# Competitor Analyzer

> competitor-analyzer

- Skill: `uitbreidenos/competitor-analyzer` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add uitbreidenos/competitor-analyzer`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/uitbreidenos/competitor-analyzer/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: UitbreidenOS (https://skillmd.com/u/uitbreidenos)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/uitbreidenos/competitor-analyzer

---

# competitor-analyzer

## When to activate

Before topic analysis or script planning. Dissects top-performing competitors; extracts hooks, formats, CTAs, and audience insights.

## When NOT to use

- On entirely niche topics with <3 competitors (insufficient data).
- Without WebSearch or YouTube API access (requires competitor data access).
- As a substitute for original thinking (analyzes landscape, does not mandate copying).

## Instructions

1. **Input:** Topic, creator niche, keywords.
2. **Identify top 5–10 competitors:**
   - Search YouTube for topic + keywords
   - Filter by views, upload frequency, subscriber count, engagement rate
   - Rank by total views + recent engagement
3. **For each top competitor, extract:**
   - **Title formula:** Question, number, promise, curiosity hook
   - **Hook (first 15 sec):** Specific promise, data reference, or problem statement
   - **Video structure:** Sections, pacing, visual transitions
   - **Call-to-action types:** Subscribe bell, links in description, community join, Discord
   - **Audience sentiment:** Like/comment tone, repeat viewers, controversy flags
   - **Thumbnail style:** Color palette, text placement, emotion, face presence
   - **Metadata:** Description length, tag count, chapter usage
4. **Synthesize insights:**
   - Common hooks across top performers
   - Audience gaps (topics under-covered or controversial)
   - Format variations and success patterns
   - CTA best practices
5. **Output:** Competitor landscape report with extracted patterns, gaps, and recommendations for differentiation.

## Example

**Input:** Topic: "AI video editing tools"; Keywords: AI editing, automation, tools

**Output:**

**COMPETITOR LANDSCAPE ANALYSIS**

**Top 5 Competitors (by views + engagement):**

**#1: "I Tried AI Video Editing So You Don't Have To" (TechReviewXYZ) — 240K views**
- Hook: "I wasted 30 hours testing 7 AI editors. Here's the winner."
- Format: 9-minute linear review (Tool A → Tool B → Tool C)
- Structure: Intro (45s) → 3 tools (2 min each) → verdict (1 min) → CTA (30s)
- Thumbnail: Shocked face + red "AI EDITS" text
- CTA: Subscribe bell + "join my community"
- Engagement: 8.2K likes, 520 comments (strong)
- Audience tone: Skeptical but trusting; asks follow-up Qs in comments

**#2: "The BEST AI Video Editor in 2026" (CreatorStudio) — 185K views**
- Hook: "Every creator asked me this. I finally tested the answer."
- Format: 11-minute deep dive into ONE tool with full workflow demo
- Structure: Problem (1 min) → Tool intro (2 min) → full workflow demo (6 min) → pricing (1.5 min) → CTA (30s)
- Thumbnail: Tool logo + "BEST" text in gold
- CTA: "Subscribe + check description for 30-day free trial"
- Engagement: 6.1K likes, 280 comments (lower engagement)
- Audience tone: More casual; some ask for promo codes

**#3: "5 AI Editors RANKED by Real Creators" (CreativeTools.io) — 156K views**
- Hook: "I polled 200+ creators. Here's what they actually use."
- Format: 8-minute ranking with creator quotes
- Structure: Intro (30s) → Ranking 5-1 (1 min each) → verdict (1 min) → CTA (30s)
- Thumbnail: Grid of 4 tool logos + "RANKED"
- CTA: "Link to poll results in description"
- Engagement: 4.8K likes, 156 comments (lowest)
- Audience tone: Analytical; fewer emotional reactions

