Skip to content
Development
Skill

/compete

Competitive X-Ray — analyze any competitor URL vs your site. Use when user wants to compare their site against a competitor, benchmark performance, or understand competitive positioning.

From plugin
ultraship
12245 skills13 agents16 commands3 hooks
+1
Install
$ npx -y skills add Houseofmvps/ultraship --skill compete --agent claude-code

How it fires

How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.

  • Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
  • You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
  • Slash command/compete

Context preview

The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.

Competitive X-Ray — analyze any competitor URL vs your site. Use when user wants to compare their site against a competitor, benchmark performance, or understand competitive positioning.

SKILL.md

compete.SKILL.md
name: compete
description: "Competitive X-Ray — analyze any competitor URL vs your site. Use when user wants to compare their site against a competitor, benchmark performance, or understand competitive positioning."
argument-hint: "<competitor-url>"
allowed-tools: Bash, Read, Grep, Glob

Competitive X-Ray

Know what you're up against. Understand where you win, where you lose, and where the gaps are. This isn't just a technical comparison — it's a strategic assessment.

Process

Phase 1: Gather URLs

Ask the user for: 1. **Your site URL** (production URL) 2. **Competitor URL** (the site to compare against)

If the user provided both URLs already, skip asking.

Phase 2: Run Analysis

node ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/tools/compete-analyzer.mjs <your-url> <competitor-url>

Parse the JSON output.

Phase 3: Present Comparison

Present results in a clear head-to-head format:

**Performance:**

  • Response time comparison (who's faster, by how much)
  • Content size comparison
  • What the speed difference means for user experience and SEO

**Tech Stack:**

  • What each site is built with (framework, hosting, analytics, payments)
  • What their tech choices reveal about their stage and priorities
  • Overlap and differences

**SEO:**

  • Score comparison (out of 10)
  • Specific wins/losses (who has better meta tags, OG tags, sitemap, etc.)
  • GEO readiness comparison (llms.txt, AI-friendly robots.txt, structured data)
  • AEO readiness comparison (FAQPage schema, answer formatting)

**Security:**

  • Header comparison
  • HTTPS status
  • What missing headers reveal about their security posture

Phase 4: Strategic Analysis

Go beyond raw data. A principal-level competitive analysis answers:

**1. Moat Assessment**

  • What is their defensible advantage? (network effects, data, integrations, brand, switching costs)
  • What is YOUR defensible advantage?
  • Which moat is stronger, and what would it take to erode theirs?

**2. Positioning Gap Analysis**

  • What market segment are they targeting? (enterprise, SMB, developer, consumer)
  • Is there an underserved segment between you? (e.g., they target enterprise, you target solo founders — is there an SMB gap?)
  • Where do they over-serve (features their users don't need) or under-serve (features their users wish they had)?

**3. Pricing & Value Perception**

  • If pricing is visible, compare positioning: are they premium or budget? Is there room above, below, or between?
  • What does their pricing structure tell you? (per-seat = team play, usage-based = API/developer, flat = SMB simplicity)

**4. Technical Debt Signals**

  • Slow response time = legacy stack or unoptimized infrastructure
  • Missing security headers = early stage or no security focus
  • No structured data = SEO is an afterthought
  • Heavy bundle = frontend debt accumulating
  • These are exploitable advantages if you're faster, more secure, or more SEO-optimized

**5. Your Advantages** — where you're ahead, how to maintain and widen the lead **6. Their Advantages** — where they beat you, how to close the gap **7. Quick Wins** — low-effort improvements that would flip a loss into a win

Phase 5: Comparison Card

Display the ASCII comparison card from the tool output. This is designed to be screenshot-shareable on Twitter/X.

Suggest the user share it with context like: "Ran a competitive analysis of [my product] vs [competitor]. Here's what the data shows:" — factual, not adversarial.

Phase 6: Action Items

Create a prioritized action plan:

**This week (quick wins):**

  • Technical gaps you can close in hours (add missing headers, optimize images, fix meta tags)
  • Low-effort improvements that flip a score

**This month (strategic):**

  • Feature or content gaps that require development work
  • SEO + AI visibility improvements that compound over time

**This quarter (moat building):**

  • Structural advantages to invest in (integrations, community, content library)
  • Things that get harder to replicate the earlier you start

Key Principles

  • **Know thy enemy.** This isn't about scores — it's about understanding what a competitor prioritizes and finding your unfair advantage.
  • **Compete on strengths, not weaknesses.** Don't try to match every feature — find where you win and amplify it.
  • **Data over opinion.** Every recommendation should be backed by the comparison data. No "I feel like you should" — only "the data shows X, so do Y."
  • **Share the card.** The comparison card is designed for virality. Factual competitive analysis gets engagement on Twitter.
Read more
Ships withultraship

"ULTRASHIP" Claude Code plugin — 39 skills, 33 tools, 11 agents for ship-ready workflows: planning, review, pentesting, safety guardrails, canary monitoring, SEO/AI-readiness check, penetration testing, code review, competitive analysis, incident response. 1 dependency. 180 tests. MIT.

Get the whole plugin

Other skills on ultraship.