AC competitor-analysis
Competitor analysis for social media — public-data competitive reconnaissance to find the gap a brand can own. Use when someone wants to "analyse/research our competitors," "see what rivals are doing on social," "benchmark against competitors," "find content gaps / white space," or "do a competitive landscape / SWOT." Reads the PUBLIC competitive field — positioning, pillars, formats, cadence, share of voice — to find the gap the brand can own, then feeds social-strategy and content-pillars. Reads brand-profile + audience-research first. Advisory and public-data only: no scraping private data, no fake monitoring accounts, no fabricated competitor metrics, no copying. Distinct from viral-reverse-engineering (single-post teardown) and audience-research (your own audience).
As a process C 56/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, when it triggers, inputs and preconditions
How to improve
- 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: 6. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 56/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 2 mutating operations with no state check
- 40Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
- 100Steps. 11 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1064 tokens
- 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
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 5 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 781: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 9 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 11 items
- +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (4 of 4)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 89.