Competitor & Alternative Pages workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Competitor & Alternative Pages workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.
This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/competitor-alternatives from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
Competitor & Alternative Pages You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively.
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Initial Assessment, Page Formats, Explore [Your Product] as an Alternative, Find the Right Tool, Compare [Your Product], Content Architecture.
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively.
Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.
Operating Table
Situation
Start here
Why it matters
First-time use
metadata.json
Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow
Provenance review
ORIGIN.md
Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source
Workflow execution
SKILL.md
Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution
Supporting context
SKILL.md
Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package
Handoff decision
## Related Skills
Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
Product research
Sign up for free trial
Use the product yourself
Document features, UX, limitations
Take screenshots
Pricing research
Current pricing (check regularly)
Imported Workflow Notes
Imported: Research Process
Deep Competitor Research
For each competitor, gather:
Product research
Sign up for free trial
Use the product yourself
Document features, UX, limitations
Take screenshots
Pricing research
Current pricing (check regularly)
What's included at each tier
Hidden costs, add-ons
Contract terms
Review mining
G2, Capterra, TrustRadius reviews
Common praise themes
Common complaint themes
Ratings by category
Customer feedback
Talk to customers who switched
Talk to prospects who chose competitor
Document real quotes
Content research
Their positioning and messaging
Their comparison pages (how do they compare to you?)
Their documentation quality
Their changelog (recent development)
Ongoing Updates
Competitor pages need maintenance:
Quarterly: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
When notified: Customer mentions competitor change
Annually: Full refresh of all competitor data
Imported: Initial Assessment
Before creating competitor pages, understand:
Your Product
Core value proposition
Key differentiators
Ideal customer profile
Pricing model
Strengths and honest weaknesses
Competitive Landscape
Direct competitors
Indirect/adjacent competitors
Market positioning of each
Search volume for competitor terms
Goals
SEO traffic capture
Sales enablement
Conversion from competitor users
Brand positioning
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @competitor-alternatives to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @competitor-alternatives against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @competitor-alternatives for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @competitor-alternatives using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Best Practices
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
Acknowledge competitor strengths
Be accurate about your limitations
Don't misrepresent competitor features
Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims
Go beyond feature checklists
Explain why differences matter
Include use cases and scenarios
Imported Operating Notes
Imported: Core Principles
1. Honesty Builds Trust
Acknowledge competitor strengths
Be accurate about your limitations
Don't misrepresent competitor features
Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims
2. Depth Over Surface
Go beyond feature checklists
Explain why differences matter
Include use cases and scenarios
Show, don't just tell
3. Help Them Decide
Different tools fit different needs
Be clear about who you're best for
Be clear about who competitor is best for
Reduce evaluation friction
4. Modular Content Architecture
Competitor data should be centralized
Updates propagate to all pages
Avoid duplicating research
Single source of truth per competitor
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/competitor-alternatives, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Related Skills
@00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
@10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
Resource family
What it gives the reviewer
Example path
references
copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream
references/n/a
examples
worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream
examples/n/a
scripts
upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation
scripts/n/a
agents
routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package
agents/n/a
assets
supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package
assets/n/a
Imported Reference Notes
Imported: Index Pages
Each format needs an index page that lists all pages of that type. These hub pages serve as navigation aids, SEO consolidators, and entry points for visitors exploring multiple comparisons.
