ig-competitor

name	ig-competitor
description	Competitor research and analysis via delegation to the ig-research skill. Identifies target accounts, delegates data collection, synthesizes findings into actionable hooks, formats, and content gaps.
allowed-tools	["Read","Write","Grep","Glob","Bash"]

IG Competitor -- Competitor research via delegation

Key references:

• references/competitor-framework.md -- competitor selection criteria, analysis dimensions, comparison matrix
• references/account-baseline.md -- own account metrics for gap analysis

NOTE: This is a DELEGATION skill. The primary data collection happens via the ig-research skill. This skill orchestrates the research, reads results, and synthesizes recommendations.

---

Phase 1: Target Selection

Identify which competitor accounts to research:

1. Ask the user for specific accounts, or suggest based on these criteria:
   • Same niche (fitness, nutrition, health for German-speaking audience)
   • Similar follower count range (0.5x to 5x of own account)
   • Active posting (at least 3 posts/week)
   • High engagement relative to follower count
2. Select 3-5 target accounts. More than 5 dilutes the analysis.
3. Load references/competitor-framework.md for the analysis dimensions to apply.
4. Load references/account-baseline.md for own account metrics (needed for gap analysis).

Document the selected accounts with handles and reasoning for selection.

Phase 2: Delegation

For each target account, invoke the ig-research skill:

1. Pass the account handle and the analysis dimensions from competitor-framework.md.
2. The ig-research skill will:
   • Collect public data (post frequency, content types, engagement patterns)
   • Analyze content pillars and topic distribution
   • Document hook patterns and CTA strategies
   • Note visual style and branding approach
3. Each research run produces a report file. Note the output paths.

If ig-research is unavailable, fall back to manual data collection using available API tools or web research tools.

Phase 3: Report Reading

Read all generated research reports:

1. Load each competitor report file.
2. Extract key data points per competitor:
   • Posting frequency and consistency
   • Top-performing content (by visible engagement: likes, comments)
   • Content pillar distribution
   • Hook patterns used (categorize into hook-library.md categories)
   • CTA strategies
   • Audience interaction style (comment responses, story engagement)
   • Affiliate/partnership approach

Compile into a comparison matrix.

Phase 4: Synthesis

Analyze the collected data for actionable insights:

Hook Adaptation

• Which hook patterns are competitors using successfully that we are NOT using?
• List 3-5 hooks to adapt (not copy) with German examples:
  • Original: "[competitor hook]"
  • Adapted: "[our version in German]"
  • Why it works: [psychological trigger]

Format Testing

• Which formats are competitors using that we are underrepresenting?
• Prioritize by: (a) competitor success with the format, (b) our audience alignment
• Recommend 2-3 format experiments with specific topic suggestions

Content Pillar Insights

• What topics do competitors cover that we do not?
• What topics do WE cover that competitors do not (our differentiation)?
• Where is there topic saturation across all competitors (avoid or differentiate)?

Engagement Tactics

• How do competitors drive saves, shares, and DMs?
• Which CTA patterns are most effective?
• Comment response strategies worth adopting

Phase 5: Gap Analysis

Cross-reference competitor findings with own account baseline:

Dimension	Our Account	Competitor Avg	Gap	Priority
Posting Frequency	X/week	Y/week	+/-Z	High/Med/Low
Reel Ratio	X%	Y%	+/-Z%	High/Med/Low
Carousel Ratio	X%	Y%	+/-Z%	High/Med/Low
Avg Engagement Rate	X%	Y%	+/-Z%	High/Med/Low
Hook Diversity	X categories	Y categories	+/-Z	High/Med/Low
CTA Variety	X types	Y types	+/-Z	High/Med/Low

Flag any gap where competitor average exceeds our metric by more than 30% as high priority.

Differentiation Check

Equally important: identify what we do BETTER than competitors. These are strengths to double down on, not change.

Phase 6: Quality Check

Before delivering the report, verify:

• At least 3 competitor accounts analyzed
• Comparison matrix includes all key dimensions
• Hook adaptations are original (adapted, not copied verbatim)
• Gap analysis references actual baseline data
• Recommendations are specific and actionable
• Differentiation strengths are identified (not just gaps)

Phase 7: Delivery

Output as a structured Markdown report:

## Competitor Analysis Report

**Accounts Analyzed:** [list of handles]
**Own Account Baseline:** [key metrics summary]
**Date:** [date]

### Competitor Comparison Matrix
| Metric | Our Account | [Comp 1] | [Comp 2] | [Comp 3] |
|--------|------------|----------|----------|----------|

### Hooks to Adapt
1. **[Pattern Name]:** "[adapted hook in German]" -- Source: [competitor]
2. ...

### Formats to Test
1. [format] -- [why, based on competitor data]
2. ...

### Content Gaps (We Should Add)
- [topic/format gap]

### Our Strengths (Double Down)
- [differentiator]

### Gap Analysis Summary
| Dimension | Gap | Priority | Recommended Action |
|-----------|-----|----------|-------------------|

### 30-Day Action Plan
1. [specific action from synthesis]
2. [specific action from synthesis]
3. [specific action from synthesis]