Create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO
Competitor & Alternative Pages
When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],'…
--- name: competitors description: "When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'battle card,' or 'competitor teardown.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement." metadata: version: 2.0.1 --- # 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. ## Initial Assessment **Check for product marketing context first:** If `.agents/product-marketing.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing.md`, or the legacy `product-marketing-context.md` filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task. Before creating competitor pages, understand:
Overview
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.
Manual install (npx, ZIP)
Claude Code
npx skills add coreyhaines31/marketingskills --skill competitors -g -a claude-codeClaude Code (manual)
mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && curl -sL https://codeload.github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/tar.gz/5b2c0007766c \
| tar -xz -C ~/.claude/skills --strip-components=2 marketingskills-5b2c0007766c/skills/competitorsWindows (PowerShell)
New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force "$HOME\.claude\skills" | Out-Null; Invoke-WebRequest "https://m.agentalley.io/zip/af5e71f41b3b6bdac02a/competitors.zip" -OutFile "$env:TEMP\competitors.zip"; Expand-Archive "$env:TEMP\competitors.zip" -DestinationPath "$HOME\.claude\skills" -ForceClaude.ai / desktop
Codex, Cursor, other agents
Connects with Agent Alley MCP · agentalley.io/mcp
Files included
SKILL.md8.6 KBevals/1 file · 6.5 KBreferences/2 files · 12.7 KB
Read the files here
SKILL.md
Show the full text259 lines
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.
Initial Assessment
Check for product marketing context first:
If .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
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
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
- Single source of truth per competitor
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]"
Page structure:
- Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
- Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
- Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
- Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
- Migration path
- Social proof from switchers
- CTA
Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)
Search intent: User is researching options, earlier in journey
URL pattern: /alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives
Target keywords: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"
Page structure:
- Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
- What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
- List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
- Comparison table (summary)
- Detailed breakdown of each alternative
- Recommendation by use case
- CTA
Important: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.
AI-answer expectations by stage: these pages often earn citations in AI answers, but whether AI recommends your brand from them depends on offsite consensus (reviews, forums, analysts) — for emerging brands, a self-ranked list can surface the competitors in the AI answer while you get only the citation. Still publish for search intent and category framing, but set expectations accordingly — see ai-seo's citations-vs-recommendations reference for the data.
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]"
Page structure:
- TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
- At-a-glance comparison table
- Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
- Who [You] is best for
- Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
- What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
- Migration support
- CTA
Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]
Search intent: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)
URL pattern: /compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]
Page structure:
- Overview of both products
- Comparison by category
- Who each is best for
- The third option (introduce yourself)
- Comparison table (all three)
- CTA
Why this works: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.
Essential Sections
TL;DR Summary
Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences.
Paragraph Comparisons
Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.
Feature Comparison
For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.
Pricing Comparison
Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.
Who It's For
Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.
Migration Section
Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.
For detailed templates: See references/templates.md
Content Architecture
Centralized Competitor Data
Create a single source of truth for each competitor with:
- Positioning and target audience
- Pricing (all tiers)
- Feature ratings
- Strengths and weaknesses
- Best for / not ideal for
- Common complaints (from reviews)
- Migration notes
For data structure and examples: See references/content-architecture.md
Research Process
Deep Competitor Research
For each competitor, gather:
- Product research: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations
- Pricing research: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs
- Review mining: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes
- Customer feedback: Talk to customers who switched (both directions)
- Content research: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog
Ongoing Updates
- Quarterly: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
- When notified: Customer mentions competitor change
- Annually: Full refresh of all competitor data
SEO Considerations
Keyword Targeting
| Format | Primary Keywords |
|---|---|
| Alternative (singular) | [Competitor] alternative, alternative to [Competitor] |
| Alternatives (plural) | [Competitor] alternatives, best [Competitor] alternatives |
| You vs Competitor | [You] vs [Competitor], [Competitor] vs [You] |
| Competitor vs Competitor | [A] vs [B], [B] vs [A] |
Internal Linking
- Link between related competitor pages
- Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
- Create hub page linking to all competitor content
Schema Markup
Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"
Output Format
Competitor Data File
Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.
Page Content
For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.
Page Set Plan
Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.
Task-Specific Questions
- 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?
