Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Systematic competitor analysis for developer tools. Track features, pricing, positioning, content strategy, and community sentiment for direct and indirect competitors. Trigger phrases: "competitor analysis", "track competitors", "competitive intelligence", "competitor research", "what...
.claude/skills/sickn33-competitor-tracking/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-06 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 76% | 0% |
| case-19 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 85% | 0% |
| case-13 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 29% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 53% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✓→✓ | = Same ✓ | 24% | 0% |
Use this skill when you need systematic competitor analysis for developer tools. Track features, pricing, positioning, content strategy, and community sentiment for direct and indirect competitors. Trigger phrases: "competitor analysis", "track competitors", "competitive intelligence", "competitor research", "what...
Systematic framework for tracking competitors in the developer tools space, from identification through ongoing monitoring and battlecard creation.
Competitor tracking for developer tools requires monitoring multiple dimensions: product features, pricing, developer sentiment, content strategy, community growth, and funding/trajectory. Unlike consumer products, developer tools compete on technical merit, documentation quality, and community trust.
Effective competitor tracking helps you:
Direct Competitors:
Indirect Competitors:
DIY Alternatives:
Platform Alternatives:
Create a competitive landscape document with:
Track weekly/monthly:
How to track:
Key signals:
Competitive pricing intelligence:
Track changes in:
Analyze:
Monitor:
Look for:
GitHub signals:
Community signals:
Use social listening tools to track developer sentiment toward competitors across platforms. Set up alerts for:
Churn signals:
Praise signals (learn from them):
Feature gaps:
Use your monitoring tool's analytics for trend analysis:
Create battlecards for sales and marketing teams:
1. Competitor Overview
2. When We Win
3. When We Lose
4. Common Objections
5. Competitive Differentiation
6. Landmines to Set
Update triggers:
Review cadence:
Always respond:
Consider responding:
Usually don't respond:
Feature launch response:
Pricing change response:
Crisis opportunity response:
Use monitoring tools to set up alerts for these patterns:
GitHub Monitoring:
bash# Track competitor repo activity gh api repos/[competitor]/[repo] --jq '.stargazers_count, .open_issues_count' # Search for competitor mentions in issues gh search issues "[competitor]" --limit 50
npm/PyPI Monitoring:
Archive.org:
LinkedIn/Careers:
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-03 | pass→pass | 14,226 | 9,889 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,361 | 3,622 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | pass→pass | 18,075 | 9,642 | -47% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,940 | 3,650 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-01 | fail→fail | 28,890 | 19,549 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,118 | 5,752 | -6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 10,411 | 7,938 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,886 | 3,479 | +84% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 11,379 | 8,906 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,672 | 3,342 | +100% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | fail→pass | 15,871 | 14,470 | -9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,448 | 4,299 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 14,926 | 10,662 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,311 | 3,796 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 9,234 | 2,254 | -76% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,902 | 2,456 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 2,586 | 1,462 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 500 | 2,279 | +356% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 26,982 | 6,001 | -78% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,411 | 3,096 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 12,385 | 8,713 | -30% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,377 | 3,466 | +46% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 14,364 | 9,751 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,475 | 3,683 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→fail | 19,470 | 13,221 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,463 | 4,484 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 10,787 | 5,101 | -53% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,789 | 2,906 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→pass | 13,427 | 6,448 | -52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,346 | 2,974 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 14,544 | 10,684 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,473 | 3,704 | +50% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 15,635 | 13,736 | -12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,531 | 4,332 | +71% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 14,658 | 13,663 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,607 | 4,348 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 15,021 | 16,627 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,490 | 4,616 | +85% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 16,841 | 9,793 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,625 | 3,504 | +33% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 14,464 | 14,048 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,509 | 4,498 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 11,841 | 10,882 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,104 | 3,776 | +79% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | pass→pass | 18,748 | 19,748 | +5% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,510 | 5,851 | +67% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-24 | pass→pass | 17,552 | 16,493 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,937 | 4,843 | +65% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 24 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +4 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 24 comparable cases. 1 case got worse with the skill loaded, and it is included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.