agentleFS
rampstackcorampstackco/claude-skills-seo/skills/seo-competitor/SKILL.md

seo-competitor

Skill5 starsChanged 26 days agoMITView on GitHub

Run a competitive SEO analysis comparing the user's site to chosen competitors across SERP overlap, content depth, backlink profiles, technical posture, and brand presence. Use this skill whenever the user wants to analyze competitors, find content gaps, identify backlink opportunities, understand why competitors outrank them, or benchmark against the rest of their category. Triggers on competitor analysis, competitive analysis, SERP analysis, content gap, backlink gap, why is X ranking, who is winning the SERP, beat my competitor, benchmark, market positioning. Also triggers when planning a content strategy and the question 'what are competitors doing' is implicit.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    If competitors are unknown, start by listing the top 10 ranking domains for the user's top 10 priority keywords.

    line 37
  2. Distinctive:

    Update frequency on key pages (last modified date, change history)

    line 60
  3. Distinctive:

    Pick the angles: Run all 5 for a full audit, or 2 to 3 for a focused dive.

    line 99
  4. Very specific:

    Write the report: Use the template in references/competitive-audit-template.md.

    line 104
  5. Very specific:

    Default output is a markdown report at competitive-analysis.md plus accompanying spreadsheets for the keyword and backlink data.

    line 120

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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

SEO Competitor Analysis

Compare a site to its competitors and find the gaps worth closing. Stack-agnostic. Tool-friendly but tool-optional.


When to use

  • Identifying which competitors to study
  • Finding content gaps (topics they cover, you do not)
  • Finding backlink gaps (sites linking to them, not you)
  • Understanding why a specific competitor outranks the user
  • Benchmarking authority, technical posture, and content depth

When NOT to use

  • Single-page optimization (use seo-onpage)
  • Initial keyword research with no competitors yet identified (use seo-keyword first to find them)
  • Auditing one's own existing content (use seo-content-audit)

Required inputs

  • The user's site
  • 3 to 5 named competitors (or the topic area, if competitors are not yet identified)
  • Access to a keyword tool, a backlink tool, and any crawler

If competitors are unknown, start by listing the top 10 ranking domains for the user's top 10 priority keywords. Pick the 3 to 5 that appear most often.

Where competitor traffic estimation is the input you need (relative scale, channel mix, audience overlap), Similarweb MCP is the strongest source. Pair with Ahrefs (for backlink and keyword overlap) and Semrush (for SERP feature presence and SEO-PR overlap). Each platform gives a different cut of the same competitive landscape; using them together produces sharper signal than any one alone.


The framework: 5 angles

Competitor analysis covers five angles. Run all five for a full picture, or pick two or three for a focused investigation.

1. SERP overlap

Where do you and the competitor compete head-to-head?

  • For each priority keyword, who ranks in the top 10?
  • For each top-10 ranking, what page type wins (article, product, comparison, video)?
  • Are there SERP features (featured snippet, AI overview, video, image pack) one party holds and the other does not?
  • Which queries do competitors rank for that the user does not? (the content gap)

2. Content depth

What does their winning content look like?

  • Word count and structure of their top-ranking pages
  • Information types they include (data tables, original research, video, calculators, downloadable assets)
  • Update frequency on key pages (last modified date, change history)
  • Internal linking patterns (do their winning pages link to commercial pages?)
  • Topical breadth (how many related topics do they cover?)

3. Backlink profile

Where does their authority come from?

  • Total referring domains
  • Domain rating (or equivalent authority metric)
  • Top 50 referring pages by traffic value
  • Backlink types (editorial, directory, partner, paid, spam)
  • Link velocity (gaining or losing referring domains over time)
  • Pages on their site attracting the most links (these are their "linkable assets")

4. Technical posture

How clean is their technical foundation?

  • Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS)
  • Mobile usability
  • Schema implementation (which types, on which page types)
  • Site architecture and internal linking density
  • Crawl efficiency (are they wasting crawl budget?)
  • HTTPS, security headers
  • llms.txt and AI search readiness

5. Brand and entity strength

How well-known are they outside organic search?

  • Branded search volume (how many people search their name?)
  • Entity recognition in knowledge graph (do they have a Wikipedia page, knowledge panel, structured data feeding entity status?)
  • Mention frequency in their topic area (PR coverage, podcast appearances, citations)
  • Social signals (followers, engagement, share rates)
  • Reviews and reputation

Workflow

  1. Confirm the competitors. Either named, or derive from SERP overlap on top 10 priority keywords.
  2. Pick the angles. Run all 5 for a full audit, or 2 to 3 for a focused dive.
  3. Pull the data. Keyword tool exports, backlink tool exports, manual SERP inspection, technical crawl.
  4. Score each angle. Where does the user lead? Where do they trail?
  5. Identify gaps. Specific content gaps, specific backlink gaps, specific technical gaps.
  6. Prioritize. Which gaps are highest leverage to close? (Big traffic potential, achievable effort, strategic fit.)
  7. Write the report. Use the template in references/competitive-audit-template.md.

Failure patterns

  • Picking the wrong competitors. A site that outranks you on one keyword but operates a different business is not a competitor. Pick by SERP overlap and audience overlap, not by who you think you compete with.
  • Treating "more content" as the takeaway. They are not winning because they have 500 articles. They are winning because of specific content + links + UX. Find the actual lever.
  • Copying their pages verbatim. Diminishing returns. Beat them by being more useful, not by paraphrasing them.
  • Ignoring brand strength. A weaker site with a stronger brand wins on branded queries you cannot touch with content alone.
  • Static analysis. Re-run the analysis at least annually. Competitor strategies shift.

Output format

Default output is a markdown report at competitive-analysis.md plus accompanying spreadsheets for the keyword and backlink data.

Structure:

  1. Executive summary (3 to 5 critical findings)
  2. Competitor profiles (one per competitor, brief)
  3. SERP overlap analysis
  4. Content gap analysis
  5. Backlink gap analysis
  6. Technical comparison
  7. Brand and entity comparison
  8. Prioritized gap-closing roadmap

If required data is unavailable

This skill's output depends on data, measurements, or tool results it cannot generate on its own. When a required input, tool, or data source is unavailable or unverifiable, the sanctioned output is the deliverable with the gap stated: what was needed, what was actually obtained or verified, and which parts of the output are affected. Fabricating, estimating, or interpolating a required number to complete the deliverable is never sanctioned. A stated gap is a complete answer.


Reference files

  • references/competitive-audit-template.md - Fillable competitive audit template.
  • references/content-gap-method.md - Detailed methodology for finding content gaps with example.

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.