write "not listed on their pricing page (as of Mar 2026)" or drop the row. Use ✗ or "not available" only when their docs or a hands-on trial confirm the absence.

  • Date competitor facts. Pricing and features change. Put an "as of" date on pricing tables and in the competitor data file, and re-verify before republishing.

  • One look is a snapshot. A single visit can't support "they haven't changed pricing in years" or "no new features since 2024." That needs dated history (changelog, archived pages).

  • State what changed, not why. "They moved SSO to the Enterprise tier" is a fact. "Because they're squeezing upmarket" is a guess. Leave motive out unless they've said it publicly.

  • Separate fact from interpretation. Keep what their site says apart from what you think it means for the buyer, and keep both apart from what you recommend.

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.

AI-answer expectations by stage: these pages often earn citations in AI answers, but whether AI recommends your brand from them depends on offsite consensus (reviews, forums, analysts) — for emerging brands, a self-ranked list can surface the competitors in the AI answer while you get only the citation. Still publish for search intent and category framing, but set expectations accordingly — see ai-seo's citations-vs-recommendations reference for the data.

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

Competitive Asset Audit

When asked to check existing competitive content for stale or risky claims, audit every asset that makes claims about competitors: vs and alternative pages, battle cards, talk tracks, objection docs, and comparison tables in decks.

  1. List each claim about a competitor, with the asset and line it lives in.

  2. Re-verify each claim against the competitor's current site, docs, or changelog, and note the date you checked. If you can't browse, mark claims unchecked and list what to verify. Never mark one Current without a check date.

  3. Mark each one:

    • Current: still true, source and date updated

    • Changed: now wrong, with what it says now

    • Unverifiable: had a source once, but nothing current confirms or rules it out. Soften to "not listed (as of date)" or remove

    • Overclaimed: stated as fact with no source behind it (an unconfirmed ✗, a guessed motive, a "why we win" with no evidence). Rewrite to what the evidence supports or remove

  4. Prioritize fixes: public pages first (buyers and competitors read them), then anything reps say on calls, then internal docs.

  5. Report: assets audited, claims checked, counts by status, and a fix list with the replacement wording.

Apply the Evidence Discipline rules above to every claim, including those in internal sales assets. Where several assets repeat one fact, fix it in the centralized competitor data so the fix carries through.

SEO Considerations

Keyword Targeting
FormatPrimary 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.

Asset Audit Report

Claims checked per asset, status counts (current / changed / unverifiable / overclaimed), and a prioritized fix list with replacement wording.

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?

Related Skills

  • programmatic-seo: For building competitor pages at scale

  • copywriting: For writing compelling comparison copy

  • seo-audit: For optimizing competitor pages

  • schema: For FAQ and comparison schema

  • sales-enablement: For battle cards and internal sales collateral, decks, and objection docs

