CF competitor-pages
Competitor page gap analysis — take a query you want to win and the pages currently outranking you, and produce a concrete brief on what to add or change to compete. Compares content depth and coverage (subtopics they cover that you don't), structure (headings, format, tables, media), search-intent match, E-E-A-T signals, schema/rich-result eligibility, internal linking, and on-page optimization — across your page vs. the top-ranking competitors. Use this skill whenever the user wants to know why a competitor outranks them on a specific query, what a top-ranking page does better, a content-gap analysis against specific competitor URLs, or a brief to beat a specific SERP. Trigger on: "why does competitor X outrank me", "content gap analysis", "competitor page analysis", "what does the top result have that I don't", "how do I beat this page", "analyze competitor pages", "SERP gap", "compete for [keyword]". For seed keyword discovery use /keyword-research; for a content calendar use /content-planner.
Competitor page gap analysis — take a query you want to win and the pages currently outranking you, and produce a concrete brief on what to add or change to…
As a process F 26/100 · No process to follow — References files that are not bundled: ../../seo/competitor-pages/WORKFLOW.md
How to improve
- The text references files that are not there: add them or drop the references.
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- 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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
missing-refreference to a missing file: ../../seo/competitor-pages/WORKFLOW.md
Process rating: all ten parameters 26/100
- 0Tools and files. 1 referenced file(s) missing: ../../seo/competitor-pages/WORKFLOW.md
- 0Steps. Prose only: no discrete steps
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 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
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 65 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
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)
- +3Description length 1012: 120–800 characters recommended
- +4Structure: 1 headings, hard to scan
- +3No numbered steps or checklist
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- -15SKILL.md body under 300 characters: nearly empty
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 8 example trigger phrases
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 54.