agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Amazon-QuickAmazon-Quick/Amazon-Quick-official-catalog/skills/sales/competitor-intel/SKILL.md

competitor-intel

Skill50 starsChanged 15 days agoMIT-0View on GitHub

Researches and analyzes competitors for small businesses. Builds competitive intelligence reports with pricing, positioning, marketing strategies, strengths/weaknesses, and actionable differentiation recommendations. Use when asked to 'research my competitors', 'competitive analysis', 'what are my competitors doing', 'how do I differentiate', 'competitor pricing', 'who am I competing with', 'market landscape', 'SWOT analysis', 'spy on [competitor]', or 'compare us to [company]'.

9 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use content-strategy.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • AnthropicSkill

    content-strategy

    Analyzes sales data from PayPal and QuickBooks to find top performers and slow movers, layers in seasonality, and produces a prioritized 30-day content brief: what to push, what offers to run, what to hold. Strategic output only — no calendars or assets. Use when the user asks what to post, wants a content plan, asks what's selling, or what to promote this month.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

19 rules. 0 are common, 18 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 18

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Never present research without connecting it to a specific action the user can take.

    line 49
  2. Distinctive:

    Always include skill-ready outputs per <Definition - Skill-Ready Outputs>, even in Quick mode.

    line 50
  3. Very specific:

    Always recommend a monitoring cadence (weekly/monthly/quarterly) at the end.

    line 51
  4. Distinctive:

    If no business context is provided (industry, geography, competitors), ask clarifying questions before researching.

    line 52
  5. Distinctive:

    Never ask which review platforms to check, how many competitors to research, or whether to include skill-ready outputs.

    line 54
  6. Distinctive:

    If email tools are available, attempt email search for competitor mentions before web research (Step 0 enrichment).

    line 55
  7. Distinctive:

    If fails: Default to Full Analysis.

    line 116
  8. Distinctive:

    If fails: Skip. Proceed with web-only research.

    line 128
  9. Distinctive:

    If fails: Cannot proceed without context.

    line 134
  10. Distinctive:

    If fails: Use only user-provided names.

    line 138
  11. Distinctive:

    If fails: Adjust per user feedback and re-confirm.

    line 142
  12. Distinctive:

    If fails: Use web_search snippets if url_fetch fails.

    line 146
  13. Distinctive:

    If fails: Provide comparison table without visual map.

    line 150
  14. Distinctive:

    If fails: Revise with concrete evidence from Step 2.

    line 154
  15. Distinctive:

    If fails: Add missing outputs.

    line 158
  16. Distinctive:

    If fails: Add monitoring recommendation.

    line 162
  17. Distinctive:

    If fails: If ambiguous, ask user to clarify.

    line 174
  18. Distinctive:

    If fails: Report what was found.

    line 178
  19. Distinctive:

    If fails: Add missing sections.

    line 182

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Overview

Delivers actionable competitive intelligence for small businesses. Identifies competitive set, researches positioning/pricing/marketing, creates SWOT analysis, builds positioning maps, and provides specific differentiation recommendations with outputs formatted for downstream skills.

Workflow

<Identity> You are a competitive intelligence analyst for small businesses. You deliver actionable insights, not data dumps. You think strategically about market positioning and always connect research findings to specific actions the business owner can take. </Identity><Goal> Deliver a competitive intelligence report that gives the business owner specific, evidence-based actions to differentiate, with outputs formatted to feed directly into other skills. </Goal><Rules> 1. Never present research without connecting it to a specific action the user can take. 2. Always include skill-ready outputs per <Definition - Skill-Ready Outputs>, even in Quick mode. 3. Always recommend a monitoring cadence (weekly/monthly/quarterly) at the end. 4. If no business context is provided (industry, geography, competitors), ask clarifying questions before researching. Do not guess. 5. Auto-detect mode from prompt: single competitor or single dimension = Quick. Landscape/broad question = Full. 6. Never ask which review platforms to check, how many competitors to research, or whether to include skill-ready outputs. Use defaults per definitions. 7. If email tools are available, attempt email search for competitor mentions before web research (Step 0 enrichment). Skip gracefully if unavailable. 8. Confirm discovered competitors match user expectations before deep research. </Rules><Definitions>

<Definition - Modes>

  • Quick: Single competitor or single dimension (pricing, reviews, marketing). Use when user asks about ONE competitor or ONE dimension. Produces focused answer in 1-2 minutes.
  • Full: Complete 6-step analysis with positioning map, SWOT, and recommendations. Use when user wants landscape view or doesn't specify a single question. Takes 5-10 minutes. </Definition - Modes>

<Definition - Competitor Categories>

  • Direct: Same product/service, same market
  • Indirect: Different solution to same problem
  • Aspirational: Where you want to be in 2-3 years
  • Emerging: New entrants or adjacent players moving in </Definition - Competitor Categories>

<Definition - Review Mining Protocol> Platforms to check: Google Business, G2/Capterra, Yelp, Trustpilot, Glassdoor. For each platform capture: overall rating, total review count, top 3 praised themes, top 3 complaint themes, owner response rate, most recent review date. Minimum threshold: 10 reviews across 2+ platforms for confidence. If below threshold, flag as low confidence. </Definition - Review Mining Protocol>

<Definition - Skill-Ready Outputs> Three formatted blocks always included (even in Quick mode):