Alternatives Index
URL: /alternatives or /alternatives/index
Purpose: Lists all "[Competitor] Alternative" pages
Page structure:
Headline: "[Your Product] as an Alternative"
Brief intro on why people switch to you
List of all alternative pages with:
Competitor name/logo
One-line summary of key differentiator vs. that competitor
Link to full comparison
Common reasons people switch (aggregated)
CTA
Example:
#### Imported: Page Formats### Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)**Search intent**: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor
**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]` or `/[competitor]-alternative`**Target keywords**:
- "[Competitor] alternative"
- "alternative to [Competitor]"
- "switch from [Competitor]"
- "[Competitor] replacement"
**Page structure**:
1. Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
2. Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
3. Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
4. Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
5. Migration path
6. Social proof from switchers
7. CTA
**Tone**: Empathetic to their frustration, helpful guide
---
### Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)**Search intent**: User is researching options, earlier in journey
**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives` or `/best-[competitor]-alternatives`**Target keywords**:
- "[Competitor] alternatives"
- "best [Competitor] alternatives"
- "tools like [Competitor]"
- "[Competitor] competitors"
**Page structure**:
1. Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
2. What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
3. List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
4. Comparison table (summary)
5. Detailed breakdown of each alternative
6. Recommendation by use case
7. CTA
**Tone**: Objective guide, you're one option among several (but positioned well)
**Important**: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.
---
### Format 3: You vs [Competitor]**Search intent**: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor
**URL pattern**: `/vs/[competitor]` or `/compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]`**Target keywords**:
- "[You] vs [Competitor]"
- "[Competitor] vs [You]"
- "[You] compared to [Competitor]"
- "[You] or [Competitor]"
**Page structure**:
1. TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
2. At-a-glance comparison table
3. Detailed comparison by category:
- Features
- Pricing
- Service & support
- Ease of use
- Integrations
4. Who [You] is best for
5. Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
6. What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
7. Migration support
8. CTA
**Tone**: Confident but fair, acknowledge where competitor excels
---
### Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]**Search intent**: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)
**URL pattern**: `/compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]`**Target keywords**:
- "[Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]"
- "[Competitor A] or [Competitor B]"
- "[Competitor A] compared to [Competitor B]"
**Page structure**:
1. Overview of both products
2. Comparison by category
3. Who each is best for
4. The third option (introduce yourself)
5. Comparison table (all three)
6. CTA
**Tone**: Objective analyst, earn trust through fairness, then introduce yourself
**Why this works**: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable, introduces you to qualified audience.
---
#### Imported: Explore [Your Product] as an Alternative
Looking to switch? See how [Your Product] compares to the tools you're evaluating:
-**[Notion Alternative](#)** — Better for teams who need [X]
-**[Airtable Alternative](#)** — Better for teams who need [Y]
-**[Monday Alternative](#)** — Better for teams who need [Z]
Alternatives (Plural) Index
URL: /alternatives/compare or /best-alternatives
Purpose: Lists all "[Competitor] Alternatives" roundup pages
Page structure:
Headline: "Software Alternatives & Comparisons"
Brief intro on your comparison methodology
List of all alternatives roundup pages with:
Competitor name
Number of alternatives covered
Link to roundup
CTA
Example:
#### Imported: Find the Right Tool
Comparing your options? Our guides cover the top alternatives:
-**[Best Notion Alternatives](#)** — 7 tools compared
-**[Best Airtable Alternatives](#)** — 6 tools compared
-**[Best Monday Alternatives](#)** — 5 tools compared
Vs Comparisons Index
URL: /vs or /compare
Purpose: Lists all "You vs [Competitor]" and "[A] vs [B]" pages
Page structure:
Headline: "Compare [Your Product]"
Section: "[Your Product] vs Competitors" — list of direct comparisons
Section: "Head-to-Head Comparisons" — list of [A] vs [B] pages
Brief methodology note
CTA
Example:
#### Imported: Compare [Your Product]### [Your Product] vs. the Competition-**[[Your Product] vs Notion](#)** — Best for [differentiator]
-**[[Your Product] vs Airtable](#)** — Best for [differentiator]
-**[[Your Product] vs Monday](#)** — Best for [differentiator]
### Other Comparisons
Evaluating tools we compete with? We've done the research:
-**[Notion vs Airtable](#)**-**[Notion vs Monday](#)**-**[Airtable vs Monday](#)**
Index Page Best Practices
Keep them updated: When you add a new comparison page, add it to the relevant index.
