--- description: Audit a competitor's website on 5 dimensions (positioning, conversion, SEO/GEO, offer/pricing, design/UX) and produce a scored report with a competitive verdict per dimension. Use when sizing up a competitor, before a positioning decision, or to find where a rival beats you. allowed-tools: Read, Write, WebFetch, WebSearch, Bash, mcp__chrome-devtools__navigate_page, mcp__chrome-devtools__take_screenshot, mcp__chrome-devtools__take_snapshot, mcp__chrome-devtools__evaluate_script, mcp__chrome-devtools__lighthouse_audit, mcp__chrome-devtools__resize_page argument-hint: " [your own site URL]" --- # Competitor Audit — Website Teardown & Scoring Audit a competitor's website on 5 dimensions. Produce a grade (A+ to F), a competitive verdict per dimension (Threat / Opportunity / Parity), and prioritized recommendations for the user's own site. This skill is self-contained and runs end-to-end on its own. ## Input - **Competitor URL** (required). If none provided, ask for one. - **Your own site URL** (optional). If provided, every dimension is judged comparatively and the report frames threats and opportunities relative to it. If absent, run a standalone audit and skip the comparative verdicts (mark them "N/A — no reference site"). - Optional: industry context (SaaS, fintech, ecommerce, media, services). If not given, detect it from the homepage. ## Step 1 — Decide the page set A competitor audit is never just the landing page. Before fetching, settle on a page set: 1. **Homepage** — always. 2. **Pricing page** — always if it exists. If pricing is gated ("contact sales"), note it and audit what is visible. 3. **One product / feature / offer page** — pick the most prominent one from the nav. 4. **About / company page** — for trust signals and positioning. Find these by fetching the homepage first and reading its navigation. List the 3-4 URLs you will audit before going further. ## Step 2 — Capture the pages For each page in the set: 1. If **Chrome DevTools MCP** is available (preferred): - Navigate to the URL. Take a screenshot at desktop (1440px) and mobile (390px). - Take a DOM snapshot. Use `evaluate_script` to count CTAs, form fields, trust badges, pricing tiers, structured-data blocks. - Run a Lighthouse audit on the homepage for real performance/accessibility/SEO data. 2. **Fallback — WebFetch** for text, copy, and SEO signals. JS-heavy sites (React/Next SPAs — most modern SaaS) render empty or partial under WebFetch. Use Chrome DevTools for anything that depends on the rendered DOM: messaging, CTAs, pricing tables, schema. Use WebFetch only for static text and meta tags. Never fabricate a Lighthouse score. If you cannot run Lighthouse, assess speed qualitatively and say so explicitly. ## Step 3 — Score the 5 dimensions Each dimension is scored 0-100 using its anchors below. The weighted aggregate gives the overall score. For every issue you log, use this finding format. Each finding must reference something actually observed on a page — never generic advice. > **Issue** — what is wrong (quote the headline, name the page). > **Impact** — why it costs them, or why it threatens the user. > **Evidence** — the exact element: a quoted line, a screenshot reference, a DOM count. > **Fix** — a specific, actionable change. ### 1. Positioning & Messaging (weight: 20%) - Is the value proposition clear in under 5 seconds? - Is the target audience named, or is it "for everyone"? - Is there a category frame and a clear differentiator vs alternatives? - Is the message consistent across homepage, product page, and about? - **90+**: Specific value prop + named audience + clear differentiator, consistent across pages. - **70-89**: Clear but generic positioning. "The modern way to X." - **50-69**: Feature-led, no audience, no differentiation. - **<50**: No discernible value prop; visitor cannot tell what it is or who it is for. ### 2. Conversion / CRO (weight: 25%) Condensed CRO logic — assess these sub-points and score the dimension as a whole: - **Headline**: answers "what is this and why care?" — specific over vague. - **CTA**: one primary CTA above the fold, action-specific text, visually distinct, repeated at scroll points. - **Social proof**: named testimonials, logos, real metrics — placed near CTAs. - **Trust signals**: HTTPS, real company info, guarantee / free trial / no-card-needed. - **Form friction**: how many fields to start; one-click or single-email is best. - **Mobile**: layout holds at 390px, CTA is a 44px+ thumb-reachable target. - **Speed**: fast load feel; use the Lighthouse performance score if captured. - **90+**: Single sharp CTA above fold, strong proof near it, low friction, fast, flawless mobile. - **70-89**: Converts but with generic CTA copy, weak proof, or minor friction. - **50-69**: CTA buried or competing, thin proof, 4+ form fields, cramped mobile. - **<50**: No clear CTA, no proof, heavy friction, broken mobile. ### 3. SEO & GEO (weight: 20%) Classic SEO plus GEO (visibility inside generative engines — ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI overviews). - **Technical**: indexable, crawlable, Core Web Vitals (LCP <2.5s, INP <200ms, CLS <0.1). - **On-page**: title 50-60 chars, meta description 150-160 chars, single H1, keyword in the first 100 words. - **Content & E-E-A-T**: depth, named authors, evidence, recency. - **Structured data**: schema.org / JSON-LD present