Related Skills
- programmatic-seo: For building competitor pages at scale
- copywriting: For writing compelling comparison copy
- seo-audit: For optimizing competitor pages
- schema: For FAQ and comparison schema
- sales-enablement: For internal sales collateral, decks, and objection docs
| 1 | |
| 2 | name competitors |
| 3 | description "When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'how do we compare to X,' 'battle card,' or 'competitor teardown.' Use this for any content that positions your product against competitors. Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. For sales-specific competitor docs, see sales-enablement." |
| 4 | metadata |
| 5 | version 2.0.1 |
| 6 | |
| 7 | |
| 8 | # Competitor & Alternative Pages |
| 9 | |
| 10 | 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. |
| 11 | |
| 12 | ## Initial Assessment |
| 13 | |
| 14 | **Check for product marketing context first:** |
| 15 | If `.agents/product-marketing.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing.md`, or the legacy `product-marketing-context.md` filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task. |
| 16 | |
| 17 | Before creating competitor pages, understand: |
| 18 | |
| 19 | **Your Product** |
| 20 | Core value proposition |
| 21 | Key differentiators |
| 22 | Ideal customer profile |
| 23 | Pricing model |
| 24 | Strengths and honest weaknesses |
| 25 | |
| 26 | **Competitive Landscape** |
| 27 | Direct competitors |
| 28 | Indirect/adjacent competitors |
| 29 | Market positioning of each |
| 30 | Search volume for competitor terms |
| 31 | |
| 32 | **Goals** |
| 33 | SEO traffic capture |
| 34 | Sales enablement |
| 35 | Conversion from competitor users |
| 36 | Brand positioning |
| 37 | |
| 38 | |
| 39 | |
| 40 | ## Core Principles |
| 41 | |
| 42 | ### 1. Honesty Builds Trust |
| 43 | Acknowledge competitor strengths |
| 44 | Be accurate about your limitations |
| 45 | Don't misrepresent competitor features |
| 46 | Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims |
| 47 | |
| 48 | ### 2. Depth Over Surface |
| 49 | Go beyond feature checklists |
| 50 | Explain *why* differences matter |
| 51 | Include use cases and scenarios |
| 52 | Show, don't just tell |
| 53 | |
| 54 | ### 3. Help Them Decide |
| 55 | Different tools fit different needs |
| 56 | Be clear about who you're best for |
| 57 | Be clear about who competitor is best for |
| 58 | Reduce evaluation friction |
| 59 | |
| 60 | ### 4. Modular Content Architecture |
| 61 | Competitor data should be centralized |
| 62 | Updates propagate to all pages |
| 63 | Single source of truth per competitor |
| 64 | |
| 65 | |
| 66 | |
| 67 | ## Page Formats |
| 68 | |
| 69 | ### Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular) |
| 70 | |
| 71 | **Search intent**: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor |
| 72 | |
| 73 | **URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]` or `/[competitor]-alternative` |
| 74 | |
| 75 | **Target keywords**: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]" |
| 76 | |
| 77 | **Page structure**: |
| 78 | Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain) |
| 79 | Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning) |
| 80 | Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing) |
| 81 | Who should switch (and who shouldn't) |
| 82 | Migration path |
| 83 | Social proof from switchers |
| 84 | CTA |
| 85 | |
| 86 | |
| 87 | |
| 88 | ### Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural) |
| 89 | |
| 90 | **Search intent**: User is researching options, earlier in journey |
| 91 | |
| 92 | **URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives` |
| 93 | |
| 94 | **Target keywords**: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]" |
| 95 | |
| 96 | **Page structure**: |
| 97 | Why people look for alternatives (common pain points) |
| 98 | What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework) |
| 99 | List of alternatives (you first, but include real options) |
| 100 | Comparison table (summary) |
| 101 | Detailed breakdown of each alternative |
| 102 | Recommendation by use case |
| 103 | CTA |
| 104 | |
| 105 | **Important**: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better. |
| 106 | |
| 107 | **AI-answer expectations by stage**: these pages often earn *citations* in AI answers, but whether AI *recommends* your brand from them depends on offsite consensus (reviews, forums, analysts) — for emerging brands, a self-ranked list can surface the competitors in the AI answer while you get only the citation. Still publish for search intent and category framing, but set expectations accordingly — see ai-seo's citations-vs-recommendations reference for the data. |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 110 | |
| 111 | ### Format 3: You vs [Competitor] |
| 112 | |
| 113 | **Search intent**: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor |
