SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BB competitors

When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'competitor teardown,' 'audit our competitor pages,' 'are our comparison pages out of date,' or 'competitive asset audit.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For auditing existing claims (not researching competitors from scratch, which is competitor-profiling; not technical SEO on these pages, which is seo-audit), use the asset audit here. For internal battle cards and sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement.

LeoYeAI/openclaw-master-skills Agent Skills author: LeoYeAI 4 files body ≈ 2 776 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and buyer-facing use.

As a process B 71/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, running it twice, progress reporting

GeneratorMarketingtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: OpenClaw Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
94/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
84
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
71/100
Nearly there
Inputs and preconditions w 11
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: competitors (coreyhaines31/marketingskills)

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.

    Guard findings · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 3. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    • note edit-residue the text marks something as outdated (lines 9): check that old rules are not kept next to new ones — the full check reads the text for contradictions

    Process rating: all ten parameters 71/100

    • 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 7 mutating operations with no state check
    • 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Steps. 100 steps
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2776 tokens
    • low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
    • low No test case covers injection arriving through data

    Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.

    Quality signals

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +3Description length 893: 120–800 characters recommended
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +4Structure: 37 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 100 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 84.