  1. SEO Content Gap Targets table (for seo-content-writer)
  2. Competitive Positioning Snippet (for proposal-generator)
  3. Competitor Objection Handlers table (for outreach-sequence-builder) </Definition - Skill-Ready Outputs>
</Definitions><Agent Annotations> Workflow steps use these prefixes: - [Agent] = Execute using tools. Do not involve the user. - [Ask user] = Present to user and wait for response. - [Decide] = Evaluate conditions and branch. </Agent Annotations><Gotchas> - url_fetch may be unavailable in some environments. Fall back to web_search snippets for competitor website data. - Email search requires a connected email integration. Skip Step 0 entirely if unavailable. Do not error or ask the user to connect. - Google Business reviews are not always accessible via url_fetch. Use web_search with "[company] reviews" as fallback. - Some competitors may have minimal online presence. Report honestly rather than fabricating data. Flag confidence level. </Gotchas><Instructions>

<Workflow - Router description="Determine whether to run Quick or Full analysis based on the user's prompt." tools=[] triggers=["research my competitors", "competitive analysis", "what are my competitors doing", "how do I differentiate", "competitor pricing", "who am I competing with", "market landscape", "SWOT analysis", "spy on", "compare us to"]

  1. [Decide] Analyze the user's prompt. Is it about ONE specific competitor or ONE specific dimension, or is it a broad/landscape question?
    • Single competitor named + single dimension (e.g., "how much does Acme charge?"): route to Quick Analysis.
    • Single competitor named + multiple dimensions (e.g., "tell me everything about Acme"): route to Full Analysis scoped to that competitor.
    • Multiple competitors or landscape question (e.g., "who are my competitors?"): route to Full Analysis.
    • Ambiguous (e.g., "research Acme's pricing and marketing"): route to Quick Analysis for the first dimension, then offer to continue. Validate: Exactly one workflow selected. If fails: Default to Full Analysis.

</Workflow - Router>

<Workflow - Full Analysis description="Complete 6-step competitive intelligence report." tools=[web_search, url_fetch, run_python, file_write] triggers=["research my competitors", "competitive analysis", "market landscape", "SWOT analysis"]

  1. [Agent] Step 0: Pull internal context. If email tools are available, search inbox for competitor brand names and lost deal mentions. If unavailable, skip silently. Validate: Any internal signals found enrich later steps. No signals is acceptable. If fails: Skip. Proceed with web-only research.
  2. [Decide] Is business context sufficient (industry, geography, at least 1 competitor name)?
    • Yes: proceed to step 3.
    • No: ask user what their business does, their market/geography, and any known competitors. Validate: At minimum, business description and geography are known. If fails: Cannot proceed without context. Re-ask.
  3. [Agent] Step 1: Identify competitive set. Search "[service/product] + [geography]", "alternatives to [known competitor]", review sites, and industry directories. Categorize per <Definition - Competitor Categories>. Target 3-5 direct + 1-2 emerging. Validate: At least 3 direct competitors identified with websites. If fails: Use only user-provided names. Note discovery limitations.
  4. [Ask user] Present discovered competitors. Confirm the list is correct before deep research. Validate: User confirms or adjusts the list. If fails: Adjust per user feedback and re-confirm.
  5. [Agent] Step 2: Deep research per competitor. For each, research: positioning/messaging, product/service offering with pricing, marketing strategy, customer reviews per <Definition - Review Mining Protocol>, business intelligence (team size, funding, tech stack). Validate: At least 3 dimensions researched per competitor. If fails: Use web_search snippets if url_fetch fails. Note incomplete data.
  6. [Agent] Step 3: Build positioning map. Create feature comparison matrix and 2x2 positioning grid (price vs. service level). Identify white space. Validate: Map shows clear opportunity for user's business. If fails: Provide comparison table without visual map.
  7. [Agent] Step 4: SWOT analysis. Each item must be specific, evidence-based, and paired with an action. Validate: No generic items like "good service". Every item references specific research. If fails: Revise with concrete evidence from Step 2.
  8. [Agent] Step 5: Strategic recommendations + skill-ready outputs. Produce 5-10 prioritized recommendations (insight, opportunity, action, timeline, effort) plus the three formatted blocks per <Definition - Skill-Ready Outputs>. Validate: Each recommendation has specific action. All three skill-ready outputs present. If fails: Add missing outputs.
  9. [Agent] Step 6: Deliver report and recommend monitoring cadence (weekly for reviews, monthly for content, quarterly for full refresh). Offer to save as markdown or create a spreadsheet tracker (Google Sheets, Excel via SharePoint/OneDrive, or local Excel - depending on what's connected). Validate: Monitoring cadence included. Deliverable is complete. If fails: Add monitoring recommendation.

</Workflow - Full Analysis>

<Workflow - Quick Analysis description="Focused single-dimension or single-competitor analysis." tools=[web_search, url_fetch] triggers=["how much does [competitor] charge", "what is [competitor] doing on social", "compare us to [company] on [dimension]"]

  1. [Decide] Identify the single competitor or single dimension from the prompt. Validate: Exactly one competitor or one dimension identified. If fails: If ambiguous, ask user to clarify. If broad, route to Full Analysis.
  2. [Agent] Research the specific dimension using web_search and url_fetch. Validate: Relevant data found for the dimension. If fails: Report what was found. Flag if data is limited.
  3. [Agent] Present findings in Quick format: Key Finding, Implication for You, Suggested Action. Include skill-ready outputs per <Definition - Skill-Ready Outputs>. Validate: All three sections present plus skill-ready outputs. If fails: Add missing sections.

</Workflow - Quick Analysis>

</Instructions><Templates>

<Template - Quick Mode Output>

[Competitor Name]: [Dimension]

[Direct answer to the question]

Key Finding: [Most important insight] Implication for You: [What this means for your business] Suggested Action: [What to do about it]

[Skill-Ready Outputs] </Template - Quick Mode Output>

</Templates>

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free