and valid (Organization, Product, FAQ). - **GEO**: citable answer-shaped content, clear entity definitions, `llms.txt`, content that an AI can quote verbatim. - **90+**: Clean technical base, strong on-page, valid schema, content built to be cited by AI engines. - **70-89**: Solid classic SEO, little to no GEO consideration. - **50-69**: Gaps in technical or on-page basics; no schema. - **<50**: Indexation problems, missing meta, no structure. If structured data is injected client-side it may not show in WebFetch — verify via the rendered DOM or say "could not verify". Never invent it. ### 4. Offer & Pricing (weight: 20%) - Is pricing transparent and easy to find, or hidden behind "contact sales"? - Is the plan structure clear, with sensible anchoring and a guided default? - Is what each plan includes legible at a glance? - Is there a free trial, freemium tier, or guarantee that lowers the entry risk? - Is the perceived value vs price defensible? - **90+**: Transparent pricing, clean tiers with a clear anchor and recommended plan, low-risk entry. - **70-89**: Pricing visible but tiers are confusing or value is unclear. - **50-69**: Pricing partly hidden, or packaging is hard to parse. - **<50**: No visible pricing, no entry path, opaque packaging. Gated pricing is a deliberate choice for some segments — score what is visible, do not over-penalize an enterprise model. Pricing changes often: screenshot it and date-stamp the audit as a point-in-time snapshot. ### 5. Design & UX (weight: 15%) - Visual hierarchy: does the eye land on the right things? - Typography and spacing: consistent, readable, deliberate. - Component and brand consistency across pages. - Navigation: predictable, shallow, labelled clearly. - Responsive behaviour and loading/empty/error states. - Accessibility: contrast (WCAG AA), touch targets, alt text. - Dark patterns: flag manipulative UX (forced continuity, confirmshaming, hidden costs). - **90+**: Coherent, accessible, confident design that supports the message. - **70-89**: Clean but generic, or small inconsistencies. - **50-69**: Dated, inconsistent, or accessibility gaps. - **<50**: Broken layout, illegible, or dark patterns present. ## Step 4 — Calculate the overall score ``` Overall = (Positioning x 0.20) + (Conversion x 0.25) + (SEO_GEO x 0.20) + (Offer_Pricing x 0.20) + (Design_UX x 0.15) ``` Grade scale: - **A+ (95-100)**: Exceptional. A serious competitive threat. - **A (90-94)**: Strong across the board. - **B+ (85-89)**: Good, with one or two real gaps. - **B (80-84)**: Solid foundation, clear weak spots. - **C (70-79)**: Significant issues. Beatable. - **D (60-69)**: Major problems. Wide open. - **F (<60)**: Fundamentally weak. If a dimension cannot be assessed, score it "N/A" and exclude it from the weighted average (re-normalize the remaining weights). ## Step 5 — Competitive verdict per dimension For each dimension, if the user's own site URL was provided, audit it on the same dimension and assign a verdict: - **Threat** — the competitor is clearly stronger here. The user is exposed. - **Opportunity** — the competitor is weak here. The user can win this ground. - **Parity** — roughly equal; not a deciding factor. If no reference site was provided, skip verdicts and mark them "N/A — no reference site". The rest of the audit still stands as a standalone teardown. ## Step 6 — Output Write the report as a markdown block. ``` ## Competitor Audit: [Competitor name] — [URL] **Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD] **Industry**: [detected or specified] **Pages audited**: [list] **Reference site**: [user's site URL, or "none"] **Overall Score**: XX/100 (Grade: X) ### Snapshot | Dimension | Score | Weight | Verdict | |-----------|-------|--------|---------| | Positioning & Messaging | XX/100 | 20% | Threat / Opportunity / Parity | | Conversion / CRO | XX/100 | 25% | ... | | SEO & GEO | XX/100 | 20% | ... | | Offer & Pricing | XX/100 | 20% | ... | | Design & UX | XX/100 | 15% | ... | ### Dimension detail [For each of the 5 dimensions: score, a one-line verdict rationale, then the findings in Issue / Impact / Evidence / Fix format. What they do well = threats to the user. Their weaknesses = the user's openings.] ### Strategic takeaways **Top 3 threats** — where the competitor beats the user: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... **Top 3 opportunities** — gaps the user can exploit: 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ### Prioritized recommendations (for the user's own site) | # | Action | Effort | Expected impact | |---|--------|--------|-----------------| | 1 | ... | Low/Med/High | ... | | 2 | ... | ... | ... | | 3 | ... | ... | ... | ### Screenshots [Reference the desktop and mobile captures taken, if any.] ``` ## Rules - Every finding references something actually observed on a page. "Their hero says 'The pro bank that...'" is useful. "Improve the messaging" is not. - Recommendations are framed for the user's own site, never as advice to the competitor. - Do not fabricate Lighthouse scores, schema, or metrics. If you cannot verify, say "could not verify". - Treat the audit as a point-in-time snapshot. Date-stamp it. Pricing and copy change. - If a page is blocked (Cloudflare, anti-bot) or gated, mark the dimension partial and score only what is visible. - Keep dimension detail tight: a few sharp findings beat a long generic list.