competitor-offer-analysis
Skill32 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Analyze competitor offers to find positioning gaps — break down pricing, guarantees, bonuses, mechanism claims, proof elements, and weaknesses to generate differentiation recommendations.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skillsedited, first seen Mar 20, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skills★ 461% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository41 other files it gives its agents.
- ab-test-planSkill
- ad-angle-generatorSkill
- ad-creative-auditSkill
- advertorial-writerSkill
- bonus-stackSkill
- broadcast-emailSkill
- cart-abandonment-flowSkill
- checkout-abandonmentSkill
- copy-rewriteSkill
- creative-briefSkill
- email-promoSkill
- email-retention-sequencesSkill
- fb-ad-copySkill
- free-offer-briefSkill
- funnel-architectureSkill
- funnel-auditSkill
- guarantee-writerSkill
- hook-batterySkill
- ingredient-researchSkill
- lander-copySkill
- lead-writerSkill
- mechanism-ideationSkill
- media-buying-briefSkill
- offer-stackSkill
- order-form-croSkill
- pdp-ecomm-templateSkill
- post-purchase-sequenceSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- reengagement-sequenceSkill
- rmbc-contextSkill
- rmbc-copy-auditSkill
- scarcity-urgencySkill
- soap-opera-sequenceSkill
- thank-you-pageSkill
- ugc-briefSkill
- unified-research-synthesizerSkill
- upsell-scriptSkill
- upsell-sequence-writerSkill
- vsl-scriptSkill
- webinar-registration-copySkill
- welcome-sequenceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 78
Is it provable?: Do you have evidence that supports it?
- Distinctive: line 83
If the differentiator fails any test, recommend a stronger positioning angle based on the gap analysis.
- Distinctive: line 178
Specificity gate: Every finding must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "they perform well" or "strong results"
- Distinctive: line 179
Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
- Distinctive: line 181
Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
- Very specific: line 185
Run /unified-research-synthesizer to complete the full 4-step RMBC research framework
- Very specific: line 186
Run /mechanism-ideation to develop a mechanism that fills identified gaps
- Very specific: line 187
Run /ad-angle-generator to create angles that exploit competitor weaknesses
- Very specific: line 188
Run /pricing-strategy to position pricing against the competitive landscape
- Very specific: line 189
Run /offer-stack to build an offer that addresses gaps competitors miss
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
competitor-offer-analysis
Purpose
Analyze competitor offers to find positioning gaps and differentiation opportunities. This is the competitive intelligence arm of RMBC Research — Step 2 (Competitor Analysis) from the 4-step research framework. Most brands compete on surface features and price. RMBC-driven analysis goes deeper: what mechanism does each competitor claim, how do they prove it, where is their offer architecture weak, and what does no one in the market say that your prospect needs to hear? Output: per-competitor offer breakdown, competitive landscape summary, gap opportunities, and positioning recommendations for differentiation.
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
product_description | Yes | Your product — what it does, key features, price point, mechanism (if defined) |
competitors | Yes | List of competitor names and/or URLs (minimum 2, ideally 3-5) |
target_audience | Yes | Shared ICP — demographics, pain points, desires, awareness level |
your_key_differentiator | Yes | What you believe makes your offer unique (will be pressure-tested) |
Execution Protocol
Step 1 — Load Framework Context
Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Competitor analysis maps directly to RMBC Research Step 2 — studying competing offers, their mechanisms, proof claims, and positioning gaps. The goal is not just to know what competitors do, but to find what they fail to do, fail to say, and fail to prove.
Step 2 — Build Competitor Profiles
For each competitor, analyze across 7 dimensions:
| # | Dimension | Key Questions |
| 1 | Offer Architecture | Core product, price point, offer stack (core + bonuses + add-ons), delivery method |
| 2 | Mechanism Claims | Primary mechanism, specificity (vague vs concrete), "only we" test, RMBC novelty score (0-25) |
| 3 | Proof Elements | Proof types (clinical, testimonial, expert, media, demo, data), quality, gaps, RMBC believability score (0-25) |
| 4 | Guarantee | Terms (duration, conditions), strength (unconditional vs conditional), positioning (prominent vs buried) |
| 5 | Bonuses | What's included, relevance to core offer, filler quality assessment |
| 6 | Copy & Positioning | Lead type, tone, awareness level targeting, CTA approach |
| 7 | Weaknesses | Offer gaps, proof gaps, mechanism gaps, experience gaps (onboarding, support, results) |
Step 3 — Map the Competitive Landscape
Synthesize individual profiles into a landscape view:
| Dimension | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | Your Offer |
| Price | ||||
| Mechanism | ||||
| Proof depth | ||||
| Guarantee | ||||
| Bonuses | ||||
| CTA/Urgency |
Identify patterns:
- Market consensus: What does every competitor do the same way?