| 114 | |
| 115 | **URL pattern**: `/vs/[competitor]` or `/compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]` |
| 116 | |
| 117 | **Target keywords**: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]" |
| 118 | |
| 119 | **Page structure**: |
| 120 | TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences) |
| 121 | At-a-glance comparison table |
| 122 | Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations) |
| 123 | Who [You] is best for |
| 124 | Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest) |
| 125 | What customers say (testimonials from switchers) |
| 126 | Migration support |
| 127 | CTA |
| 128 | |
| 129 | |
| 130 | |
| 131 | ### Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B] |
| 132 | |
| 133 | **Search intent**: User comparing two competitors (not you directly) |
| 134 | |
| 135 | **URL pattern**: `/compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]` |
| 136 | |
| 137 | **Page structure**: |
| 138 | Overview of both products |
| 139 | Comparison by category |
| 140 | Who each is best for |
| 141 | The third option (introduce yourself) |
| 142 | Comparison table (all three) |
| 143 | CTA |
| 144 | |
| 145 | **Why this works**: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable. |
| 146 | |
| 147 | |
| 148 | |
| 149 | ## Essential Sections |
| 150 | |
| 151 | ### TL;DR Summary |
| 152 | Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences. |
| 153 | |
| 154 | ### Paragraph Comparisons |
| 155 | Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters. |
| 156 | |
| 157 | ### Feature Comparison |
| 158 | For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation. |
| 159 | |
| 160 | ### Pricing Comparison |
| 161 | Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size. |
| 162 | |
| 163 | ### Who It's For |
| 164 | Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust. |
| 165 | |
| 166 | ### Migration Section |
| 167 | Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched. |
| 168 | |
| 169 | **For detailed templates**: See [references/templates.md] |
| 170 | |
| 171 | |
| 172 | |
| 173 | ## Content Architecture |
| 174 | |
| 175 | ### Centralized Competitor Data |
| 176 | Create a single source of truth for each competitor with: |
| 177 | Positioning and target audience |
| 178 | Pricing (all tiers) |
| 179 | Feature ratings |
| 180 | Strengths and weaknesses |
| 181 | Best for / not ideal for |
| 182 | Common complaints (from reviews) |
| 183 | Migration notes |
| 184 | |
| 185 | **For data structure and examples**: See [references/content-architecture.md] |
| 186 | |
| 187 | |
| 188 | |
| 189 | ## Research Process |
| 190 | |
| 191 | ### Deep Competitor Research |
| 192 | |
| 193 | For each competitor, gather: |
| 194 | |
| 195 | **Product research**: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations |
| 196 | **Pricing research**: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs |
| 197 | **Review mining**: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes |
| 198 | **Customer feedback**: Talk to customers who switched (both directions) |
| 199 | **Content research**: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog |
| 200 | |
| 201 | ### Ongoing Updates |
| 202 | |
| 203 | **Quarterly**: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes |
| 204 | **When notified**: Customer mentions competitor change |
| 205 | **Annually**: Full refresh of all competitor data |
| 206 | |
| 207 | |
| 208 | |
| 209 | ## SEO Considerations |
| 210 | |
| 211 | ### Keyword Targeting |
| 212 | |
| 213 | | Format | Primary Keywords | |
| 214 | |--------|-----------------| |
| 215 | | Alternative (singular) | [Competitor] alternative, alternative to [Competitor] | |
| 216 | | Alternatives (plural) | [Competitor] alternatives, best [Competitor] alternatives | |
| 217 | | You vs Competitor | [You] vs [Competitor], [Competitor] vs [You] | |
| 218 | | Competitor vs Competitor | [A] vs [B], [B] vs [A] | |
| 219 | |
| 220 | ### Internal Linking |
| 221 | Link between related competitor pages |
| 222 | Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons |
| 223 | Create hub page linking to all competitor content |
| 224 | |
| 225 | ### Schema Markup |
| 226 | Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?" |
| 227 | |
| 228 | |
| 229 | |
| 230 | ## Output Format |
| 231 | |
| 232 | ### Competitor Data File |
| 233 | Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages. |
| 234 | |
| 235 | ### Page Content |
| 236 | For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs. |
| 237 | |
| 238 | ### Page Set Plan |
| 239 | Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume. |
| 240 | |
| 241 | |
| 242 | |
| 243 | ## Task-Specific Questions |
| 244 | |
| 245 | What are common reasons people switch to you? |
| 246 | Do you have customer quotes about switching? |