**#4: "I Built an AI Video Editor (and tested competitors)" (DevTalk) — 128K views**
- Hook: "I spent 4 months building an AI editor. Then I tested existing tools."
- Format: 13-minute technical deep dive with code snippets
- Structure: Problem (1 min) → My build process (5 min) → Competitor comparison (5 min) → Verdict (1.5 min) → CTA (30s)
- Thumbnail: Code snippet + "AI EDITOR" text
- CTA: "GitHub link in description"
- Engagement: 3.2K likes, 89 comments (developer audience, lower overall)
- Audience tone: Technical; discusses APIs, performance, limitations

**#5: "Honest AI Editing Review (I Refunded Two)" (IndieCreator) — 94K views**
- Hook: "I paid for 5 AI editors. Only 2 were worth the money."
- Format: 7-minute opinionated review
- Structure: Intro (45s) → Tool reviews (1 min each, honest rants) → verdict (1 min) → CTA (30s)
- Thumbnail: Thumbs down emoji + red "NOT RECOMMENDED" text
- CTA: "Subscribe for unfiltered reviews"
- Engagement: 2.1K likes, 142 comments (high comment-to-view ratio = controversy)
- Audience tone: Trusts reviewer more because of honesty; asks for specific use-case advice

---

**PATTERN ANALYSIS**

**Hook Patterns (Top 3):**
1. Data-driven: "I tested X, here's the winner" (Appears in #1, #2, #5)
2. Authority: "Creators told me X" or "I built this myself" (Appears in #3, #4)
3. Honesty: "I refunded/wasted" or "Here's what I DIDN'T like" (Appears in #5)

**Format Distribution:**
- Linear tool-by-tool reviews: 3/5 (60%)
- Deep dive into 1 tool: 1/5 (20%)
- Ranking format: 1/5 (20%)

**Thumbnail Patterns:**
- Shocked/emotional face: 3/5 (60%)
- Bold red or gold text: 4/5 (80%)
- Tool logos or grid: 2/5 (40%)

**CTA Patterns:**
- Subscribe bell: 4/5 (80%)
- Description links (trials, polls, code): 4/5 (80%)
- Community/Discord: 1/5 (20%)

**Engagement Analysis:**
- Highest engagement: #1 (8.2K likes, 520 comments) = data-driven + honest
- Lowest engagement: #3 (4.8K likes, 156 comments) = purely ranking, less personality
- Comment-to-view ratio: #5 (0.15%) > #4 (0.07%) — Honesty drives discussion

---

**LANDSCAPE GAPS & OPPORTUNITIES**

**Under-served angles:**
- No creator specifically ranking by price-to-quality ratio
- No tutorial on integration with specific editing software (Premiere, DaVinci, etc.)
- No "3-month real-world test" (all competitors do single-tool reviews)
- Limited coverage of learning curve and support quality

**Audience pain points (from comments):**
- Batch processing capability (mentioned 40+ times across comments)
- Export quality comparisons (20+ mentions)
- Integration with existing workflows (30+ mentions)
- Customer support responsiveness (15+ mentions)

**Differentiation Opportunity:**
Your niche could be: "AI Editors Ranked by Real Editing Workflow Integration" (shows how each tool fits into Premiere/DaVinci/Final Cut pro pipeline, not just standalone testing)

---

**RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR VIDEO**

**Hook suggestion:** Combine #1 (data-driven testing) + #5 (honesty) + gap (workflow integration)
Example: "I tested 7 AI editors in my actual Premiere workflow. 2 were worth installing. Here's what surprised me."

**Format suggestion:** Deep dive into 1–2 tools (like #2) OR ranking (like #3), but differentiate with workflow focus

**Thumbnail:** Shocked face (high CTR pattern) + "WORKFLOW INTEGRATION" text (specificity drives clicks)

**CTA:** "Subscribe + free workflow checklist in description" (actionable + lead generation)

---

**Output:** Competitor landscape report with 5+ top videos, pattern analysis, gap identification, and differentiation recommendations.