Installation
$npx skills add irinabuht12-oss/marketing-skills --skill 33-google-and-meta-competitor-teardown-mdSummary
This skill lets an agent perform systematic competitive teardowns of landing pages by extracting value proposition, mapping messaging hierarchy, scoring across 9 dimensions (positioning, headline, copy, CTA, trust signals, visual hierarchy, objection handling, pricing, brand voice), and producing actionable differentiation strategies. Invoke when analyzing a competitor URL, screenshot, or requesting competitive positioning intelligence.
SKILL.MD
Competitor Teardown
Analyze competitor landing pages for positioning, messaging, and conversion strategy insights.
Process
- Capture the page - URL for fetch or screenshot upload
- Extract value proposition - Problem, ICP, transformation, unique mechanism
- Map messaging hierarchy - Headline → Subheadline → Body → CTA flow
- Score systematically - 100-point rubric
- Identify strengths and weaknesses - Actionable competitive intelligence
- Generate strategic recommendations - How to differentiate
Value Proposition Analysis Framework
Answer these four questions from the competitor's page:
| Question | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| What problem do they solve? | Pain points mentioned, problem agitation |
| Who is their ICP? | Language cues, industry references, company size signals |
| What transformation do they promise? | Before/after, outcomes, results |
| What's their unique mechanism? | Proprietary method, technology, approach |
Messaging Hierarchy Evaluation
| Element | Assessment Criteria |
|---|---|
| Headline | Matches intent? Clear benefit? Addresses pain? Most prominent? |
| Subheadline | Expands "how"? Reinforces UVP? Supports headline? |
| Body Copy | Framework used (AIDA/PAS/BAB)? Benefit-to-feature ratio? |
| CTA | Visible? Action-oriented verb? Value stated? Urgency present? |
| Trust Signals | Logos, testimonials, ratings, certifications, social proof? |
100-Point Scoring Rubric
| Category | Max Points | Scoring Criteria |
|---|---|---|
| Positioning Clarity | 15 | Clear problem/solution, obvious ICP, differentiation |
| Headline Effectiveness | 15 | Benefit-driven, specific, compelling |
| Copy Quality | 15 | Benefit-focused, scannable, persuasive |
| CTA Strategy | 15 | Visible, action-oriented, low friction |
| Trust Signals | 10 | Quality social proof, credibility markers |
| Visual Hierarchy | 10 | Clear flow, emphasis on key elements |
| Objection Handling | 10 | FAQ, guarantees, risk reversals |
| Pricing Presentation | 5 | Clear, justified, anchored |
| Brand Voice | 5 | Consistent, appropriate, memorable |
Red Flags to Identify
- Vague headlines ("The best solution for your needs")
- Feature-heavy copy without benefits
- Multiple audiences addressed on single page
- Missing or buried value proposition
- Weak or generic CTAs ("Submit," "Learn More")
- No social proof or trust signals
- Cluttered design with competing elements
Output Format
## Competitor Teardown: [Company Name]
**URL**: [URL]
**Analysis Date**: [Date]
**Overall Score**: [X/100]
### Value Proposition Analysis
- **Problem Solved**: [Description]
- **Target ICP**: [Description]
- **Promised Transformation**: [Description]
- **Unique Mechanism**: [Description or "Not clearly stated"]
### Messaging Hierarchy
| Element | Content | Effectiveness |
|---------|---------|---------------|
| Headline | "[Quote]" | [Score]/10 - [Assessment] |
| Subheadline | "[Quote]" | [Score]/10 |
| Primary CTA | "[Quote]" | [Score]/10 |
### Scoring Breakdown
| Category | Score | Notes |
|----------|-------|-------|
| Positioning Clarity | /15 | |
| Headline Effectiveness | /15 | |
| Copy Quality | /15 | |
| CTA Strategy | /15 | |
| Trust Signals | /10 | |
| Visual Hierarchy | /10 | |
| Objection Handling | /10 | |
| Pricing Presentation | /5 | |
| Brand Voice | /5 | |
| **TOTAL** | **/100** | |
### Strengths (What to Learn)
1. [Strength with specific example]
2. [Strength with specific example]
### Weaknesses (Opportunities to Beat Them)
1. [Weakness with specific example]
2. [Weakness with specific example]
### Strategic Recommendations
1. [How to differentiate against this competitor]
2. [Messaging angle they're not using]
### Confidence Level: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
Example
Input: "Analyze notion.so homepage"
Output:
## Competitor Teardown: Notion
**Overall Score**: 78/100
### Value Proposition Analysis
- **Problem Solved**: Fragmented tools for notes, docs, wikis, projects
- **Target ICP**: Knowledge workers, teams, startups
- **Promised Transformation**: One workspace for all work
- **Unique Mechanism**: Flexible blocks system, templates
### Messaging Hierarchy
| Element | Content | Effectiveness |
|---------|---------|---------------|
| Headline | "Write, plan, organize, play" | 7/10 - Broad but memorable |
| Subheadline | "Turn ideas into action with Notion's AI-powered workspace" | 8/10 - Clear value |
| Primary CTA | "Get Notion free" | 9/10 - Low friction, value-focused |
### Strengths
1. **Social proof**: Trusted by logos prominent above fold
2. **Low-friction entry**: Free tier CTA reduces conversion resistance
### Weaknesses
1. **Vague headline**: Doesn't communicate specific outcome
2. **Broad ICP**: Page tries to speak to everyone
### Strategic Recommendations
1. Position against their broadness - own a specific use case deeply
2. Lead with concrete outcomes vs features
### Confidence Level: HIGH
Guidelines
- If given screenshot only, note any sections not visible
- Extract exact quotes for messaging analysis
- Compare to best practices, not just personal opinion
- Always provide actionable differentiation strategies
- If URL inaccessible, ask for screenshot or describe limitations