| 247 | What's your pricing vs. competitors? |
| 248 | Do you offer migration support? |
| 249 | |
| 250 | |
| 251 | |
| 252 | ## Related Skills |
| 253 | |
| 254 | **programmatic-seo**: For building competitor pages at scale |
| 255 | **copywriting**: For writing compelling comparison copy |
| 256 | **seo-audit**: For optimizing competitor pages |
| 257 | **schema**: For FAQ and comparison schema |
| 258 | **sales-enablement**: For internal sales collateral, decks, and objection docs |
| 259 |
Details
- Updated
- Sep 5, 2026
- License
- MIT
- Stars on the repo
- ★ 51,120
- Checked
- Source
- coreyhaines31/marketingskills ↗
- Creator
- coreyhaines31 · 62 listings
Similar skills
See all →
SkillEstimate the intrinsic value of a public company using DCFCompany valuation
himself65/finance-skills · by himself65Estimate the intrinsic value of a public company using DCF, relative (peer multiple) and sum-of-parts (SOTP) methods, then triangulate to an implied share price with upside/downside versus the current market price. Use this skill whenever the user asks: what is AAPL worth", "valuation of NVDA", "fair value of TSLA", "intrinsic value", DCF for MSFT", "build a DCF", "discounted cash flow", "WACC", "terminal value", implied share price", "upside to fair value", "is X overvalued/undervalued", relative valuation", "peer comparison valuation", "EV/EBITDA target", "SOTP", sum of the parts", "how much is [company] worth", "price target from fundamentals", value this company", or any ticker in the context of computing intrinsic or relative valuation. Default to running ALL three methods (DCF + relative + SOTP-if-applicable) and presenting a blended implied price with a sensitivity table. Do not answer valuation questions from memory — always run the workflow.★ 3.3k GitHub stars
SkillFind keywords a competitor ranks for that the user's siteCompetitor gap
Ryze-AI-Adgent/open-seo-mcp-skills · by Ryze-AI-AdgentFind keywords a competitor ranks for that the user's site doesn't — the content gap, prioritized by volume and winnability. Use when asked "what does competitor.com rank for", "keyword gap vs X", "steal competitor keywords", or "why do they outrank us".★ 3.1k GitHub stars
SkillMine the highest-converting ad angles from customer reviewsAd angle miner
gooseworks-ai/goose-skills · by gooseworks-aiMine the highest-converting ad angles from customer reviews, Reddit complaints, support tickets, and competitor ads. Extracts actual pain language, competitor weaknesses, and outcome phrases that real buyers use. Outputs a ranked angle bank with proof quotes and recommended ad formats per angle.★ 1.2k GitHub stars
SkillAnalyze competitor content coverageCompetitor content intelligence
sandbaseai/sandbase-skills · by sandbaseaiAnalyze competitor content coverage and uncover differentiated content opportunities using web search, page extraction, and DataForSEO content analysis. Use when asked for competitor content research, editorial gap analysis, content brief inputs, or topic whitespace.★ 203 GitHub stars
SkillCreates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations
growthack88/growth-marketing-os · by growthack88Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. Produces win themes, landmines to plant, objection handlers, and competitive positioning per competitor. Outputs a structured markdown battlecard with quick-reference sections for live sales calls. Depends on competitor-research for competitive intelligence and consumes product-messaging, win-loss-analysis, and positioning for framing. Feeds into sales-deck, outreach-emails, and demo-script. Triggered by "battlecard", "competitive intel", "win against [competitor]", or "how do we beat [competitor]".★ 117 GitHub stars
SkillRead your X audience and niche from real dataX audience insights
sergebulaev/x-skills · by sergebulaevRead your X (Twitter) audience and niche from real data. Pull a handle's recent tweets (yours or a competitor's) with likes, replies, and views, see which formats and hooks are working, read the repliers on a tweet (X gates likers, so repliers are the signal), and scan a niche query for top tweets. Powered by Apify, no login. Triggers on "analyze my tweets", "what is working on X", "read the replies", "competitor tweets", "who is engaging". Not for writing a tweet (use x-post-writer).★ 95 GitHub starsMore from coreyhaines31
SkillTell us about your business and who you sell toA Free Giveaway That Grows Your Email List
coreyhaines31/marketingskills · by coreyhaines31Tell us about your business and who you sell to, and get back a ready-to-launch free offer that turns website visitors into email signups and future customers.★ 51.1k GitHub stars