Files

evals/evals.json

{
  "skill_name": "competitors",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "Create a 'Best Asana Alternatives' page for our project management tool. We compete mainly on price (we're $8/user vs their $24/user) and simplicity (they've become bloated). Target audience is small teams (5-20 people).",
      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should identify this as the plural alternatives format ([Competitor] Alternatives). Should include the essential sections: TL;DR comparison, brief paragraphs on each alternative (including the user's product positioned first or prominently), feature comparison table, pricing comparison, who each alternative is best for. Should use the modular content architecture approach. Should address SEO considerations for the target keyword 'Asana alternatives.' Should position the user's product with the stated differentiators (price, simplicity).",
      "assertions": [
        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
        "Identifies as plural alternatives format",
        "Includes TL;DR comparison section",
        "Includes feature comparison table",
        "Includes pricing comparison",
        "Includes 'who it's best for' per alternative",
        "Positions user's product prominently with differentiators",
        "Addresses SEO for target keyword"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "Write a 'HubSpot vs Salesforce' comparison page. We're HubSpot and want to show why we're the better choice for SMBs.",
      "expected_output": "Should identify this as the 'you vs competitor' format. Should include structured comparison sections: overview of both, feature-by-feature comparison, pricing comparison, pros/cons of each, who each is best for, and migration path. Should be factually accurate about the competitor while strategically positioning the user's product. Should include a TL;DR at the top. Should address the SMB angle throughout. Should use the centralized competitor data architecture pattern.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies as 'you vs competitor' format",
        "Includes structured comparison sections",
        "Includes feature-by-feature comparison",
        "Includes pricing comparison",
        "Includes TL;DR at the top",
        "Factually accurate about competitor",
        "Strategically positions user's product for SMBs",
        "Includes migration path or switching section"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "we need a page targeting 'mailchimp alternative' (singular). we're an email marketing platform focused on e-commerce brands.",
      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should identify this as the singular alternative format ([Competitor] Alternative — positioning your product as THE alternative). Should focus the entire page on why the user's product is the best Mailchimp alternative for e-commerce. Should include: why people switch from Mailchimp, what the user's product does better (e-commerce specific features), feature comparison, pricing comparison, migration guide, customer testimonials. Should optimize for the singular keyword 'Mailchimp alternative.'",
      "assertions": [
        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
        "Identifies as singular alternative format",
        "Focuses on user's product as THE alternative",
        "Includes why people switch from Mailchimp",
        "Highlights e-commerce-specific advantages",
        "Includes feature and pricing comparison",
        "Includes migration guide",
        "Optimizes for singular keyword"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 4,
      "prompt": "Can you create a comparison page for 'Notion vs Coda'? We're a third-party review site, not affiliated with either product.",
      "expected_output": "Should identify this as the 'competitor vs competitor' format (third-party perspective). Should maintain objectivity since the user isn't either product. Should include balanced comparison: overview of both, feature comparison, pricing, pros/cons, use case recommendations. Should use the essential page sections from the skill. Should suggest how to monetize the page (affiliate links, CTA to the user's own product if relevant). Should address SEO for the 'Notion vs Coda' keyword.",
      "assertions": [
        "Identifies as 'competitor vs competitor' format",
        "Maintains objectivity (third-party perspective)",
        "Includes balanced feature comparison",
        "Includes pricing comparison",
        "Includes use case recommendations",
        "Addresses SEO considerations",
        "Suggests monetization approach"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 5,
      "prompt": "We want to build a whole competitor comparison hub. We have 5 main competitors and want to create alternative pages for each, plus head-to-head comparisons. How should we structure this?",
      "expected_output": "Should apply the centralized competitor data architecture. Should recommend a hub structure with: individual alternative pages for each competitor (5 singular pages), a 'best alternatives' roundup page, head-to-head comparison pages for key matchups. Should address internal linking strategy between these pages. Should recommend the research process for gathering competitive data. Should address URL structure and site architecture for the hub.",
      "assertions": [
        "Applies centralized competitor data architecture",
        "Recommends hub structure with multiple page types",
        "Suggests individual and roundup alternative pages",
        "Addresses internal linking between comparison pages",
        "Recommends research process for competitive data",
        "Addresses URL structure"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 6,
      "prompt": "I need to create a battle card for our sales team comparing us to Zendesk. It should help reps handle competitive objections during sales calls.",
      "expected_output": "Should recognize this as internal sales enablement material, not a public comparison page. Should defer to or cross-reference the sales-enablement skill, which handles battle cards, objection handling docs, and internal competitive collateral. May provide some competitive positioning advice but should make clear that sales-enablement is the right skill for internal sales materials.",
      "assertions": [
        "Recognizes this as internal sales enablement material",
        "References or defers to sales-enablement skill",
        "Does not attempt to create internal battle card using public comparison page patterns"
      ],
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 7,
      "prompt": "Write the comparison table for our Acme vs Northwind page. I checked Northwind's pricing page and it doesn't mention SSO, audit logs, or an API, so mark all three as ✗ for them. Also add a line that they raised prices last quarter because they're struggling to grow.",
      "expected_output": "Should push back on marking SSO, audit logs, and API as unavailable based only on their absence from a pricing page: absence from a page is evidence about the page, not the product. Should suggest checking Northwind's docs/help center or a trial, and in the meantime write 'not listed on pricing page (as of [date])' or drop the rows. Should state the price change as a dated fact but remove the claimed motive ('because they're struggling') since nothing sources it. Should add an 'as of' date to the pricing comparison.",
      "assertions": [
        "Does not mark the three features as ✗ / not available based only on the pricing page",
        "Recommends verifying via docs, help center, or trial",
        "Uses 'not listed' or 'not observed' wording with a date, or drops the rows",
        "Removes or refuses the unsourced motive claim about struggling to grow",
        "Dates the pricing information"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": 8,
      "prompt": "We have 12 vs pages and 4 battle cards written over the last two years. Can you check them for anything that's out of date or that would get us in trouble?",
      "expected_output": "Should run the competitive asset audit across both the public pages and the internal battle cards. Should list each competitor claim with where it lives, re-verify against current competitor sources with a check date, and mark each as current, changed, unverifiable, or overclaimed. Should flag unconfirmed ✗ marks, guessed motives, and unsupported 'why we win' claims as overclaimed. Should prioritize public pages first and give replacement wording, and recommend fixing shared facts in the centralized competitor data.",
      "assertions": [
        "Covers both public pages and internal battle cards",
        "Re-verifies claims against current sources with a check date",
        "Uses the current / changed / unverifiable / overclaimed statuses",
        "Flags unconfirmed absence claims or unsupported 'why we win' lines",
        "Prioritizes public pages first",
        "Provides replacement wording in a fix list"
      ],
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}

Requirements and compatibility

Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta

“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.

Security

No issues found by our static scan· No issues found

A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.

Attribution and licence

Created by
Corey Haines
Publisher
Corey Haines (Community)
Source
coreyhaines31/marketingskills · skills/competitors · commit 96798cf
Licence
MIT License (redistribution allowed)
  • LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
  • ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
Synced

AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Corey Haines or Corey Haines.

Download ZIP

The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download competitors.zip