competitor-alternatives

name	competitor-alternatives
description	Alternatives pages — singular "<Competitor> alternative" (you as the alternative) and plural "<Competitor> alternatives" (roundup). Covers why-people-switch framing, the criteria framework, honest competitor representation, migration sections, switcher social proof, CTA placement. Triggers on "alternative page", "alternatives to X", "best X alternatives", "tools like X", "switch from X". For head-to-head vs pages, see competitors.
allowed-tools	Read, Write, Glob, Grep, WebSearch, WebFetch

Competitor Alternatives Pages

Someone searching " alternative" has already decided to leave. The page does not have to sell them on leaving — it has to be the most honest, most complete map of where to go next, with you clearly on it.

When this skill activates

Implicit: "alternatives page", "alternative to X", "best X alternatives", "tools like X", "page for people switching off X", "capture X's unhappy users", "roundup of competitors to X". Explicit: "Use the competitor-alternatives skill to [task]." Routed from: /mk:research competitor, /mk:content when the asset is an alternatives page, [[seo-competitor-pages]] when the chosen page type is alternatives rather than vs.

Scope

Covers:

• Singular alternative pages — /alternatives/<competitor>, positioning your product as the alternative to one named competitor.
• Plural alternatives pages — /alternatives/<competitor>-alternatives, a genuine roundup of 4–7 options with you among them.
• Why-people-leave framing, the evaluation-criteria framework, and per-option "who it's for" verdicts.
• Honest, verifiable representation of competitors (the fairness rules below).
• Migration sections and switcher social proof.
• The alternatives index/hub page, its internal linking, and CTA placement.

Does NOT cover:

• Head-to-head "you vs " and " vs " pages → [[competitors]]. Different reader, different page. Do not write vs-page structure here.
• Gathering the underlying competitor intelligence — pricing, feature audit, review mining, teardowns → [[competitor-profiling]]. This skill consumes that research; it does not perform it.
• Comparison-page schema, feature-matrix markup, comparison-intent keyword mechanics → [[seo-competitor-pages]], [[seo-schema]].
• Generating alternatives pages at scale from a data source → [[seo-programmatic]].
• Sentence-level copy polish → [[copywriting]].

Fairness and accuracy rules (non-negotiable)

The reader is mid-evaluation and will open the competitor's own site in the next tab. Every inaccuracy is a caught lie.

1. Acknowledge real strengths. State plainly what the competitor is genuinely better at. A roundup with no competitor strengths reads as an ad and converts as one.
2. Be accurate about your own limits. Name where you are the wrong choice. This is the single strongest trust signal on the page.
3. Never misrepresent a competitor feature. No "they don't have X" unless verified this quarter. Missing, limited, and paid-add-on are three different claims.
4. Attribute complaints, don't invent them. Weaknesses come from review mining ([[competitor-profiling]]) or your own use of the product — quoted or paraphrased with a source, never fabricated.
5. Date the comparison. Pricing and features move. Put a visible "last verified" date on the page and re-verify quarterly.
6. Real alternatives only. On a plural page, include 4–7 options that a reasonable evaluator would actually shortlist, including ones that beat you on some axis. Padding the list with non-competitors to look complete is transparent.
7. No invented metrics. Per .claude/workflows/marketing-rules.md §2 — cite or mark [NEEDS DATA].

Format 1 — singular: " alternative"

Reader: actively leaving one named product; wants one confident recommendation, not homework. URL: /alternatives/<competitor> or /<competitor>-alternative. Keywords: <Competitor> alternative, alternative to <Competitor>, switch from <Competitor>.

Section order:

1. Why people leave — validate the pain in their words, sourced from reviews and switcher interviews. This is the section that earns the rest of the read.
2. You as the alternative — one-paragraph positioning: what you built instead, and for whom.
3. Detailed comparison — features, pricing, service/support, written as paragraphs first and a table second.
4. Who should switch — and who should stay. Explicit. Naming who should stay on the competitor is what makes the rest credible.
5. Migration path — what transfers, what needs rebuilding, effort estimate, support offered.
6. — quotes specifically from people who left that competitor, with name, role, company.