What does this skill do, and when should you use it?
This is a focused SEO skill within the Claude SEO repository, designed for competitor comparisons, alternatives pages, tool roundups, and comparison tables. It covers page structure, keyword targeting, feature matrices, Schema markup, internal linking, trust signals, and conversion elements. Its outputs include an implementation-ready page outline, JSON-LD schema, keyword strategy, and optimization recommendations. It fits SEO consultants, content teams, and marketers producing competitive-intent content.
It generates “X vs Y” pages, alternatives-to pages, best-tools roundups, and multi-product comparison tables from product or competitor information. It plans feature and pricing matrices, title tags, H1s, comparison-intent keywords, CTAs, social proof, trust signals, and internal links. It recommends Product, SoftwareApplication, or ItemList Schema and requires competitor claims, features, and pricing to be verifiable from public sources. Missing data should be labeled “Not publicly available” rather than guessed. Deliverables can include COMPARISON-PAGE.md, comparison-schema.json, primary and secondary keywords, long-tail opportunities, content gaps, and recommendations.
- An SEO consultant creates a SaaS “Product A vs Product B” page and needs a balanced feature analysis with a justified verdict.
- A content team writes an alternatives page and needs a summary, pros and cons, and best-fit use case for each option.
- A marketing team publishes an annual roundup of tools in a category and needs stated ranking criteria plus ItemList Schema.
- A product marketer refreshes an existing comparison page and needs checks for pricing dates, source links, disclosures, and CTA placement.
- A site owner has incomplete competitor data or weak product overlap and needs to document the gap or pivot to a better category roundup.
How do you install this skill?
- Do not treat placeholder prices, ratings, features, or AggregateRating fields as facts; verify every item and record source dates before publication.
- Competitor comparisons can become biased or misleading marketing content; retain affiliation disclosure, methodology, competitor strengths, and missing-data notices.
- The skill does not define external-fetch permissions, privacy boundaries, or fallback behavior for mainland-China inaccessibility; confirm source access and data-handling conditions before use.
- Network access
- Local filesystem
This skill is bundled in the 33-skill AgriciDaniel/claude-seo repository. Following the repository README, install the collection with: git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AgriciDaniel/claude-seo.git, then run bash claude-seo/install.sh on Unix/macOS/Linux. On Windows, run powershell -ExecutionPolicy Bypass -File claude-seo\install.ps1. The source does not document a standalone installation command for skills/seo-competitor-pages.
tmp="$(mktemp -d)"
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/AgriciDaniel/claude-seo.git "$tmp"
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills
cp -R "$tmp/skills/seo-competitor-pages" ~/.claude/skills/
rm -rf "$tmp"Generated from the source repository and skill path; it copies only this skill's folder. If the author's install steps above differ, follow those first. To scope it to one project, replace ~/.claude/skills with that project's .claude/skills.
How do you use this skill?
Once installed, send your agent any of these to trigger it:
- an X vs Y comparison page,
- an alternatives-to-X page,
- a competitor comparison.
- Not publicly available.
In Claude Code, run /seo competitor-pages <url>, or ask for “an X vs Y comparison page,” “an alternatives-to-X page,” or “a competitor comparison.” The documented argument hint is [url or generate] [competitor]. If a competitor URL is unreachable, the skill reports the failed URL and proceeds with available data; unavailable pricing or feature data should be marked “Not publicly available.”
What are this skill's strengths and limitations?
- Supports four common competitive-intent formats: direct comparisons, alternatives pages, roundups, and feature matrices.
- Combines content structure with Schema, keyword targeting, CTAs, internal linking, trust signals, and fairness guidance.
- Requires source verification, dated pricing, affiliation disclosure, and honest acknowledgment of competitor strengths.
- Defines handling for unreachable URLs, missing data, and products with insufficient overlap.
- The skill does not specify a scraping tool, browser workflow, or API for automatically validating public competitor data.
- No tests, quality metrics, or standalone generated example are provided for this skill.
- Pricing and feature claims require ongoing review; the guidance recommends quarterly updates or updates after major competitor changes.
- The repository documents installation for the full Claude SEO collection, not for this skill alone.
How does this skill compare with similar options?
Side by side with related skills; every score comes from the same FSRS standard.
| Skill | FS score | Stars | Last updated | License |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competitor Comparison Page Builder this page | 47 · Use with care | ★ 19k | 23d ago | MIT |
| Competitor SEO & GEO Analyst | 51 · Use with care | ★ 3k | 13d ago | Apache-2.0 |
| SEO Content Brief Generator | 52 · Use with care | ★ 19k | 23d ago | MIT |
| FLOW Evidence-Led SEO | 47 · Use with care | ★ 19k | 23d ago | MIT |
| Blog Cluster Engine | 53 · Use with care | ★ 2.4k | 13d ago | MIT |
How did FollowSkills review this skill?
The skill requires public-source verification, dated pricing, affiliation disclosure, balanced treatment, and no defamation, showing basic transparency and content-safety awareness. It does not specify user confirmation, external-access permissions, sensitive-data handling, rollback, or clear safety boundaries for generated content, so points are deducted.
Page types, accuracy requirements, missing-data behavior, and unreachable-URL handling are documented, making the happy path understandable. However, there is no reproducible execution contract, dependency specification, input validation, skill-specific testing, or detailed diagnostic failure feedback; static review also caps this dimension at 10, so points are deducted.
Trigger phrases, comparison scenarios, argument hint, and output artifacts are reasonably clear for competitor and alternatives pages. Non-fit cases, language support, localization, and mainland-China network reachability are not addressed, and public-source access may vary by environment, so points are deducted.
The file includes front matter, MIT licensing, a version, layered sections, named output artifacts, templates, examples, and an error-handling table. It lacks a changelog, explicit maintenance ownership, update path, dependency/install notes, and a complete FAQ; some capability boundaries remain implicit, so points are deducted.
It supplies usable structures for page content, feature matrices, Schema JSON-LD, keyword strategy, CTAs, and recommendations, so the core task is plausible. Results still require external competitor research, factual verification, and editorial review, and the examples are templates rather than verified produced outputs; static calibration caps this dimension at 7, so points are deducted.
The skill calls for public sources, per-data-point links, and periodic updates, which supports auditability in principle. The selected file contains no concrete source set, verification records, test results, or third-party execution evidence; repository-level CI and tests do not establish coverage of this path, so only limited credit is justified.
Open a dimension to read why it scored that way
Evidence confidence：Low — Mostly static review, author material or a limited demo; useful for discovery, not high-risk decisions.
See the full review method →