# Competitive Benchmark > Benchmark a brand's website against named competitors and synthesise a strategic direction. Detects business model (B2B / B2C / D2C / marketplace) and scores every site across seven axes — visual design, UX writing, brand voice & positioning, conversion hooks, IA & journey, social proof & trust, and differentiation — producing a comparison matrix plus a synthesis of what to STEAL, DIFFERENTIATE, and AVOID. Orchestrates the visual-aesthetics-audit, ux-writing, and ux-audit skills for depth; hands off to product-requirements or market-intelligence to build. Use whenever the user shares their site AND one or more competitor sites and wants a comparison, benchmark, or teardown. Triggers: "benchmark my site against these", "how do I compare to competitors", "what are they doing better", "what should I steal / avoid / do differently". Distinct from market-intelligence (business/pricing strategy) — this is about the website and digital experience layer. - Skill: `kaustavr19/competitive-benchmark` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 4 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add kaustavr19/competitive-benchmark` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/kaustavr19/competitive-benchmark/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: kaustavr19 (https://skillmd.com/u/kaustavr19) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/kaustavr19/competitive-benchmark --- # Competitive Website Benchmark Skill A three-phase competitive teardown: **Benchmark** every site on a shared rubric → **Synthesise** Steal / Differentiate / Avoid → optionally **Hand off** to build. This skill is an **orchestrator**. It owns the comparative logic (matrix + strategy) and pulls in specialist skills for craft depth rather than reinventing them. --- ## Step 0 — Gate: Choose Audit Depth (ASK FIRST, DO NOTHING ELSE YET) **This is a hard gate. Before fetching, detecting, or scoring anything, present the two depth modes to the user and wait for their explicit choice.** Do not begin analysis until they answer. Frame the choice descriptively so they pick with full information: > **⚡ Fast Benchmark** > Uses this skill's own rubric across every site. Each competitor and your own site scored > on all seven axes from a direct read of the pages. You get the full **comparison matrix** > and the **Steal / Differentiate / Avoid** synthesis. You won't get the granular craft > teardown — exact hex values, type-scale diagnosis, line-by-line copy critique. Quick, > broad, strategic. Best for a first read or when there are many competitors. > > **🔬 Deep Teardown** > Everything in Fast, plus the skill orchestrates specialist audits on every site: > `visual-aesthetics-audit` for design (typography, palette, spacing, with fix values), > `ux-writing` analysis for copy, and the persuasion lens for conversion hooks. Far richer > and more defensible, but heavier — for your site + 3 competitors that's ~12 deep passes > before synthesis. Slower and more thorough. Best when you're committing to act on it. **Throttle note:** If the user picks Deep Teardown AND there are 4+ competitors (5+ total sites), warn them about run length and offer to either (a) run Deep on their own site + the top 2-3 competitors and Fast on the rest, or (b) proceed full Deep anyway. Respect their call. For 3 or fewer competitors, honour Deep directly without friction. Use `ask_user_input_v0` to present the Fast / Deep choice as tappable options. --- ## Step 1 — Gather & Validate Inputs Once depth is chosen: 1. Confirm which URL is **the user's own** site and which are **competitors**. If unclear, ask — the whole synthesis hinges on knowing whose side you're on. 2. Fetch each site. Use Claude in Chrome if available (screenshots at 1440px desktop + 375px mobile, page text, accessibility tree). Fall back to `web_fetch` for HTML/text, and note that visual analysis is inference-based. 3. For each site capture: hero/above-the-fold, primary nav & IA, key CTAs, pricing or conversion path, social proof elements, footer. These are the comparison surfaces. If any site is unreachable or behind auth, flag it and proceed with what's available. --- ## Step 2 — Detect Business Model (Auto, Ask Only If Unclear) Infer the model from the sites themselves — it sets the evaluation lens. Read → **`references/business-models.md`** for detection signals and per-model "what good looks like." | Model | Tell-tale signals | What "hooking the user" means | |---|---|---| | **B2B** | Demo/contact-sales CTAs, ROI/case studies, integrations, "trusted by [logos]" | Credibility, proof, low-risk next step (demo, trial) | | **B2C** | Direct signup, broad appeal copy, app-store badges, lifestyle imagery | Speed to value, emotional resonance, social proof | | **D2C** | Product catalogue, add-to-cart, shipping/returns, brand story | Aspiration, frictionless purchase, brand identity | | **Marketplace** | Two-sided messaging (buyers + sellers), listings, trust/safety | Liquidity signals, trust between strangers | Detect per-site (competitors may differ from the user — note it if so). If the model is genuinely ambiguous after reading the sites, ask the user once. Otherwise state your detected model and proceed. --- ## Step 3 — Benchmark Every Site on the Seven Axes Score the **user's site and every competitor** on the same seven axes, through the lens of the detected business model. Read → **`references/benchmark-rubric.md`** for the full scoring criteria per axis. | # | Axis | Evaluates | |---|---|---| | 1 | **Visual Design & Brand Expression** | Aesthetic quality, cohesion, distinctiveness, craft | | 2 | **UX Writing & Messaging Clarity** | Copy clarity, value articulation, microcopy, CTA quality | | 3 | **Brand Voice & Positioning** | Distinct voice, sharp positioning, "why us" clarity | | 4 | **Conversion & Persuasion Hooks** | How effectively the page drives the target action (model-specific) | | 5 | **Information Architecture & Journey** | Navigation logic, findability, flow to conversion | | 6 | **Social Proof & Trust