Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索敏感数据github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

competitor-ad-teardown竞争对手广告拆解

Agent Skill

competitor-ad-teardown 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

245

周安装

10

GitHub Stars

607

下载量

79
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:competitor-ad-teardown(竞争对手广告拆解)
来源仓库:https://github.com/athina-ai/goose-skills
仓库路径:skills/competitor-ad-teardown
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/athina-ai/goose-skills --skill competitor-ad-teardown
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/athina-ai/goose-skills --skill competitor-ad-teardown

简介

深度解析指定竞品的广告投放组合、流量路径及转化漏斗结构。

  • 识别其测试中的创意素材、落地页策略及薄弱环节形成反击切入点。
  • 整合多平台广告数据生成全景视图,揭示背后的增长逻辑假设。
  • 必须明确目标企业域名或广告ID作为唯一标识方可执行拆解任务。
  • competitor-ad-teardown 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。

SKILL.md

Competitor Ad Teardown

Go deeper than surface-level ad monitoring. Take a single competitor and reverse-engineer their entire paid strategy: what they're running, where they're sending traffic, what they're testing, what's working, and where they're vulnerable.

Core principle: A competitor's ad portfolio is a window into their growth strategy. Long-running ads reveal what converts. New ads reveal what they're testing. Landing pages reveal their positioning bets. This skill reads all the signals.

When to Use

  • "Tear down [competitor]'s ad strategy"
  • "What's [competitor] spending their ad budget on?"
  • "Reverse-engineer [competitor]'s paid funnel"
  • "How is [competitor] positioning themselves in ads?"
  • "Deep competitive ad analysis on [competitor]"

Phase 0: Intake

  1. Competitor name + domain — Who are we tearing down?
  2. Your product — For comparison framing
  3. Channels — Meta, Google, or both? (default: both)
  4. Depth level:

- Standard: Ad scrape + landing page analysis - Deep: Standard + historical comparison + funnel reconstruction

  1. Known competitor landing pages? — Any URLs you've seen in their ads

Phase 1: Ad Collection

1A: Meta Ad Library Scrape

python3 skills/meta-ad-scraper/scripts/scrape_meta_ads.py \
  --domain <competitor_domain> \
  --output json

For each ad, capture:

  • Ad copy (headline + primary text)
  • Visual type (image / video / carousel)
  • CTA button
  • Landing page URL
  • Active duration (first seen → still running or stopped)
  • Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, Audience Network)
  • Ad variations (A/B tests — same landing page, different creative)

1B: Google Ads Transparency Scrape

python3 skills/google-ad-scraper/scripts/scrape_google_ads.py \
  --domain <competitor_domain> \
  --output json

For each ad:

  • Headline variants
  • Description lines
  • Ad type (Search / Display / YouTube / Shopping)
  • Landing page URL (from display URL)
  • Geographic targeting (if visible)

Phase 2: Landing Page Analysis

For each unique landing page URL found in ads:

Fetch: [landing_page_url]

Extract:

  • Hero headline — Does it match the ad promise?
  • Subheadline — Value prop expansion
  • Primary CTA — What action are they driving? (Demo / Free trial / Sign up / Download)
  • Social proof — Logos, testimonials, case study metrics
  • Pricing visibility — Is pricing shown or hidden?
  • Form fields — How much info do they ask for?
  • Page type — General homepage / dedicated LP / feature page / use-case page
  • Message match score — How well does the LP deliver on the ad's promise? (1-10)

Phase 3: Strategic Analysis

3A: Campaign Clustering

Group all ads into logical campaigns by:

  • Landing page destination — Ads pointing to the same URL = same campaign
  • Messaging theme — Similar copy angles = same strategic bet
  • Audience signal — Different copy for different personas

3B: Per-Campaign Analysis

For each campaign cluster:

DimensionAnalysis
Strategic intentWhat is this campaign trying to achieve? (Awareness / Lead gen / Free trial / Competitive displacement)
Target personaWho is this ad speaking to? (Role, pain, stage)
Positioning betWhat market position are they claiming?
Hook strategyFear / Outcome / Social proof / Contrarian / Product-led
Conversion pathAd → LP → CTA → [Demo call / Free trial / Content download]
Longevity signalHow long has this been running? (Longer = likely working)
A/B tests detectedMultiple creatives to same LP = active testing

3C: Budget Allocation Inference

Based on ad volume and platform distribution, estimate where they're concentrating spend:

