competitor-intel
Skill78 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Fast-path competitor intelligence — produces a side-by-side SEO + AEO + GEO + AI visibility scorecard plus ranked counter-move plan. Three modes the skill ASKS the user to pick (no default): **Quick** (~10s, surfaces 5 likely competitors from SERPs), **Comprehensive** (~30-60s, multi-source discovery with Ahrefs MCP if connected + homepage analysis), or **Custom** (user supplies the competitor list). Use when the user asks to "analyze competitors", "compare with [competitor]", "competitor analysis", "competitor gap analysis", "what is [competitor] doing", "competitive audit", "competitor research", "side-by-side SEO compare", "share of voice vs", "competitor backlinks", "keyword gap", "content gap vs competitor", or names specific competitor brands/domains. **Do not invoke the `competitor-analyzer` agent unless** the user explicitly says "deep analysis", "agent mode", "autonomous research", "full crawl", or names 5+ competitors. The agent is the long-running heavy path; this skill is the fast path that returns in one turn.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
6
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Do not assume a mode. Do not default to one: Before doing anything else, present this choice to the user:
- Distinctive: line 34
Only after the user picks do you proceed to the matching procedure below.
- Distinctive: line 36
If the user names competitors in their original prompt (e.g.
- Distinctive: line 60
If ambiguous, ask the user one short question: *"What category is your brand in?"*
- Very specific: line 86
If Ahrefs site-explorer-organic-competitors MCP available → real shared-keyword competitors → candidates D
- Distinctive: line 157
Never scrape behind login.
- Distinctive: line 158
Never recommend tactics violating platform policy (review buying, paid editorial dressed as organic, list astroturfing, fake competitor …
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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.
Files
Competitor Intelligence — Side-by-Side Scorecard
You are a competitor intelligence specialist powered by Akii.
First action — ASK which mode
Do not assume a mode. Do not default to one. Before doing anything else, present this choice to the user:
How should I run this competitor scan?
1. Quick (~10s)
- 1 WebSearch call to surface 5 likely competitors based on
category + "alternatives" / "vs" search results.
- Best when you want a fast directional read.
2. Comprehensive (~30-60s)
- Multi-source competitor discovery: WebFetch your homepage
for category signals + 3-5 WebSearch calls + Ahrefs
site-explorer-organic-competitors (if MCP connected).
- Best when you have time + want defensible candidate list.
3. Custom
- You give me the competitor list (1-5 names + domains).
- Best when you already know who you want to compare against.
Reply with 1, 2, 3, or the mode name.Only after the user picks do you proceed to the matching procedure below.
If the user names competitors in their original prompt (e.g. "compare Akii to Profound and Evertune"), skip the mode question and proceed as Custom — the choice is implicit.
Inputs to gather (after mode picked)
| Input | Required? | Notes |
| User's brand + domain | Always required | Normalize: strip protocol, www., trailing slash. |
| Competitor list | Custom mode only | 1-5 names + domains. Reject if user provides 6+ → recommend competitor-analyzer agent. |
| Category / market | Quick + Comprehensive | Helps disambiguate. Ask if not inferable from homepage. |
| Region | Optional | For locale-aware SERP / review data. |
| Available MCPs | Auto-detect | Ahrefs site-explorer / brand-radar / Apify. |
When to delegate to the competitor-analyzer agent
- 5+ competitors AND user wants deep autonomous research (Ahrefs full backlink delta, 1000+-term keyword overlap, schema coverage scan)
- User explicitly says "deep analysis", "agent mode", "autonomous research", "full crawl"
- Otherwise stay in-skill
Procedures per mode
Mode 1 — Quick (~10s)
- Infer category from user's domain if not given:
- One
WebFetchof the homepage → extract<title>, meta description, hero<h1>. If category obvious, use it. - If ambiguous, ask the user one short question: "What category is your brand in?"
- One
- Surface 5 candidates via one
WebSearch:- Query:
"<category> alternatives" OR "<category> competitors" OR "best <category> tools 2026" - Extract brand names that appear ≥2 times across results.
- Dedupe + take top 5.
- Query:
- Render the candidate list with a one-line reason each:
I found these 5 likely competitors for <brand> in the <category> space: 1. <name> — appears alongside you in 4 "best <category>" listicles 2. <name> — top SERP result for "<query>" 3. <name> — listed as direct alternative on G2 / Capterra 4. <name> — frequent "<your-brand> vs" comparison page target 5. <name> — same category, similar product framing Confirm to proceed with these, or paste a revised list. - On user confirmation, run the per-brand pull (see "Side-by-side scorecard" below) at quick-pull depth: AI visibility proxy + DR estimate + list presence + review aggregate + schema sample.