SkillPlan, design, or implement an A/B test or experimentA/B Test Setupcoreyhaines31/marketingskills · by coreyhaines31When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment, or build a growth experimentation program. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "should I test this," "which version is better," "test two versions," "statistical significance," "how long should I run this test," "growth experiments," "experiment velocity," "experiment backlog," "ICE score," "experimentation program," or "experiment playbook." Use this whenever someone is comparing two approaches and wants to measure which performs better, or when they want to build a systematic experimentation practice. For tracking implementation, see analytics. For page-level conversion optimization, see cro.★ 51.1k GitHub stars
SkillGenerate, iterate, or scale ad creativecoreyhaines31/marketingskills · by coreyhaines31When the user wants to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative — headlines, descriptions, primary text, or full ad variations — for any paid advertising platform. Also use when the user mentions 'ad copy variations,' 'ad creative,' 'generate headlines,' 'RSA headlines,' 'bulk ad copy,' 'ad iterations,' 'creative testing,' 'write me some ads,' 'Facebook ad copy,' 'Google ad headlines,' 'LinkedIn ad text,' 'static ads,' 'ad templates,' 'iMessage ad,' 'chat reveal ad,' 'ChatGPT ad,' 'Apple Notes ad,' 'AirDrop ad,' 'creative strategy,' 'creative roadmap,' 'creative retro,' 'hook writing,' 'creative review page,' 'present ad creative for approval,' 'motion video ad,' 'faceless video ad,' 'UGC ad,' 'greenscreen ad,' 'TikTok/Reels ad format,' 'which ad format to make,' 'Meta ad format tier list,' or 'creative format taxonomy.' Use this whenever someone needs to produce ad copy at scale or iterate on existing ads. For campaign strategy and targeting, see ads. For landing page copy, see copywriting.★ 51.1k GitHub stars
SkillBusiness-brainstorm — Pressure-test a business ideacoreyhaines31/makerskills · by coreyhaines31When you want to pressure-test a potential new business, product, or side project against the serial-founder filter. Not "marketing ideas for a product" (that's marketing-skills:marketing-ideas) — this is "should this business exist + can you win it." Runs the idea through a structured framework (problem, audience, wedge, monetization, moat, portfolio fit, distribution, energy fit, opportunity cost), checks domain availability via /domain, optionally triggers /deep-research for market validation, and outputs a viability brief: build / sleep on it / pass. Archives every idea to ~/.config/makerskills/business-brainstorm/archive/ so past work is searchable. Triggers on "/business-brainstorm," "/brainstorm," "new business idea," "should I build X," "pressure test this idea," "validate this idea," "is X a good business," "what about a [type] for [audience]."★ 855 GitHub stars
SkillYour team's shared, AI-ready knowledge base/company-brain — Team-shared AI-ready knowledge basecoreyhaines31/makerskills · by coreyhaines31Your team's shared, AI-ready knowledge base — people, companies, meetings, SOPs, and decisions structured so an agent can answer on your team's behalf. Team-scope sibling to second-brain. Modes — capture, compile (wiki pages + INDEX.md), query (trust-weighted, saved to outputs/), review (verify / deprecate / supersede stale captures), lint, connect, search. Structured raw dirs (people/, companies/, meetings/, sops/, decisions/, customer-language/, sales-objections/). Every capture stamps author, timestamp, and trust status. Optional sync from call transcripts, Slack/email exports, CRM. Vault at ${COMPANY_BRAIN_VAULT:-$HOME/Documents/CompanyBrain}/. Triggers on "/company-brain," "/cb," "capture this into the team brain," "log this meeting," "save this SOP," "compile the company wiki," "query the team brain," "what does the team know about X," "review the company brain," "lint the company brain," "who's the internal expert on X.★ 855 GitHub stars
SkillMonthly CFO workflow for a company or agency/company-cfo — Monthly company CFO workflowcoreyhaines31/makerskills · by coreyhaines31Monthly CFO workflow for a company or agency — pull raw data from bank + payment processor + payroll + expense management, categorize and reconcile, compute end-of-month cash via transaction-sum method, update a scenario projector for forward forecasting, write the monthly snapshot report, surface decisions to leadership. Modes — monthly (default; the standing report), weekly (thin cash pulse), scenario (ad-hoc modeling in the projector), pickup (resume where the prior run left off). Anonymized team-scope sibling to personal-cfo (which handles personal household finances). Composes with company-brain (report gets stored + wiki-indexed there), toolify (wire company-specific data sources), loopify (schedule the monthly + weekly runs). Triggers on "/company-cfo," "/cfo," "monthly cash report," "do the CFO snapshot," "CFO monthly," "let's run CFO," "cash projection," "runway forecast," "monthly financials," "cash pulse.★ 855 GitHub stars