paulasilvatech Competitor ad intelligence
Collect public paid-ad evidence for named competitors, analyze creative and landing-page patterns, then produce a strategic teardown with hooks, formats, positioning bets, vulnerabilities, and counter-plays.
When to invoke
- "What ads is [competitor] running?"
- "Tear down [competitor]'s ad strategy."
- "Find new paid ad angles we haven't tried."
- "Reverse-engineer [competitor]'s paid funnel."
- "Audit the ad landscape before we launch."
Intake
Gather these inputs before analysis:
| Input | Examples and defaults |
|---|---|
| Competitor names and domains | apollo.io, clay.run |
| Your product/domain | Used for comparison framing; preserve source labels like product/domain** when converting rough notes |
| Channels | Meta only, Google only, or both; default both |
| Depth level | Standard: ad scrape, creative analysis, landing page analysis. Deep: Standard plus historical comparison, funnel reconstruction, and counter-plays |
| Product category | Used to frame hooks and positioning |
| Known competitor landing pages | URLs already spotted in ads |
Limits
- Use this skill for paid ad intelligence, not organic SEO competitor research or general website positioning analysis.
- If the request is organic/SEO research, stop and route to a more appropriate workflow.
- Use only public ad libraries, public landing pages, web search, and user-provided evidence.
- Do not use private APIs, credentials, scraping that bypasses access controls, or confidential competitor data.
Procedure
- Intake competitors, domains, product category, user's product/domain, channels, depth level, and known landing pages.
- Search Meta Ad Library evidence for each competitor.
- Search Google Ads Transparency Center evidence for each competitor.
- Collect ad-level fields and group ads by platform, format, hook, CTA, landing page, and active duration.
- Fetch and inspect unique landing pages.
- Cluster campaigns by destination, messaging theme, and audience signal.
- Analyze strategic intent, positioning bets, budget allocation, creative gaps, vulnerabilities, and counter-plays.
- In Deep mode, add historical comparison from Web Archive evidence if available.
Research sources and queries
| Source | Direct URL or query | Collect |
|---|---|---|
| Meta Ad Library | https://www.facebook.com/ads/harness/github-copilot/?active_status=active&ad_type=all&country=US&q=<competitor_name> |
Ad copy, visual type, CTA, landing page URL, active duration, platforms, A/B variations |
| Meta search | web_search: site:facebook.com/ads/library "[competitor_name]"; web_search: "[competitor_name]" Meta Ad Library active ads; web_search: "[competitor_name]" facebook ads examples |
Publicly indexed ad examples and library pages |
| Google Ads Transparency Center | https://adstransparency.google.com/?search_text=<competitor_name> |
Headline variants, description lines, ad type, landing page URL, geographic targeting if visible |
| Google search | web_search: site:adstransparency.google.com "[competitor_name]"; web_search: "[competitor_name]" Google Ads transparency; web_search: "[competitor_name]" google search ads examples |
Public ad transparency results |
| Landing pages | web_fetch: [landing_page_url], legacy fetch_webpage: [landing_page_url], or curl when web fetching is unavailable |
Hero, subheadline, CTA, proof, pricing, form fields, page type, message match |
Meta and Google public libraries may be incomplete. Apify actors for Meta Ad Library scraping are unreliable as of April 2026 due to Meta anti-scraping measures, so use web_search as the primary method.
Ad evidence to collect
| Channel | Fields |
|---|---|
| Meta | Headline, primary text, visual type (image, video, carousel), CTA button text, landing page URL, active duration (first seen, still running or stopped), platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Audience Network), A/B tests with same landing page and different creative |
Up to 3 headline variants, description lines, ad type (Search, Display, YouTube, Shopping), landing page URL, geographic targeting if visible |
|
| Landing page | Hero headline, subheadline, primary CTA (Demo, Free trial, Sign up, Download), social proof, pricing visibility, form fields, page type (General homepage, dedicated LP, feature page, use-case page), message match score 1-10 |
When raw notes contain labels such as Score/10, normalize them to message match score 1-10.