Internal linking:
Link from index → individual pages
Link from individual pages → back to index
Cross-link between related comparisons
SEO value:
Index pages can rank for broad terms like "project management tool comparisons"
Pass link equity to individual comparison pages
Help search engines discover all comparison content
Sorting options:
By popularity (search volume)
Alphabetically
By category/use case
By date added (show freshness)
Include on index pages:
Last updated date for credibility
Number of pages/comparisons available
Quick filters if you have many comparisons
Imported: Content Architecture
Centralized Competitor Data
Create a single source of truth for each competitor:
name:Notionwebsite:notion.sotagline:"The all-in-one workspace"founded:2016headquarters:SanFrancisco# Positioningprimary_use_case:"docs + light databases"target_audience:"teams wanting flexible workspace"market_position:"premium, feature-rich"# Pricingpricing_model:per-seatfree_tier:truefree_tier_limits:"limited blocks, 1 user"starter_price:$8/user/monthbusiness_price:$15/user/monthenterprise:custom# Features (rate 1-5 or describe)features:documents:5databases:4project_management:3collaboration:4integrations:3mobile_app:3offline_mode:2api:4# Strengths (be honest)strengths:-Extremelyflexibleandcustomizable-Beautiful,moderninterface-Strongtemplateecosystem-Activecommunity# Weaknesses (be fair)weaknesses:-Canbeslowwithlargedatabases-Learningcurveforadvancedfeatures-Limitedautomationscomparedtodedicatedtools-Offlinemodeislimited# Best forbest_for:-Teamswantingall-in-oneworkspace-Content-heavyworkflows-Documentation-firstteams-Startupsandsmallteams# Not ideal fornot_ideal_for:-Complexprojectmanagementneeds-Largedatabases(1000sofrows)-Teamsneedingrobustoffline-Enterprisewithstrictcompliance# Common complaints (from reviews)common_complaints:-"Gets slow with lots of content"-"Hard to find things as workspace grows"-"Mobile app is clunky"# Migration notesmigration_from:difficulty:mediumdata_export:"Markdown, CSV, HTML"what_transfers:"Pages, databases"what_doesnt:"Automations, integrations setup"time_estimate:"1-3 days for small team"
Add new feature comparison once, appears on all pages
Consistent accuracy across pages
Easier to maintain at scale
Imported: Section Templates
TL;DR Summary
Start every page with a quick summary for scanners:
**TL;DR**: [Competitor] excels at [strength] but struggles with [weakness].
[Your product] is built for [your focus], offering [key differentiator].
Choose [Competitor] if [their ideal use case]. Choose [You] if [your ideal use case].
Paragraph Comparison (Not Just Tables)
For each major dimension, write a paragraph:
#### Imported: Features
[Competitor] offers [description of their feature approach].
Their strength is [specific strength], which works well for [use case].
However, [limitation] can be challenging for [user type].
[Your product] takes a different approach with [your approach].
This means [benefit], though [honest tradeoff].
Teams who [specific need] often find this more effective.
Feature Comparison Section
Go beyond checkmarks:
#### Imported: Feature Comparison### [Feature Category]**[Competitor]**: [2-3 sentence description of how they handle this]
- Strengths: [specific]
- Limitations: [specific]
**[Your product]**: [2-3 sentence description]
- Strengths: [specific]
- Limitations: [specific]
**Bottom line**: Choose [Competitor] if [scenario]. Choose [You] if [scenario].
Pricing Comparison Section
#### Imported: Pricing
| | [Competitor] | [Your Product] |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | [Details] | [Details] |
| Starting price | $X/user/mo | $X/user/mo |
| Business tier | $X/user/mo | $X/user/mo |
| Enterprise | Custom | Custom |
**What's included**: [Competitor]'s $X plan includes [features], while
[Your product]'s $X plan includes [features].
**Total cost consideration**: Beyond per-seat pricing, consider [hidden costs,
add-ons, implementation]. [Competitor] charges extra for [X], while
[Your product] includes [Y] in base pricing.
**Value comparison**: For a 10-person team, [Competitor] costs approximately
$X/year while [Your product] costs $Y/year, with [key differences in what you get].