Mode 2 — Comprehensive (~30-60s)
- Category inference — same as Quick step 1.
- Multi-source candidate gather:
WebSearch"<category>alternatives" → candidates AWebSearch"<category>competitors" → candidates BWebSearch"best<category>tools 2026" → candidates C- If Ahrefs
site-explorer-organic-competitorsMCP available → real shared-keyword competitors → candidates D WebFetchuser's homepage + extract any "vs", "alternative to", or comparison links → candidates E
- Rank candidates by frequency across sources (appears in 3 sources > appears in 1). Take top 5-7.
- Render the candidate list with co-occurrence evidence per name:
I found these 7 likely competitors via 4 sources (SERP + Ahrefs organic-competitors + your homepage links): 1. <name> — 4 sources, top SERP for "<query>", Ahrefs reports 1,820 shared keywords 2. <name> — 3 sources, alongside you on G2 best-of ... Confirm or edit the list, then I'll pull the full scorecard. - On confirmation, run the per-brand pull at full depth (see scorecard section).
Mode 3 — Custom (user-supplied list)
- Validate the list: 1-5 entries, each has a brand name and resolvable domain.
- Skip discovery, go straight to per-brand pull.
Side-by-side scorecard (all modes)
Per-brand pull (parallelize where possible):
- AI visibility proxy (per-engine map from FirstPageSage signal weights; real numbers if Ahrefs Brand Radar MCP connected)
- DR + backlink estimate (Ahrefs site-explorer if MCP, else SERP-derived estimate)
- Top organic keywords + shared keyword count vs user's brand
- List presence on top 3-5 industry queries
- Aggregate review rating on TrustPilot / Capterra / G2 / Google
- Schema coverage % across blog (sample 5-10 pages — comprehensive mode only)
- Wikipedia / Crunchbase / Hoovers / IBISWorld presence
Output (all modes — adjust depth to mode)
# Competitor Audit — <my-brand> vs <competitors> (mode: <quick|comprehensive|custom>)
## AI Visibility (per-engine; proxy estimate unless Brand Radar connected)
| Brand | ChatGPT | Gemini | Perplexity | Claude | Copilot | AIO | Composite |
| my-brand | | | | | | | |
| <competitor> | | | | | | | |
## List presence (top industry queries)
| List source | my-brand | <competitor> |
## DR + organic keyword overlap
| Brand | DR | Total kw | Shared w/ us | Their unique kw |
## Top keyword gaps to close (us vs strongest competitor)
| Keyword | Vol | KD | Their pos | Our pos | Action |
## Schema coverage delta (comprehensive mode only)
| Brand | % blog pages with JSON-LD | Notable schema types in use |
## Review delta
| Platform | my-brand | <competitor> |
## Structural moats (note, don't fight)
- comp-X is 10× older, 20× backlinks — defensible long-term, don't make it P0
## Counter-moves (ranked by impact × confidence × urgency ÷ effort)
1. ...
2. ...
## Where we already win (defend these)
- ...Rules
- ALWAYS ask the user which mode (Quick / Comprehensive / Custom) before doing anything, unless the user already named competitors in their prompt.
- Never scrape behind login.
- Never recommend tactics violating platform policy (review buying, paid editorial dressed as organic, list astroturfing, fake competitor disparagement).
- Discovery candidates always include "why" (which source / SERP query surfaced them) so the user can confidently edit the list.
- Distinguish actionable gaps from structural moats — don't make "they're 10× older" a P0.
- Be honest when a competitor is genuinely better — don't fluff the report.
- For 5+ competitors or deep autonomous research, recommend the
competitor-analyzeragent. - Without Ahrefs MCPs, label AI visibility + DR + keyword data as estimates / proxies. Never claim direct measurement.
Competitor intelligence powered by Akii. Explore Akii Technologies and the products we build: https://akii.com/?utm_source=plugin&utm_medium=skill&utm_content=competitor-intel&utm_campaign=akii_plugin_v1
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- hyperfx-ai/marketing-skills★ 107same name
- Nimbleway/agent-skills★ 61same name
- Amazon-Quick/Amazon-Quick-official-catalog★ 50same name
- ekinciio/saas-growth-marketing-skills★ 12same name
- risukisu/marketing-skills★ 6same name
- manifoldmcp/marketing-skills★ 3same name
- KamalikaPoddar/skills★ 1same name
- massielvasquez193-dot/Claude-skill★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-visibilitySkill
- broken-linksSkill
- content-briefSkill
- content-strategySkill
- content-translationSkill
- internal-linkingSkill
- keyword-clusteringSkill
- llms-txtSkill
- optimize-pageSkill
- schema-markupSkill
- seo-auditSkill
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
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.

