seo-competitor-pages

name	seo-competitor-pages
description	Competitor comparison and alternatives pages — "X vs Y", "alternatives to X", "best [category] tools" roundups. Covers feature matrices, comparison-intent keyword targeting, Product/SoftwareApplication/ItemList schema, and conversion-optimized layout with fairness guidelines. A distinct page format, not the SERP-beating competitor analysis that feeds a regular article outline.
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Glob, Grep, WebSearch, WebFetch

SEO Competitor Pages — Comparison & Alternatives Pages

A comparison page doesn't win by out-writing a competitor's article — it wins by capturing the comparison itself: the searcher already knows both names and wants a verdict.

When this skill activates

Implicit: "comparison page", "vs page", "alternatives page", "competitor comparison", "X vs Y", "versus", "compare competitors", "alternative to", "best [category] tools roundup". Explicit: "Use the seo-competitor-pages skill to [task]." Routed from: [[seo]] orchestrator, /mk:seo page-type requests.

Not routed from [[seo-content-brief]] or [[seo-writing]] Stage 2 — despite the shared word "competitor," those do their own self-contained SERP analysis (fetch top-10 → filter clean URLs → extract heading skeletons → two-pass Analyst/Outline Creator, in references/stage-2-outline.md) to out-write a competitor's ranking article for a regular keyword. That process never calls into this skill and does not produce a comparison page. This skill activates only when the deliverable itself is a comparison/alternatives/roundup page — a distinct page format targeting comparison-intent keywords, not a wider or deeper version of an existing article topic.

Scope

Covers:

• Four comparison-intent page types: "X vs Y", "alternatives to X", "best [category] tools" roundups, standalone comparison-table pages.
• Feature-matrix construction and data-accuracy requirements.
• Schema markup for comparisons (Product+AggregateRating, SoftwareApplication, ItemList).
• Comparison-intent keyword targeting and title/H1 formulas.
• Conversion-optimized layout (CTA placement, social proof, pricing highlights, trust signals).
• Fairness/accuracy guidelines for describing competitors.
• Internal linking between comparison pages and product pages.

Does NOT cover:

• SERP-based competitor analysis to out-write a regular article → [[seo-content-brief]], [[seo-writing]] Stage 2.
• Topic cluster / pillar structure planning → [[seo-cluster]].
• Section-by-section body writing, E-E-A-T scoring → [[seo-content]].
• General schema markup outside comparison contexts → [[seo-schema]].
• AI-search/GEO structuring of the resulting page → [[seo-geo]].

Page types

1. "X vs Y" comparison pages

Direct head-to-head between two products/services. Balanced feature-by-feature analysis with a clear verdict or recommendation and justification. Target keyword: [Product A] vs [Product B].

2. "Alternatives to X" pages

A list of alternatives to a specific product/service. Each alternative gets a brief summary, pros/cons, and a "best for" use case. Target keyword: [Product] alternatives, best alternatives to [Product].

3. "Best [category] tools" roundup pages

A curated list of top tools/services in a category, with ranking criteria clearly stated. Target keyword: best [category] tools [year], top [category] software.

4. Comparison table pages

A feature matrix with multiple products in columns, sortable/filterable if interactive. Target keyword: [category] comparison, [category] comparison chart.

Comparison table generation

Feature matrix layout

| Feature          | Your Product | Competitor A | Competitor B |
|------------------|:------------:|:------------:|:------------:|
| Feature 1        | ✅           | ✅           | ❌           |
| Feature 2        | ✅           | ⚠️ Partial   | ✅           |
| Feature 3        | ✅           | ❌           | ❌           |
| Pricing (from)   | $X/mo        | $Y/mo        | $Z/mo        |
| Free Tier        | ✅           | ❌           | ✅           |

Data accuracy requirements

• All feature claims must be verifiable from public sources.
• Pricing must be current — include an "as of [date]" note.
• Update frequency: review quarterly or when a competitor ships major changes.
• Link to a source for each competitor data point where possible.

Schema markup

Product schema with AggregateRating

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "Product",
  "name": "[Product Name]",
  "description": "[Product Description]",
  "brand": { "@type": "Brand", "name": "[Brand Name]" },
  "aggregateRating": {
    "@type": "AggregateRating",
    "ratingValue": "[Rating]",
    "reviewCount": "[Count]",
    "bestRating": "5",
    "worstRating": "1"
  }
}

SoftwareApplication (for software comparisons)

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "name": "[Software Name]",
  "applicationCategory": "[Category]",
  "operatingSystem": "[OS]",
  "offers": { "@type": "Offer", "price": "[Price]", "priceCurrency": "USD" }
}

ItemList (for roundup pages)

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "ItemList",
  "name": "Best [Category] Tools [Year]",
  "itemListOrder": "https://schema.org/ItemListOrderDescending",
  "numberOfItems": "[Count]",
  "itemListElement": [
    { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "[Product Name]", "url": "[Product URL]" }
  ]
}

Validate against Rich Results eligibility, or hand off to [[seo-schema]] for full JSON-LD generation and validation.