Service & Support Comparison
#### Imported: Service & Support
| | [Competitor] | [Your Product] |
|---|---|---|
| Documentation | [Quality assessment] | [Quality assessment] |
| Response time | [SLA if known] | [Your SLA] |
| Support channels | [List] | [List] |
| Onboarding | [What they offer] | [What you offer] |
| CSM included | [At what tier] | [At what tier] |
**Support quality**: Based on [G2/Capterra reviews, your research],
[Competitor] support is described as [assessment]. Common feedback includes
[quotes or themes].
[Your product] offers [your support approach]. [Specific differentiator like
response time, dedicated CSM, implementation help].
Who It's For Section
#### Imported: Who Should Choose [Competitor]
[Competitor] is the right choice if:
- [Specific use case or need]
- [Team type or size]
- [Workflow or requirement]
- [Budget or priority]
**Ideal [Competitor] customer**: [Persona description in 1-2 sentences]
#### Imported: Who Should Choose [Your Product]
[Your product] is built for teams who:
- [Specific use case or need]
- [Team type or size]
- [Workflow or requirement]
- [Priority or value]
**Ideal [Your product] customer**: [Persona description in 1-2 sentences]
Migration Section
#### Imported: Switching from [Competitor]### What transfers- [Data type]: [How easily, any caveats]
- [Data type]: [How easily, any caveats]
### What needs reconfiguration- [Thing]: [Why and effort level]
- [Thing]: [Why and effort level]
### Migration support
We offer [migration support details]:
- [Free data import tool / white-glove migration]
- [Documentation / migration guide]
- [Timeline expectation]
- [Support during transition]
### What customers say about switching> "[Quote from customer who switched]"> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]
Social Proof Section
Focus on switchers:
#### Imported: What Customers Say### Switched from [Competitor]> "[Specific quote about why they switched and outcome]"> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]> "[Another quote]"> — [Name], [Role] at [Company]### Results after switching- [Company] saw [specific result]
- [Company] reduced [metric] by [amount]
Imported: Comparison Table Best Practices
Beyond Checkmarks
Instead of:
Feature
You
Competitor
Feature A
✓
✓
Feature B
✓
✗
Do this:
Feature
You
Competitor
Feature A
Full support with [detail]
Basic support, [limitation]
Feature B
[Specific capability]
Not available
Organize by Category
Group features into meaningful categories:
Core functionality
Collaboration
Integrations
Security & compliance
Support & service
Include Ratings Where Useful
Category
You
Competitor
Notes
Ease of use
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
⭐⭐⭐⭐
[Brief note]
Feature depth
⭐⭐⭐⭐
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
[Brief note]
Imported: SEO Considerations
Keyword Targeting
Format
Primary Keywords
Secondary Keywords
Alternative (singular)
[Competitor] alternative
alternative to [Competitor], switch from [Competitor], [Competitor] replacement
Alternatives (plural)
[Competitor] alternatives
best [Competitor] alternatives, tools like [Competitor], [Competitor] competitors
You vs Competitor
[You] vs [Competitor]
[Competitor] vs [You], [You] compared to [Competitor]
Competitor vs Competitor
[A] vs [B]
[B] vs [A], [A] or [B], [A] compared to [B]
Internal Linking
Link between related competitor pages
Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
Link from blog posts mentioning competitors
Hub page linking to all competitor content
Schema Markup
Consider FAQ schema for common questions:
{"@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"[Your answer positioning yourself]"}}]}
Imported: Output Format
Competitor Data File
# [competitor].yaml# Complete competitor profile for use across all comparison pages
Page Content
For each page:
URL and meta tags
Full page copy organized by section
Comparison tables
CTAs
Page Set Plan
Recommended pages to create:
[List of alternative pages]
[List of vs pages]
Priority order based on search volume
Imported: Questions to Ask
If you need more context:
Who are your top 3-5 competitors?
What's your core differentiator?
What are common reasons people switch to you?
Do you have customer quotes about switching?
What's your pricing vs. competitors?
Do you offer migration support?
Imported: Limitations
Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