Signals** | Reviews, logos, testimonials, security, credibility cues | | 7 | **Differentiation Clarity** | Is it obviously different from the others, or category wallpaper? | **Scoring:** Each axis gets a 🔴/🟡/🟢 RAG + score /10, per site. ### Deep Teardown orchestration (only if Deep was chosen) For each site, invoke the specialist skills and fold their findings into the relevant axis: - **Axis 1 (Visual)** → run `visual-aesthetics-audit` logic; pull its six-dimension diagnosis and fix values into this axis. - **Axis 2 (UX Writing)** → apply `ux-writing` evaluation to hero copy, CTAs, microcopy, error/empty states. - **Axis 4 (Hooks)** → apply the **Trust & Persuasion deep lens** from the `ux-audit` skill (its `references/deep-lenses.md` — Fogg + Cialdini). **Flag dark patterns explicitly** — a competitor using fake scarcity is not a strength to steal; it's a trap to avoid. In **Fast** mode, score all seven axes from this skill's own rubric without invoking the sub-skills. --- ## Step 4 — Build the Comparison Matrix Output a side-by-side matrix: axes as rows, sites as columns, RAG + score in each cell. The user's own site is always the first/anchor column, visually distinguished. ``` | Axis | YOUR SITE | Competitor A | Competitor B | Competitor C | |---|---|---|---|---| | Visual Design | 🟡 6 | 🟢 8 | 🟡 5 | 🟢 9 | | UX Writing | 🔴 4 | 🟢 8 | 🟡 6 | 🟡 6 | | ... | | | | | | **Overall** | **5.1** | **7.8** | **5.6** | **7.2** | ``` Immediately below the matrix, a one-line **positional read**: where the user ranks, and their single biggest gap and single biggest existing strength relative to the field. --- ## Step 5 — Synthesise: Steal / Differentiate / Avoid This is the payload. Read → **`references/synthesis-method.md`** for the full method. For each axis (or grouped where it reads better), produce three lenses: - **🟢 STEAL** — A competitor does this measurably better; it's adoptable without becoming derivative. Name the competitor, the specific thing, and how to adapt it (not copy it). - **🔵 DIFFERENTIATE** — Where every site looks the same. Sameness in a crowded category is a liability; this is the gap the user can own. **Bias the synthesis toward this** — differentiation beats imitation. Be concrete about the opening. - **🔴 AVOID** — A mistake one or more competitors make (clutter, dark patterns, weak positioning, broken journeys). Name it so the user doesn't inherit it. **The cardinal rule:** Do not produce a "become more like your competitors" report. The most valuable output finds the *unoccupied position* — where the user can be deliberately different and better, not a cleaner clone. If the whole category shares a blind spot, that blind spot is the strategy. End the synthesis with **The One Move**: if the user changed only one thing about their site to compete, what is it and why. --- ## Step 6 — Structure the Report ``` # Competitive Website Benchmark — [Your Brand] vs [N] Competitors **Date:** [today] · **Business model detected:** [model] · **Depth:** [Fast / Deep] **Sites analysed:** [your site] (anchor) + [competitors] ## Executive Summary - Where you rank: [X of N] - Biggest gap: [axis + one line] - Biggest existing strength: [axis + one line] - The One Move: [single highest-leverage change] ## Comparison Matrix [the seven-axis × all-sites table with RAG + scores + overall row] **Positional read:** [one line] ## Per-Axis Findings For each of the 7 axes: - The matrix row restated - What the leader on this axis is doing (named) - Where the user sits and why - [Deep mode] specialist findings (visual fix values / copy critique / persuasion read) ## Strategic Synthesis For each axis or grouped theme: - 🟢 STEAL — [competitor] does [X]; adapt as [Y] - 🔵 DIFFERENTIATE — everyone does [X]; you could own [Y] - 🔴 AVOID — [competitor] / the category does [X]; don't inherit it **The One Move:** [the single highest-leverage play] ## Dark Pattern Watch (if any found) [Competitor persuasion tactics that are manipulative, not admirable — flagged so the user doesn't copy them] ## Caveats [Unreachable sites, auth walls, inference-based visual notes, dynamic states not audited] ## Next Steps (handoff offer) [See Step 7] ``` --- ## Step 7 — Deliver & Hand Off - Save as `competitive-benchmark-[your-brand]-[date].md`. - Use `present_files` to surface it. - Then offer the **build handoff** (this skill does NOT build — it briefs): - **Want to act on this?** → Offer to package the findings into a brief for the **`product-requirements`** skill to produce a build/redesign PRD. - **Want deeper market/positioning/GTM strategy?** → Hand off to the **`market-intelligence`** skill (business model, pricing, channel strategy — the layers this skill deliberately doesn't cover). - **Want the visual direction spelled out?** → Offer a full `visual-aesthetics-audit` design brief for the user's own site. - Also offer: re-benchmark after changes; deep-dive a single competitor; convert findings into a prioritised action backlog. --- ## Orchestration Principles - **Ask depth first, always.** Never start analysis before the Fast/Deep gate is answered. - **Anchor on the user.** Every score, every synthesis line exists to answer "so what should *I* do?" — competitor analysis is a means, not the product. - **Differentiation over imitation.** Push the user toward an unoccupied position. A report that just says "copy the leader" has failed. - **Same lens for everyone.** Score every site on the identical rubric through the same business-model lens, or the comparison is meaningless. - **Flag manipulation, don't admire it.** Dark patterns are AVOID findings, never STEAL. - **Don't reinvent — orchestrate.** In Deep mode, route to the specialist skills; in Fast mode, use the built-in rubric. Don't duplicate their logic inline. - **Hand off, don't sprawl.** Building the thing is `product-requirements`' job; deep market strategy is `market-intelligence`' job. This skill benchmarks and directs — then passes the baton. - **Be honest about inference.** Visual/motion findings from `web_fetch` alone are estimates. Say so.