Creative analysis
Hook pattern clustering
| Hook Type | Pattern | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Fear/Loss | Risk of missing out or falling behind | "Your competitors are already using AI SDRs" |
| Outcome | Direct result promise | "10x your pipeline in 30 days" |
| Question | Challenges current assumption | "Still doing outbound manually?" |
| Social proof | Names customers or numbers | "Join 500+ B2B teams using [product]" |
| Contrarian | Challenges conventional wisdom | "Cold email isn't dead. Your copy is." |
| Empathy | Validates their pain | "We know SDR ramp time is brutal" |
| Product-led | Feature as hook | "[Feature] is live — see what's new" |
Count ads per competitor by hook type. Long-running ads suggest what converts; new ads suggest what they are testing.
Cluster headlines/openers before summarizing hook distribution; preserve strong labels such as Fear/Loss** as Fear/Loss.
Format and CTA taxonomy
| Format | Meta | |
|---|---|---|
| Static image | [N] |
N/A |
| Video | [N] |
[N] |
| Carousel | [N] |
N/A |
| Search text | N/A |
[N] |
| Display banner | N/A |
[N] |
| CTA pattern | Examples |
|---|---|
| Urgency | "Start free", "Try now", "Get started today" |
| Low-friction | "See how it works", "Watch demo", "Learn more" |
| Outcome | "Book a demo", "Get your free audit", "Calculate your ROI" |
Campaign and funnel analysis
Group campaigns by landing page destination, messaging theme, and audience signal.
| Dimension | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Strategic intent | Awareness, Lead gen, Free trial, Competitive displacement |
| Target persona | Role, pain, buying stage |
| Positioning bet | Market position they claim |
| Hook strategy | Fear/Loss, Outcome, Social proof, Contrarian, Product-led, Question, Empathy |
| Conversion path | Ad → LP → CTA → Demo call, Free Trial, or Content download |
| Longevity signal | First seen date → status; longer usually means likely working |
| A/B tests detected | Multiple creatives to same LP or same promise with different format |
[Ad: Hook/Angle] → [LP: /landing-page-url] → [CTA: Book Demo]
↓
[Ad: Different angle] → [LP: /same-or-different] → [CTA: Free Trial]
Budget allocation inference
Infer concentration from ad volume and platform distribution, not exact spend:
| Platform | Ad Count | % of Total | Estimated Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meta (Facebook) | [N] |
[X%] |
Awareness / Retargeting |
| Meta (Instagram) | [N] |
[X%] |
Visual / younger audience |
| Google Search | [N] |
[X%] |
Bottom-funnel capture |
| Google Display | [N] |
[X%] |
Awareness / retargeting |
| YouTube | [N] |
[X%] |
Education / awareness |
Strategic analysis
| Analysis | Questions to answer |
|---|---|
| Creative Gap Analysis | Which angles nobody is running? Which angles are overcrowded? Is there format white space such as no video? Which proof points are underutilized? Which CTAs do longest-running ads use? |
| Vulnerability Analysis | Where is there Message-LP mismatch, Single-persona dependency, Platform concentration, No social proof, Weak CTA, Generic positioning, or Stale creative? |
| Historical Comparison | In Deep Mode, use Web Archive evidence to ask: has positioning changed in the last 6-12 months, what campaigns retired, and what campaigns scaled? |
| Counter-Plays | For each vulnerability, propose a target weakness, ad angle, platform, headline, body, landing-page strategy, and why to test it |
Answer Why/why claims with evidence: why the competitor likely uses the pattern and why the counter-play is worth testing.
Cost and environment
| Component | Cost |
|---|---|
Ad library research (web_search) |
Free |
Landing page fetching (web_fetch, legacy fetch_webpage, or curl) |
Free |
| Web Archive lookup in Deep mode | Free |
| Analysis | Free, using LLM reasoning |
| Total | Free |
No API keys required. This skill uses publicly accessible ad libraries and web search.