PlatformAd Count% of TotalEstimated Focus
Meta (Facebook)[N][X%][Awareness / Retargeting]
Meta (Instagram)[N][X%][Visual / younger audience]
Google Search[N][X%][Bottom-funnel capture]
Google Display[N][X%][Awareness / retargeting]
YouTube[N][X%][Education / awareness]

3D: Historical Comparison (Deep Mode)

If Web Archive data exists for their landing pages:

  • Has their positioning changed in the last 6-12 months?
  • What campaigns did they retire? (Possible losers)
  • What campaigns have they scaled up? (Possible winners)

3E: Vulnerability Analysis

Identify weaknesses in their ad strategy:

Vulnerability TypeDescription
Message-LP mismatchAd promises one thing, LP delivers another
Single-persona dependencyAll ads target the same persona — missing segments
Platform concentrationHeavy on one platform, absent from others
No social proofAds or LPs lack credibility markers
Weak CTAAsking for too much too soon (demo before value)
Generic positioningClaims anyone could make — not differentiated
Stale creativeSame ads running unchanged for months — fatigue risk

Phase 4: Output Format

# Competitor Ad Teardown: [Competitor Name] — [DATE]

Domain: [competitor.com]
Channels analyzed: [Meta, Google]
Total ads found: [N] (Meta: [N], Google: [N])
Unique landing pages: [N]
Estimated active campaigns: [N]

---

## Executive Summary

[3-5 sentence summary: What is this competitor doing with paid ads? What's working? Where are they vulnerable?]

---

## Campaign Breakdown

### Campaign 1: [Inferred Campaign Name]
- **Ads in cluster:** [N]
- **Platform(s):** [Meta / Google / Both]
- **Strategic intent:** [Awareness / Lead gen / Competitive displacement / etc.]
- **Target persona:** [Description]
- **Hook strategy:** [Type]
- **Landing page:** [URL]
  - Hero: "[Headline text]"
  - CTA: "[Button text]"
  - Message match: [Score/10]
- **Longevity:** [First seen date → status]
- **A/B tests detected:** [Yes/No — what they're testing]

**Sample ad:**
> **Headline:** [text]
> **Body:** [text]
> **CTA:** [button]
> **Format:** [Image/Video/Carousel]

**Assessment:** [1-2 sentences — is this working? Why/why not?]

### Campaign 2: ...

---

## Funnel Map

[Ad: Hook/Angle] → [LP: /landing-page-url] → [CTA: Book Demo] ↓ [Ad: Different angle] → [LP: /same-or-different] → [CTA: Free Trial]

---

## Budget Allocation Estimate

| Platform | Share | Focus Area |
|----------|-------|-----------|
| [Platform] | [X%] | [Intent] |

---

## What's Working (Long-Running Ads)

| Ad | Platform | Running Since | Why It Likely Works |
|----|----------|--------------|-------------------|
| [Headline excerpt] | [Platform] | [Date] | [Analysis] |

---

## Vulnerability Report

### 1. [Vulnerability]
**Evidence:** [What we observed]
**Your opportunity:** [How to exploit this gap]

### 2. ...

---

## Recommended Counter-Plays

### Counter-Play 1: [Name]
- **Target their weakness:** [Which vulnerability]
- **Your ad angle:** [Hook]
- **Platform:** [Where to run]
- **LP strategy:** [What your landing page should emphasize]

### Counter-Play 2: ...

Save to clients/<client-name>/ads/competitor-teardown-[competitor]-[YYYY-MM-DD].md.

Cost

ComponentCost
Meta ad scraper~$0.20-0.50 (Apify)
Google ad scraper~$0.20-0.50 (Apify)
Landing page fetchingFree
Web Archive lookup (deep mode)Free
AnalysisFree (LLM reasoning)
Total~$0.40-1.00

Tools Required

  • Apify API tokenAPIFY_API_TOKEN env var
  • Upstream skills: meta-ad-scraper, google-ad-scraper
  • fetch_webpage — for landing page analysis

Trigger Phrases

  • "Tear down [competitor]'s ads"
  • "What's [competitor] running on Meta/Google?"
  • "Reverse-engineer [competitor]'s paid funnel"
  • "Deep ad analysis on [competitor]"
  • "Find weaknesses in [competitor]'s ad strategy"

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.07%
按下载量换算30

Claude

30.54%
按下载量换算24

Cursor

18.04%
按下载量换算14

Gemini CLI

9.67%
按下载量换算8

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

可疑

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

敏感数据

该 Skill 可能接触密钥、Token、环境变量或敏感配置,应进入高风险复核队列,默认不自动发布。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills