luckiest-co 1.0.0 → 1.0.3

package/skills/luckiest-competitor-profiling/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,443 @@
+---
+name: luckiest-competitor-profiling
+description: Researches, profiles, and analyzes competitors from their URLs, producing structured competitor-profile markdown built from live site scraping plus SEO and market data. Use when the user wants to research or profile competitors, or mentions "competitor profile," "competitor research," "competitor analysis," "profile this competitor," "analyze competitor," "competitive intelligence," "competitor deep dive," "who are my competitors," "competitor landscape," "competitor dossier," "competitive audit," or "research these competitors." Input is a list of competitor URLs; output is structured competitor-profile markdown files. For creating comparison/alternative pages from profiles, see luckiest-competitors. For sales-specific battle cards, see luckiest-sales-enablement.
+license: See ATTRIBUTION.md
+metadata:
+  version: "1.1.0"
+  listing_id: luckiest-competitor-profiling
+  author: luckiest
+---
+
+# Competitor Profiling
+
+The assistant acts as an expert competitive intelligence analyst. The goal is to take a list of competitor URLs and produce comprehensive, structured competitor-profile documents by combining live site scraping with SEO and market data.
+
+## Staying current
+
+On activation, call the Luckiest MCP check_updates tool with { listingId: "luckiest-competitor-profiling", installedSemver: "1.1.0" }. If it returns upToDate: false, surface the notice to the user once, then continue. Do nothing further if upToDate: true. Never block on this check — if the tool is unavailable, proceed.
+
+When the skill's work is done, call the Luckiest MCP report_usage tool once with { listing_id: "luckiest-competitor-profiling", skill_version: "1.1.0", matched: true, success: <true if the skill completed, false otherwise> }. Metadata only, never prompt text. Never block on it — if the tool is unavailable, skip silently.
+
+## 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.
+
+Before profiling, confirm:
+
+1. **Competitor URLs** — the list of competitor website URLs to profile
+2. **Your product** — what you do (if not in product marketing context)
+3. **Depth level** — quick scan (key facts only) or deep profile (full research)
+4. **Focus areas** — any specific dimensions to prioritize (e.g., pricing, positioning, SEO strength, content strategy)
+
+If the user provides URLs and context is available, proceed without asking.
+
+---
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### 1. Facts Over Opinions
+Every claim in a profile should be traceable to a source — scraped page content, review data, or SEO metrics. Label inferences clearly (see Confidence Labeling below).
+
+### 2. Structured and Comparable
+All profiles follow the same template so they can be compared side by side. Consistency matters more than completeness on any single profile.
+
+### 3. Current Data
+Profiles are snapshots. Always include the date generated. Flag anything that looks stale (e.g., "pricing page last updated 2023").
+
+### 4. Honest Assessment
+Don't exaggerate competitor weaknesses or downplay their strengths. Accurate profiles are useful profiles.
+
+### 5. Access and Ethics
+Profile only from publicly accessible pages. Respect `robots.txt` and site terms of service. Never bypass authentication, paywalls, or bot protection to obtain data, and never log into a competitor's product to scrape gated content. If a page is blocked or gated, note it as "not accessible" in the profile rather than working around the block. Use public review sites and SEO providers for anything the site itself does not expose.
+
+### 6. Confidence Labeling
+The distinction between what is verified and what is guessed is the whole value of a profile. Tag any non-obvious claim so a reader can trust it at a glance:
+
+- **[Confirmed]** — directly stated on a scraped page or returned by an SEO/review source (quote or cite it)
+- **[Inferred]** — reasoned from evidence but not stated outright (say what it was inferred from)
+- **[Unknown]** — not found; leave it explicitly marked rather than guessing
+
+Never present an inference as a fact. Team size, funding, and customer counts are the fields most often fabricated — tag them or mark them [Unknown].
+
+---
+
+## Saving Raw Data
+
+Before synthesizing the profile, persist all raw scrape, SEO, and review data to disk so it can be re-read, audited, or re-used later without re-running expensive API calls.
+
+**Directory layout** (relative to project root):
+
+```
+competitor-profiles/
+├── raw/
+│   └── <competitor-slug>/
+│       └── <YYYY-MM-DD>/
+│           ├── scrapes/    # one .md file per scraped page (homepage.md, pricing.md, ...)
+│           ├── seo/        # one .json file per DataForSEO call (backlinks-summary.json, ranked-keywords.json, ...)
+│           └── reviews/    # one .md or .json file per review source (g2.md, capterra.md, ...)
+├── <competitor-slug>.md    # final synthesized profile
+└── _summary.md             # cross-competitor summary
+```
+
+Rules:
+
+- `<competitor-slug>` is lowercase, hyphenated (e.g. `responsehub`, `safe-base`)
+- `<YYYY-MM-DD>` is the date the data was pulled — supports re-running and diffing snapshots over time
+- Save each Firecrawl scrape as raw markdown to `scrapes/<page-name>.md`
+- Save each DataForSEO response as raw JSON to `seo/<endpoint-name>.json`
+- Save each review source to `reviews/<source>.md` (cleaned text) or `.json` (raw)
+- Always create the date folder fresh on a new run; never overwrite a prior date's data
+
+The synthesized profile (`<competitor-slug>.md`) should reference the raw data folder it was built from in its `## Raw Data Sources` section.
+
+---
+
+## Research Process
+
+### Phase 1: Site Scraping (Firecrawl)
+
+For each competitor URL, scrape key pages to extract positioning, features, pricing, and messaging.
+
+#### Step 1: Map the site
+
+Use **Firecrawl Map** to discover the competitor's site structure and identify key pages:
+
+```
+firecrawl_map → competitor URL
+```
+
+From the map, identify and prioritize these page types:
+- Homepage
+- Pricing page
+- Features / product pages
+- About / company page
+- Blog (top-level, for content strategy signals)
+- Customers / case studies page
+- Integrations page
+- Changelog / what's new (if exists)
+
+#### Step 2: Scrape key pages
+
+Use **Firecrawl Scrape** on each identified page:
+
+```
+firecrawl_scrape → each key page URL
+```
+
+Save each result to `competitor-profiles/raw/<competitor-slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD>/scrapes/<page-name>.md` before extracting fields.
+
+Extract from each page:
+
+| Page | What to Extract |
+|------|----------------|
+| **Homepage** | Headline, subheadline, value proposition, primary CTA, social proof claims, target audience signals |
+| **Pricing** | Tiers, prices, feature breakdown per tier, billing options, free tier/trial details, enterprise pricing signals |
+| **Features** | Feature categories, key capabilities, how they describe each feature, screenshots/demo signals |
+| **About** | Founding story, team size, funding, mission statement, headquarters |
+| **Customers** | Named customers, logos, industries served, case study themes |
+| **Integrations** | Integration count, key integrations, categories |
+| **Changelog** | Release velocity, recent focus areas, product direction signals |
+
+#### Step 3: Scrape competitor reviews (optional but high-value)
+
+Use **Firecrawl Scrape** or **Firecrawl Search** to find:
+- G2 reviews page for the competitor
+- Capterra reviews page
+- Product Hunt launch page
+- TrustRadius profile
+
+Save each scraped review page to `competitor-profiles/raw/<competitor-slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD>/reviews/<source>.md`. Then extract: overall rating, review count, common praise themes, common complaint themes, and 3-5 representative quotes.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 2: SEO & Market Data (DataForSEO)
+
+Use DataForSEO MCP tools to gather quantitative competitive intelligence. Save each raw response as JSON to `competitor-profiles/raw/<competitor-slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD>/seo/<endpoint-name>.json` before parsing it into the profile. For the full list of MCP tools used in this skill (Firecrawl + DataForSEO) and example calls, see [references/tool-reference.md](references/tool-reference.md).
+
+#### Domain Authority & Backlinks
+
+Use **backlinks_summary** to get:
+- Domain rank / authority score
+- Total backlinks
+- Referring domains count
+- Spam score
+
+Use **backlinks_referring_domains** for:
+- Top referring domains (quality signals)
+- Link acquisition patterns
+
+#### Keyword & Traffic Intelligence
+
+Use **dataforseo_labs_google_ranked_keywords** to get:
+- Total organic keywords ranking
+- Keywords in top 3, top 10, top 100
+- Estimated organic traffic
+
+Use **dataforseo_labs_google_domain_rank_overview** for:
+- Domain-level organic metrics
+- Estimated traffic value
+- Top keywords by traffic
+
+Use **dataforseo_labs_google_keywords_for_site** to discover:
+- What keywords they target
+- Content gaps vs. your site
+
+#### Competitive Positioning Data
+
+Use **dataforseo_labs_google_competitors_domain** to find:
+- Their closest organic competitors (may reveal competitors you haven't considered)
+- Market overlap data
+
+Use **dataforseo_labs_google_relevant_pages** to find:
+- Their highest-traffic pages
+- Content that drives the most organic value
+
+#### Insufficient data
+
+New, small, or recently rebranded domains often return little or no SEO data. When a call comes back empty, do not stall or re-run it repeatedly: mark the affected fields **[Unknown — insufficient SEO data]** and continue. A profile built on scraped positioning and pricing alone is still useful; deliver it and note that SEO metrics were unavailable rather than blocking on them.
+
+---
+
+### Phase 3: Synthesis
+
+Combine scraped content with SEO data to build the profile. Cross-reference claims (e.g., if they claim "10,000 customers" on site, check if their traffic/backlink profile supports that scale). Apply confidence labels as claims are written, not after.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Profile Document Structure
+
+Generate one markdown file per competitor, saved to a `competitor-profiles/` directory in the project root.
+
+**Filename**: `competitor-profiles/[competitor-name].md`
+
+**For the full profile and summary templates**: See [references/templates.md](references/templates.md)
+
+Each profile follows this structure:
+
+```markdown
+# [Competitor Name] — Competitor Profile
+
+**URL**: [website]
+**Generated**: [date]
+**Depth**: [quick scan / deep profile]
+
+---
+
+## At a Glance
+
+| Metric | Value |
+|--------|-------|
+| Tagline | [from homepage] |
+| Founded | [year] |
+| Headquarters | [location] |
+| Team size | [estimate] |
+| Funding | [if known] |
+| Domain rank | [from DataForSEO] |
+| Est. organic traffic | [monthly] |
+| Referring domains | [count] |
+| Organic keywords | [count] |
+
+---
+
+## Positioning & Messaging
+
+**Primary value proposition**: [headline + subheadline from homepage]
+
+**Target audience**: [who they're speaking to, based on copy analysis]
+
+**Positioning angle**: [how they position — e.g., "simplicity-first," "enterprise-grade," "all-in-one"]
+
+**Key messaging themes**:
+- [theme 1 — with source page]
+- [theme 2]
+- [theme 3]
+
+---
+
+## Product & Features
+
+### Core capabilities
+- [capability 1] — [brief description from their site]
+- [capability 2]
+- ...
+
+### Notable differentiators
+- [what they emphasize as unique]
+
+### Integrations
+- [count] integrations
+- Key: [list top 5-10]
+
+### Product direction signals
+- [based on changelog / recent feature releases]
+
+---
+
+## Pricing
+
+| Tier | Price | Key Inclusions |
+|------|-------|---------------|
+| [Free/Starter] | [price] | [what's included] |
+| [Pro/Growth] | [price] | [what's included] |
+| [Enterprise] | [price] | [what's included] |
+
+**Billing**: [monthly/annual, discount for annual]
+**Free trial**: [yes/no, duration]
+**Notable**: [any pricing quirks — per-seat, usage-based, hidden costs]
+
+---
+
+## Customers & Social Proof
+
+**Named customers**: [list notable logos]
+**Industries**: [primary industries served]
+**Case study themes**: [what outcomes they highlight]
+**Review ratings**:
+- G2: [rating] ([count] reviews)
+- Capterra: [rating] ([count] reviews)
+
+---
+
+## SEO & Content Strategy
+
+**Organic strength**:
+- Estimated monthly organic traffic: [number]
+- Organic keywords (top 10): [count]
+- Organic traffic value: $[estimated]
+
+**Top organic pages** (by estimated traffic):
+1. [page URL] — [keyword] — [est. traffic]
+2. [page URL] — [keyword] — [est. traffic]
+3. [page URL] — [keyword] — [est. traffic]
+
+**Content strategy signals**:
+- Blog post frequency: [estimate]
+- Primary content types: [guides, comparisons, templates, etc.]
+- Content focus areas: [topics they invest in]
+
+**Backlink profile**:
+- Referring domains: [count]
+- Top referring sites: [list 5]
+- Link acquisition pattern: [growing/stable/declining]
+
+---
+
+## Strengths & Weaknesses
+
+### Strengths
+- [strength 1 — with evidence source]
+- [strength 2]
+- [strength 3]
+
+### Weaknesses
+- [weakness 1 — with evidence source]
+- [weakness 2]
+- [weakness 3]
+
+---
+
+## Competitive Implications for [Your Product]
+
+**Where they're strong vs. us**: [areas where this competitor has an advantage]
+
+**Where we're strong vs. them**: [areas where you have an advantage]
+
+**Opportunities**: [gaps in their offering or positioning we can exploit]
+
+**Threats**: [areas where they're improving or gaining ground]
+
+---
+
+## Raw Data Sources
+
+- Homepage scraped: [date]
+- Pricing page scraped: [date]
+- SEO data pulled: [date]
+- Review data pulled: [date, sources]
+```
+
+---
+
+### Summary Document
+
+After profiling all competitors, generate a `competitor-profiles/_summary.md` that includes:
+
+1. **Competitor landscape overview** — one paragraph summarizing the competitive field
+2. **Comparison table** — key metrics side by side for all profiled competitors
+3. **Positioning map** — where each competitor sits (e.g., simple↔complex, cheap↔premium)
+4. **Key takeaways** — 3-5 strategic observations from the research
+5. **Gaps and opportunities** — where the market is underserved
+
+---
+
+## Quick Scan vs. Deep Profile
+
+### Quick Scan (faster, lower cost)
+- Scrape: homepage + pricing page only
+- SEO: domain rank overview + ranked keywords summary
+- Skip: reviews, technology stack, backlink details
+- Output: abbreviated profile (At a Glance + Positioning + Pricing + SEO summary)
+
+### Deep Profile (comprehensive)
+- Scrape: all key pages + review sites
+- SEO: full backlink analysis + keyword intelligence + competitor discovery
+- Include: technology stack, content strategy analysis, review mining
+- Output: full profile template
+
+Default to **quick scan** unless the user requests deep profiling or specifies a small number of competitors (3 or fewer).
+
+---
+
+## Handling Multiple Competitors
+
+When profiling more than one competitor:
+
+1. **Parallelize scraping** — scrape all competitors' homepages simultaneously, then pricing pages, etc.
+2. **Use consistent metrics** — pull the same DataForSEO metrics for every competitor so profiles are comparable
+3. **Build the summary last** — after all individual profiles are complete
+4. **Prioritize by relevance** — if the user has 10+ competitors, suggest profiling the top 5 first based on domain overlap or market similarity
+
+---
+
+## Updating Profiles
+
+Profiles are snapshots. When updating:
+
+- Check pricing pages first (most volatile)
+- Re-pull SEO metrics (traffic and rankings shift monthly)
+- Scan changelog for product changes
+- Update the "Generated" date
+- Note what changed since last profile in a `## Change Log` section at the bottom
+
+---
+
+## Share with your tribe
+
+After delivering a strong competitive-landscape summary, the assistant may OFFER (never auto-send, never post anything, never touch credentials): "Want me to share this competitive-landscape summary with your Luckiest tribe? Anyone researching the same market would benefit from the positioning map and gap analysis." If the user accepts, hand off the finished `_summary.md` to the tribe-share flow. If they decline, stop. Never share raw scrapes or any profile that reproduces gated or private competitor data — share only the user's own synthesized analysis.
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+Only ask if not answered by context or input:
+
+1. What competitor URLs should I profile?
+2. Quick scan or deep profile?
+3. Any specific dimensions to focus on (pricing, SEO, positioning)?
+4. Should I compare findings against your product?
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **luckiest-competitors**: For creating comparison/alternative pages from these profiles
+- **luckiest-prospecting**: For broader list-building qualification (this skill does deep research on specific accounts; prospecting builds the initial list)
+- **luckiest-customer-research**: For mining reviews and community sentiment in depth
+- **luckiest-content-strategy**: For using competitor content gaps to plan your own content
+- **luckiest-seo-audit**: For auditing your own site relative to competitors
+- **luckiest-sales-enablement**: For turning profiles into battle cards and sales collateral
+- **luckiest-ads**: For analyzing competitor ad strategies
+- **luckiest-pricing**: For deeper pricing analysis informed by competitor profiles

package/skills/luckiest-competitor-profiling/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "luckiest-competitor-profiling",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Profile these three competitors for us: https://competitor1.com, https://competitor2.com, https://competitor3.com. We need this for sales enablement and to find positioning gaps.",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should run the full research process: Phase 1 site scraping (Firecrawl map + scrape of homepage, pricing, features, about, customers, integrations, changelog), Phase 2 SEO and market data (DataForSEO for backlinks, ranked keywords, traffic, competitors), Phase 3 synthesis. Should save raw data to competitor-profiles/raw/<slug>/<YYYY-MM-DD>/ with scrapes/, seo/, reviews/ subfolders before synthesizing. Should produce one markdown file per competitor following the profile template (At a Glance, Positioning & Messaging, Product & Features, Pricing, Customers & Social Proof, SEO & Content Strategy, Strengths & Weaknesses, Competitive Implications). Should produce a _summary.md after individual profiles with comparison table, positioning map, key takeaways, gaps and opportunities. Should parallelize scraping when handling multiple competitors and use consistent metrics across all three for comparability.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Runs all three phases (scraping, SEO data, synthesis)",
+        "Saves raw data to competitor-profiles/raw/ with date subfolder",
+        "Produces individual profile per competitor",
+        "Produces _summary.md after individual profiles",
+        "Uses consistent metrics across competitors",
+        "Parallelizes scraping when possible"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "We have 12 competitors. Profile all of them.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recommend prioritizing rather than profiling all 12. Should suggest profiling the top 5 first based on domain overlap or market similarity (handling-multiple-competitors guidance). Should default to quick scan mode for a list this size, not deep profile. Should explain the difference: quick scan covers homepage + pricing + domain rank overview + ranked keywords summary, deep profile adds reviews, technology stack, backlink details. Should offer deep profile only if user requests or for 3 or fewer competitors. Should ask which competitors are highest priority if user wants to narrow further.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recommends prioritization over profiling all 12",
+        "Suggests top 5 based on relevance",
+        "Defaults to quick scan for large list",
+        "Explains quick scan vs deep profile difference",
+        "Asks user to prioritize"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "I have an existing profile of Notion from 4 months ago. Should I update it or start fresh?",
+      "expected_output": "Should explain profile updating process from the Updating Profiles section. Should recommend updating rather than starting fresh — preserves history and enables diffing. Should explain what to re-pull: pricing page first (most volatile), SEO metrics (traffic and rankings shift monthly), changelog scan for product changes. Should update the Generated date. Should add a Change Log section at the bottom noting what changed since last profile. Should also save the new raw data to a new <YYYY-MM-DD> folder rather than overwriting prior data — supports diffing over time.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recommends updating over starting fresh",
+        "Lists what to re-pull (pricing, SEO, changelog)",
+        "Mentions adding Change Log section",
+        "Says to save raw data to new date folder",
+        "Says never overwrite prior date's data"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "What pages should I scrape for a competitor profile?",
+      "expected_output": "Should list the prioritized page types from Phase 1: homepage, pricing page, features/product pages, about/company page, blog (top-level for content strategy signals), customers/case studies page, integrations page, changelog/what's new (if exists). Should explain what to extract from each: homepage (headline, value prop, primary CTA, social proof, target audience signals), pricing (tiers, prices, feature breakdown, billing options, free tier/trial details), features (categories, key capabilities, how they describe each feature), about (founding story, team size, funding, mission, HQ), customers (named customers, logos, industries, case study themes), integrations (count, key integrations, categories), changelog (release velocity, recent focus areas, product direction signals). Should mention optional review scraping (G2, Capterra, Product Hunt, TrustRadius).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Lists all key page types in priority order",
+        "Specifies what to extract from each page type",
+        "Includes changelog as product direction signal",
+        "Mentions optional review scraping",
+        "References Firecrawl Map then Scrape workflow"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "I want a profile but I don't care about SEO data — just pricing, positioning, and customer logos. Can you skip the DataForSEO calls?",
+      "expected_output": "Should accept the scoped request and skip Phase 2. Should run Phase 1 (Firecrawl scraping of homepage, pricing, customers pages) and Phase 3 synthesis only. Should explain that without SEO data, the profile won't include Domain Rank, organic traffic estimates, ranked keywords, referring domains, or top organic pages — but the positioning, pricing, and customer sections will be complete. Should produce an abbreviated profile flagging the SEO section as 'not collected per user request' rather than leaving placeholders. Should still save raw scrapes to disk for reuse.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Skips Phase 2 (DataForSEO) as requested",
+        "Runs Phase 1 and Phase 3",
+        "Explains what's missing without SEO data",
+        "Flags SEO section as skipped, not blank",
+        "Still saves raw data"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Should I trust the customer logo wall on the competitor's homepage as evidence of who their customers are?",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the 'Facts Over Opinions' and 'Honest Assessment' principles. Should explain that customer logos are a positioning claim, not necessarily an accurate customer breakdown — companies often show their best-known logos regardless of share of revenue. Should recommend cross-referencing: check case studies for actual usage details, search for press releases naming customers, look at customer reviews on G2/Capterra/TrustRadius for company name signals, check their LinkedIn for posts about customers. Should note: if they claim '10,000 customers' but have weak traffic/backlink profile, the claim should be flagged in the profile. Should distinguish between named customers (verifiable claims) and 'industries served' (positioning statement). Always include the date the data was pulled.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Treats logos as positioning claim, not customer breakdown",
+        "Recommends cross-referencing case studies and reviews",
+        "Mentions checking traffic/backlink profile against claim scale",
+        "Distinguishes verifiable named customers from claims",
+        "Notes including date pulled"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}