Gotchas
- Do not treat ad count as exact spend: it is a directional signal only.
- Do not claim performance without longevity or volume evidence: say "likely works" when the signal is long-running ads or repeated variants.
- Do not overfit one channel: Meta hooks and Google Search copy reveal different funnel stages.
- Do not skip landing-page message match: the paid funnel is ad → LP → CTA, not ad copy alone.
Output template
# Competitor Ad Intelligence Report — <DATE>
## Coverage
- Competitors analyzed: <list>
- Meta ads collected: <N>
- Google ads collected: <N>
- Unique landing pages analyzed: <N>
- Estimated active campaigns: <N>
## Executive Summary
<3-5 sentence summary of landscape, what is working, gaps, and vulnerabilities>
## Meta Ad Analysis
### Hook Distribution
| Hook Type | <Comp1> | <Comp2> | <Comp3> |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Fear/Loss | <percent> | <percent> | <percent> |
| Outcome | <percent> | <percent> | <percent> |
### Top Performing Ads (Longest Running)
**<Competitor> — <Ad Title/Hook>**
> <Ad copy excerpt>
- Format: <Image/Video/Carousel>
- CTA: <text>
- Running since: <date>
- Why it likely works: <analysis>
## Google Ad Analysis
### Headline Patterns
<top headline structures with examples>
### Most Common CTAs
<ranked list>
## Campaign Breakdown
### Campaign 1: <Inferred Campaign Name>
- **Competitor:** <name>
- **Ads in cluster:** <N>
- **Platform(s):** <Meta / Google / Both>
- **Strategic intent:** <Awareness / Lead gen / Competitive displacement / etc.>
- **Target persona:** <description>
- **Hook strategy:** <type>
- **Landing page:** <URL>
- Hero: "<headline text>"
- CTA: "<button text>"
- Message match: <score>/10
- **Longevity:** <First seen date → status>
- **A/B tests detected:** <Yes/No and what they are testing>
**Sample ad:**
> **Headline:** <text>
> **Body:** <text>
> **CTA:** <button>
> **Format:** <Image/Video/Carousel>
**Assessment:** <1-2 sentences>
## Funnel Map
`<ad hook>` → `<landing page>` → `<CTA>`
## Budget Allocation Estimate
| Platform | Share | Focus Area |
| --- | --- | --- |
| <platform> | <X%> | <intent> |
## Creative Gap Analysis
### Angles Nobody Is Running
1. <Angle> — Why it could work: <reasoning>
### Overcrowded Angles (Avoid or Differentiate)
- <Angle> — <N> of <N> competitors use this
### Format White Space
- <Format> is not being used by competitors on <platform>
## Vulnerability Report
### 1. <Vulnerability>
**Competitor:** <name>
**Evidence:** <observed evidence>
**Your opportunity:** <counter-position>
## Recommended Counter-Plays
### Counter-Play 1: <Name>
- **Target their weakness:** <vulnerability>
- **Your ad angle:** <hook>
- **Platform:** <where to run>
- **Proposed headline:** "<headline>"
- **Proposed body:** "<copy>"
- **LP strategy:** <what landing page should emphasize>
- **Why test this:** <rationale>
Quality gate
- Competitors, domains, user's product/domain, channels, depth level, product category, and known landing pages are recorded.
- Meta and Google searches are run or explicitly marked out of scope.
- Every ad claim includes source evidence, platform, copy, format, CTA, landing page, and active-duration signal when visible.
- Landing pages are analyzed for hero, subheadline, CTA, proof, pricing, form fields, page type, and message match.
- Hook distribution, format distribution, CTA taxonomy, campaign clustering, funnel map, budget allocation estimate, creative gaps, vulnerabilities, and counter-plays are included.
- Deep mode includes historical comparison or explains why Web Archive evidence was unavailable.
- The report does not use private credentials, private APIs, or non-public data.