comparison-page

star 178

Create or update objective website comparison pages and head-to-head pages from the comparison canon. Use for SlayZone vs competitor pages with quick verdict, last-checked freshness, top-of-page side-by-side screenshots, pick-X-if blocks, balanced strengths/weaknesses for both products, an at-a-glance feature table, and a full matrix below.

debuglebowski By debuglebowski schedule Updated 4/20/2026

name: comparison-page description: "Create or update objective website comparison pages and head-to-head pages from the comparison canon. Use for SlayZone vs competitor pages with quick verdict, last-checked freshness, top-of-page side-by-side screenshots, pick-X-if blocks, balanced strengths/weaknesses for both products, an at-a-glance feature table, and a full matrix below." trigger: auto

Create or update objective public comparison pages.

Use this skill when task is to build, revise, or refresh a website comparison page or head-to-head page such as SlayZone vs Superset.sh.

Load First

  • Read comparison/COMPETITOR_GUIDE.md.
  • Read relevant canonical competitor folder in comparison/<slug>/.
  • Read current website comparison implementation in website/src/pages/ and website/src/components/comparison/.
  • Read existing SlayZone website copy for claims that need to be stated about SlayZone.

Only use comparison/_legacy/ if canonical record does not exist and user explicitly accepts stopgap output.

Non-Negotiables

  • page is comparison, not sales page
  • treat both products as capable tools with real tradeoffs
  • always name strengths and weaknesses of both sides
  • never assume SlayZone wins every axis
  • if competitor is stronger on an axis, say so plainly
  • if SlayZone is weaker or unclear, say so plainly
  • use structured canon fields for table truth
  • do not invent facts from prose vibes
  • if evidence is weak, say unknown, lower confidence, or surface gap

Required Page Structure

Build page in this order unless user explicitly overrides:

  1. Title card with:
    • page title
    • side-by-side screenshots at top: one SlayZone, one competitor
    • Last checked freshness near top
    • quick verdict
  2. Pick SlayZone if... and Pick <competitor> if...
  3. One section per product:
    • what it is
    • core strengths
    • core weaknesses
  4. At-a-glance table:
    • short, high-signal subset of rows
    • include jump link to full matrix if page supports anchor links
  5. Full matrix table:
    • broader axis coverage
    • same truth source as at-a-glance table

Do not create separate mid-page "visual proof" section. Visual comparison belongs at top.

Writing Rules

  • quick verdict must be balanced, short, evidence-backed
  • avoid loaded winner language like "obliterates", "crushes", "obviously better"
  • prefer "best if", "stronger when", "weaker on", "better fit for"
  • keep product descriptions symmetrical in ambition and scrutiny
  • do not hide ugly facts for either side
  • call out architectural differences, not only feature checklist differences
  • distinguish:
    • verified facts
    • structured axis verdicts
    • editorial recommendation

Visual Rules

  • top visuals must compare like-with-like as much as possible
  • give both screenshots similar weight and framing
  • captions should clarify what each screenshot demonstrates
  • visuals support orientation; they do not carry factual burden alone
  • if one side lacks a good screenshot, say so and avoid fake symmetry

Freshness Rules

  • always show Last checked
  • if page depends on multiple freshness dates, do not collapse them into misleading single date
  • prefer:
    • one date if both sides were checked together
    • two explicit dates if freshness differs materially
  • if canon is stale, surface that before publishing confident claims

Table Rules

  • at-a-glance table = decisive subset of full matrix, not separate truth
  • full matrix rows must map to explicit structured axes or equally explicit website-side constants
  • use consistent verdict vocabulary across page
  • row labels should be concrete and comparable
  • notes should explain why row matters, not repeat product marketing
  • if two products are both strong on row, show that; do not force artificial differentiation

Workflow

  1. Read competitor canon and current website implementation.
  2. Build fact baseline for both products.
  3. Pick 5-8 decisive rows for at-a-glance table.
  4. Build full matrix from structured axes.
  5. Draft balanced quick verdict.
  6. Draft Pick X if... blocks from fit, not hype.
  7. Write one neutral strengths/weaknesses section per product.
  8. Place screenshots in hero/title card.
  9. Verify tables, freshness labels, and verdict language stay consistent.
  10. Build/test page on desktop and mobile.

Stop Conditions

Pause and call out gap when:

  • competitor canon is stale or missing key axes
  • SlayZone claim is not grounded in current site/product truth
  • screenshots are missing for one side and user has not approved asymmetric fallback
  • quick verdict starts sounding like ad copy
  • at-a-glance rows disagree with full matrix truth

Output Goal

Ship page that helps reader decide which product fits them.

Reader should leave understanding:

  • what each product is for
  • where each product is stronger
  • where each product is weaker
  • which one fits their workflow better
Install via CLI
npx skills add https://github.com/debuglebowski/slayzone --skill comparison-page
Repository Details
star Stars 178
call_split Forks 37
navigation Branch main
article Path SKILL.md
More from Creator
debuglebowski
debuglebowski Explore all skills →