- Market gaps: What does NO competitor address?
- Overused claims: What messages are so common they've lost impact?
- Underserved objections: What prospect concerns does no one address?
Step 4 — Identify Gap Opportunities
Rank the top 3-5 positioning gaps by impact:
For each gap:
- The gap — What's missing from the competitive landscape
- Why it matters — How this gap affects the prospect's buying decision
- Your ability to fill it — Can your product/offer genuinely own this position?
- Implementation — What changes to your offer, copy, or proof would claim this gap
- Risk — What happens if a competitor fills this gap first
Step 5 — Pressure-Test Your Differentiator
Take the user's stated key differentiator and stress-test it:
- Is it unique? Can any competitor make the same claim?
- Is it provable? Do you have evidence that supports it?
- Does the audience care? Is this differentiator relevant to a buying decision?
- Is it defensible? Can competitors easily copy or neutralize it?
- Is it communicable? Can it be explained in one sentence on a sales page?
If the differentiator fails any test, recommend a stronger positioning angle based on the gap analysis.
Output Format
## Competitor Offer Analysis: [Your Product/Market]
**Competitors Analyzed:** [count]
**Your Differentiator (stated):** [from input]
**Differentiator Status:** VALIDATED / NEEDS STRENGTHENING / REPLACE
---
### COMPETITOR PROFILES
#### [Competitor 1 Name]
| Dimension | Assessment |
|-----------|-----------|
| **Offer** | [core product, price, stack] |
| **Mechanism** | [claim + specificity + uniqueness] |
| **Proof** | [types used + quality + gaps] |
| **Guarantee** | [terms + strength] |
| **Bonuses** | [list + relevance] |
| **Copy approach** | [lead type + tone + awareness level] |
| **Weaknesses** | [offer, proof, mechanism, experience gaps] |
**RMBC Scores:** Mechanism: X/25 | Proof: X/25
---
[...repeat for each competitor...]
---
### COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE
| Dimension | [Comp A] | [Comp B] | [Comp C] | You |
|-----------|----------|----------|----------|-----|
| Price | | | | |
| Mechanism | | | | |
| Proof | | | | |
| Guarantee | | | | |
| Urgency | | | | |
---
### GAP OPPORTUNITIES (Ranked by Impact)
#### Gap 1: [Name]
- **What's missing:** [description]
- **Why it matters:** [prospect impact]
- **Your ability to fill:** [high/medium/low + why]
- **Implementation:** [what to change]
#### Gap 2: [Name]
[same format]
#### Gap 3: [Name]
[same format]
---
### DIFFERENTIATOR STRESS TEST
| Test | Pass/Fail | Notes |
|------|-----------|-------|
| Unique? | | |
| Provable? | | |
| Audience cares? | | |
| Defensible? | | |
| Communicable? | | |
**Recommendation:** [validate, strengthen, or replace — with specific alternative if needed]
---
### POSITIONING RECOMMENDATIONS
1. **Lead with:** [the strongest gap opportunity your offer can own]
2. **Prove with:** [the proof type competitors underuse]
3. **Differentiate on:** [validated or recommended differentiator]
4. **Avoid:** [overused market claims that have lost impact]Quality Criteria
- Each competitor must be analyzed across all 7 dimensions — no skipping because information is limited (flag what's unknown instead)
- Mechanism claims must be evaluated for the "only we" test — generic mechanisms that any competitor could claim don't count as differentiation
- Proof evaluation must distinguish between strong (specific, verifiable) and weak (vague, unsubstantiated) evidence
- Gap opportunities must be ranked by impact on buying decisions — not just what's interesting to the analyst
- Differentiator stress test must be honest — a failing differentiator helps more than a validated weak one
- Positioning recommendations must be actionable and specific — "be different" is not a recommendation
- RMBC scores must follow rmbc-context quality dimensions (0-25 per dimension) consistently across competitors
- Specificity gate: Every finding must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "they perform well" or "strong results"
- Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
- Audience journey: Each finding must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
- Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
Related Skills
- Run
/unified-research-synthesizerto complete the full 4-step RMBC research framework - Run
/mechanism-ideationto develop a mechanism that fills identified gaps - Run
/ad-angle-generatorto create angles that exploit competitor weaknesses - Run
/pricing-strategyto position pricing against the competitive landscape - Run
/offer-stackto build an offer that addresses gaps competitors miss - Validate your differentiated positioning with
/rmbc-copy-audit
Attribution
Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join
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.