Keyword targeting

Comparison-intent patterns

Pattern	Example	Search volume signal
[A] vs [B]	"Slack vs Teams"	High
[A] alternative	"Figma alternatives"	High
[A] alternatives [year]	"Notion alternatives 2026"	High
best [category] tools	"best project management tools"	High
[A] vs [B] for [use case]	"AWS vs Azure for startups"	Medium
[A] review [year]	"Monday.com review 2026"	Medium
[A] vs [B] pricing	"HubSpot vs Salesforce pricing"	Medium
is [A] better than [B]	"is Notion better than Confluence"	Medium

Title tag formulas

• X vs Y: [A] vs [B]: [Key Differentiator] ([Year])
• Alternatives: [N] Best [A] Alternatives in [Year] (Free & Paid)
• Roundup: [N] Best [Category] Tools in [Year], Compared & Ranked

H1 patterns

Match title tag intent, include the primary keyword naturally, keep under 70 characters.

Conversion-optimized layout

CTA placement

• Above fold — brief comparison summary with a primary CTA.
• After the comparison table — "Try [Your Product] free" CTA.
• Bottom of page — final recommendation with a CTA.
• Avoid aggressive CTAs inside competitor-description sections — it reads as biased and reduces trust.

Social proof

• Customer testimonials relevant to the comparison criteria.
• G2/Capterra/TrustPilot ratings, with source links.
• Case studies showing migration from the competitor.
• "Switched from [Competitor]" stories.

Pricing highlights

• A clear pricing comparison table.
• Highlight value advantages, not just the lowest price.
• Include hidden costs — setup fees, per-user pricing, overage charges.
• Link to the full pricing page.

Trust signals

• "Last updated [date]" timestamp.
• An author with relevant expertise.
• Methodology disclosure — how the comparison was conducted.
• Disclosure of the page owner's own product affiliation.

Fairness guidelines (non-negotiable)

• Accuracy — all competitor information must be verifiable from public sources.
• No defamation — never make false or misleading claims about a competitor.
• Cite sources — link to competitor websites, review sites, or documentation.
• Timely updates — review and update when competitors release major changes.
• Disclose affiliation — clearly state which product is the page owner's.
• Balanced presentation — acknowledge competitor strengths honestly.
• Pricing accuracy — include "as of [date]" disclaimers on all pricing data.
• Feature verification — test competitor features where possible, cite documentation otherwise.

These rules apply on top of, not instead of, the truth-only rule in [[seo-content]] — no invented ratings, no fabricated review counts, no placeholder competitor names.

Internal linking

• Link to the page owner's own product/service pages from comparison sections.
• Cross-link between related comparison pages (e.g., "A vs B" links to "A vs C").
• Link to feature-specific pages when discussing individual features.
• Breadcrumb: Home > Comparisons > [This Page].
• A "related comparisons" section at the bottom of the page.
• Link to any case studies or testimonials mentioned in the comparison.

Key concepts

• Comparison intent — the searcher already knows both products by name; the page's job is to give a verdict, not to introduce the category. Different from informational intent, which [[seo-content-brief]] outlines target.
• Feature matrix — the trust-building core of a comparison page; every cell must be sourced or marked "Not publicly available," never guessed.
• Fairness as a ranking signal, not just an ethics rule — Google and readers both penalize obviously one-sided comparisons; balanced presentation of competitor strengths is what makes the page's verdict credible enough to convert.

Output

• plans/marketing/<campaign>/seo-competitor-pages.md — comparison page brief:
  • Page type + target keyword (primary + secondary + long-tail opportunities).
  • Feature matrix table.
  • Content outline with word-count targets (minimum 1,500 words).
  • Content gaps vs. existing competitor comparison pages.
• plans/marketing/<campaign>/comparison-schema.json — Product/SoftwareApplication/ItemList JSON-LD.
• Recommendations: content improvements for existing comparison pages, new comparison-page opportunities, schema additions, conversion-optimization suggestions.

Error handling

Scenario	Action
Competitor URL unreachable	Report which competitor URLs failed. Proceed with available data and note gaps in the comparison.
Insufficient competitor data (pricing, features unavailable)	Flag missing data points clearly. Use "Not publicly available" in comparison tables rather than guessing.
No product/service overlap found	Report that the products serve different markets. Suggest alternative competitors that share feature overlap, or pivot to a category roundup format.

Cross-references

• plans/marketing-context.md — required hub (own-product positioning, forbidden words)
• [[seo]] — orchestrator this skill routes from
• [[seo-content-brief]] / [[seo-writing]] Stage 2 — separate SERP-analysis mechanism for regular articles; does not feed into or from this skill
• [[seo-cluster]] — comparison/alternatives pages typically sit as Commercial & Decision facet nodes in a cluster
• [[seo-content]] — truth-only rule and anti-fluff apply to comparison prose too
• [[seo-schema]] — full JSON-LD generation/validation beyond the templates above
• .claude/workflows/marketing-rules.md — content quality rules

Provenance

Imported from AgriciDaniel/claude-seo and adapted for KitForge. Page types, schema templates, keyword patterns, and fairness guidelines are preserved from the source; adaptations are ClauKit frontmatter/style, plans/marketing/<campaign>/ output paths, and explicit scoping against the seo-writing pipeline's separate competitor-analysis mechanism (source repo did not need this distinction).