Competitor Analyzer
This is the number one rule, the one that's skipped most and costs most: never write an article without reading at least three of the competitors actually ranking for the term. Not their headings, their real content. Every time it's skipped, the article comes out short, with obvious gaps the ranking pages already filled.
So this skill reads them first, and turns them into the bar the new page has to clear and the gap where it can win.
Run after keyword-researcher, before outline-drafter.
Inputs (ask for whatever is missing)
- The keyword brief from
keyword-researcher (required).
- Search access: a live SERP source, or web search as the fallback. Real search first, always.
The method
Pull the live SERP and read the top three. Not the headings, the actual content of at least the top three ranking pages. If a page ranks, it counts, even if it's a service page rather than a blog post. What ranks is the standard.
Get the real word count to beat. Measure the actual length of the top three and take the average. The new article meets or exceeds it. "Their page doesn't really count" is not a reason to come in short.
Write the gap analysis, before any outline. Four parts:
- Table stakes: what they all cover. The new page has to cover these too or it looks thin.
- Go deeper: what they touch but treat shallowly. The room to be better.
- Nobody covers: the angle, question, or example none of them have. This is where the page wins.
- Word count: the target, from step 2.
Pull the real People Also Ask. Take the actual related questions the search engine shows for the term. Never invent these. They become question-form H2s and the FAQ.
List the sources and entities they cite. Every tool, brand, study, and statistic the competitors reference. This feeds two later rules: the article cites real, checkable things, and it has to find at least one source none of the competitors (or your own other articles) used.
Output
Produce a gap-analysis.md: the top-three pages read with their word counts and the average to beat, the four-part gap analysis (table stakes / go deeper / nobody covers / target length), the real PAA, and the sources and entities competitors cite. Mark clearly if any of it came from web-search fallback rather than the live SERP.
Then stop. The outline is built against this gap analysis, not against a guess.
1---2name: competitor-analyzer3description: Read at least three competitors' actual content before a word gets written, and turn it into a gap analysis and a word count to beat. Pulls the live SERP, reads the real pages (not just their headings), and reports what they all cover, what to go deeper on, what nobody covers, and the target length. Pulls real People Also Ask from the SERP, never invented. Run after keyword-researcher, before outline-drafter. Produces a gap analysis and stops.4license: MIT5---67# Competitor Analyzer89This is the number one rule, the one that's skipped most and costs most: never write an article without reading at least three of the competitors actually ranking for the term. Not their headings, their real content. Every time it's skipped, the article comes out short, with obvious gaps the ranking pages already filled.1011So this skill reads them first, and turns them into the bar the new page has to clear and the gap where it can win.1213Run after `keyword-researcher`, before `outline-drafter`.1415## Inputs (ask for whatever is missing)1617- **The keyword brief** from `keyword-researcher` (required).18- **Search access**: a live SERP source, or web search as the fallback. Real search first, always.1920## The method21221. **Pull the live SERP and read the top three.** Not the headings, the actual content of at least the top three ranking pages. If a page ranks, it counts, even if it's a service page rather than a blog post. What ranks is the standard.23242. **Get the real word count to beat.** Measure the actual length of the top three and take the average. The new article meets or exceeds it. "Their page doesn't really count" is not a reason to come in short.25263. **Write the gap analysis, before any outline.** Four parts:27 - **Table stakes**: what they all cover. The new page has to cover these too or it looks thin.28 - **Go deeper**: what they touch but treat shallowly. The room to be better.29 - **Nobody covers**: the angle, question, or example none of them have. This is where the page wins.30 - **Word count**: the target, from step 2.31324. **Pull the real People Also Ask.** Take the actual related questions the search engine shows for the term. Never invent these. They become question-form H2s and the FAQ.33345. **List the sources and entities they cite.** Every tool, brand, study, and statistic the competitors reference. This feeds two later rules: the article cites real, checkable things, and it has to find at least one source none of the competitors (or your own other articles) used.3536## Output3738Produce a `gap-analysis.md`: the top-three pages read with their word counts and the average to beat, the four-part gap analysis (table stakes / go deeper / nobody covers / target length), the real PAA, and the sources and entities competitors cite. Mark clearly if any of it came from web-search fallback rather than the live SERP.3940Then stop. The outline is built against this gap analysis, not against a guess.
robdasi