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

competitor-tracking

Skill0 starsChanged 33 days agoMITView on GitHub

Save competitor watchlists, refresh the same research panel, compare dated snapshots and report meaningful changes in pricing, positioning, reviews and search evidence. Use for competitor tracking, watchlists, change reports and weekly competitive reviews. Separate source failures and new baselines from verified changes.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. appeeky/aso-skills★ 2.2ksame name
    2. Eronred/aso-skills★ 2.2ksame 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the saved checkpoint, watchlist, last valid snapshot and receipts.

    line 10

≈ “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 tracking

Maintain useful competitive history in the user's project. This skill creates saved watchlists and rerunnable refresh plans; it does not install a scheduler or start monitoring in the background.

  1. Read the saved checkpoint, watchlist, last valid snapshot and receipts. Preserve stable competitor identities, dimensions, accepted exclusions, collection panel, timezone and thresholds. Read evidence-contract.md.
  2. Validate the watchlist with the contained helper. A manual or proposed refresh mode is a planning state, never proof of activation. Missing targets or budgets require a specific correction before a paid refresh, while existing snapshots can be compared immediately.
  3. Reuse unconsumed completed runs before launching another. Reconcile any receipt marked unknown against the account's run list and input/build/start time. Never replay a possible charged start automatically. Live work follows execution.md, with explicit per-run caps and the existing authorization's remaining scope.
  4. Save a new timestamped snapshot from useful returned rows. Record provider failures, truncation and missing data separately. Do not overwrite the last valid baseline with an empty or failed retrieval. Keep normalized observations and both dated source records.
  5. Compare with the offline helper. Use the same currency, billing basis, variant, geography, provider, device, audience and collection scope. Record new observations as baseline additions; missing rows as not observed; changed context as requiring review. Numeric thresholds suppress small movements, and whitespace-only differences do not generate a change.
  6. Produce a compact digest: meaningful comparable changes, why they may matter, both dated citations, source health, new baseline additions, suppressed noise, actual collection cost when available and suggested follow-up. Estimates remain labelled as estimates. Qualitative recommendations need judgment beyond the helper's arithmetic.

For an actual recurring request, inspect an existing supported host scheduler or Apify scheduling capability before proposing activation. Obtain the specific frequency, timezone, targets, budget, expiry and notification destination where missing. Do not infer recurring spend from a one-time run or a saved monthly budget. Schedule only within explicit authorization, enforce available native caps, verify readback, and provide pause/cancel instructions. If the host cannot reliably retrieve, normalize, compare and store snapshots, deliver a manual refresh recipe and explain that automated analysis is unavailable. An Apify collection schedule alone does not run this local analysis helper.

Notifications or report delivery use only an explicitly authorized channel. Stay quiet on unchanged data; report meaningful changes, failures or required action. Save the next refresh instruction and unresolved state so "continue tracking" resumes without rebuilding the project.

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.