agentleFS
khadinakbarlabskhadinakbarlabs/competition-analyzer-tracker/skills/competitor-seo-analysis/SKILL.md

competitor-seo-analysis

Skill0 starsChanged 33 days agoMITView on GitHub

Compare competitors' sampled Google rankings, estimated organic traffic, backlink samples and public page metadata. Use for competitor SEO research, search visibility comparisons and content gaps. Preserve provider, geography, language, device and query scope; label estimates and unavailable metrics explicitly.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use scrape-google-serp for a bounded same-query search panel and discovery evidence.

    line 10
  2. Very specific:

    Use keyword-rank-tracker only when its managed provider access is actually available.

    line 12
  3. Very specific:

    Use website-backlink-checker for a bounded sample or labelled summary.

    line 13
  4. Very specific:

    Use website-seo-spider for page-only or tightly bounded raw-HTML metadata.

    line 14

≈ “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.

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

Competitor SEO analysis

Turn search evidence into a prioritized set of hypotheses. Reuse supplied exports and accepted competitor identities. Follow execution.md for live runs and actors.json for the relevant contracts.

  • Use scrape-google-serp for a bounded same-query search panel and discovery evidence. Count organic rankings consistently; paid placements are separate. An absent domain within collected depth is "not observed in this sample", not "unranked everywhere".
  • Use similarweb-alternative for up to three domains initially. organicEtv is estimated Google organic traffic from the provider's index, not measured website sessions or total visits. visits is available only when the upstream Similarweb feed exists; do not fill it with organicEtv. mode: free_tier is an Actor input label and does not make the run free.
  • Use keyword-rank-tracker only when its managed provider access is actually available. Set location, language, device, OS, keywords and depth explicitly. Never request or expose provider passwords in shared files; if managed access is unavailable, retain the sample SERP evidence and report the narrower coverage.
  • Use website-backlink-checker for a bounded sample or labelled summary. A sample of five referring pages is not the site's total backlinks. Index scores are provider-specific and not interchangeable with another service's authority score.
  • Use website-seo-spider for page-only or tightly bounded raw-HTML metadata. Its titles, H1s and issue flags support on-page observations; they do not measure conversion, browser-rendered behavior or revenue.

Save context fields with every observation: provider, country/location, language, device, OS, keywords, result depth, period basis and collection method where relevant. Compare history only within the same panel. Provider or scope changes need a new baseline, and sparse coverage cannot justify an overall winner.

Deliver the evidence table, a short content/keyword gap list, contrary evidence and three prioritized research or content actions with a rationale. Search performance estimates and suggested work do not promise future rankings or traffic gains. Save the panel for a later manual refresh using evidence-contract.md.

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.