Overview
What it does
Generates honest, structured 'X vs Y' and 'alternative to X' comparison pages grounded in Uplifted's real capability graph.
When to use it
When Uplifted wants to capture high-intent "X vs Y" and "alternative to X" search — buyers compare tools before they buy, and they increasingly ask an LLM to compare. This generates honest, structured comparison pages at scale (Uplifted vs Dropbox, Canto, Frame.io, Foreplay, Motion, Air).
Pairs with MCP
The model can ground each comparison in Uplifted's real capability graph (what it does, the MCP layer, the asset→product→performance triangle), so pages are accurate and defensible rather than generic.
Best for
Uplifted growth/SEO, content marketers.
Install
Drop this entire block into a SKILL.md file inside your Claude project’s .claude/skills/programmatic-comparison-pages/ folder. Claude auto-invokes it when generating comparison or alternative pages.
---
name: programmatic-comparison-pages
description: Use this skill to generate honest, accurate, conversion-oriented comparison pages (Uplifted vs a named competitor, or "alternatives to X") grounded in Uplifted's real capability graph. Built to rank and to be cited by LLMs answering comparison queries.
---
# Programmatic Comparison Pages
You write comparison pages that are accurate, fair, and convert — not slop.
## Data you need
- Uplifted's capability graph from MCP: features, the MCP/API layer, supported sources, the asset->product->performance model, pricing posture
- The competitor to compare and what's publicly true about it (category, core strength, gaps)
- The target query intent ("[competitor] alternative", "[competitor] vs Uplifted")
## How to build
1. Establish the honest frame: where the competitor is genuinely strong, where Uplifted differentiates (performance graph + MCP context layer), and who each is right for.
2. Build the comparison table on dimensions buyers actually weigh (findability, performance intelligence, AI/agent layer, MCP/programmatic access, source coverage, pricing model).
3. Write the "best for" verdict for each tool — credibility comes from conceding what the competitor wins.
4. Add a query-aligned FAQ (the questions an LLM would answer from this page).
5. Keep claims grounded in the capability graph; never overstate.
## Output format
PAGE: [Uplifted vs Competitor / Alternatives to Competitor]
INTRO — the honest one-paragraph frame
COMPARISON TABLE — dimensions × {Uplifted, Competitor} with concrete, true cells
WHERE [COMPETITOR] WINS — stated plainly (this is what makes the page trusted)
WHERE UPLIFTED WINS — the performance graph + MCP context layer, concretely
BEST FOR — one line each: who should pick which
FAQ — 4–6 query-aligned Q&As
CTA — matched to intent
## Guidelines
- Concede the competitor's real strengths — a page that pretends to win everything converts worse and won't be cited.
- Every Uplifted claim must trace to the capability graph; no aspirational features stated as present.
- Write for the LLM-comparison query too, not just Google — structured, factual, quotable.Prompt
Generates honest, structured 'X vs Y' and 'alternative to X' comparison pages grounded in Uplifted's real capability graph. Use it to scale comparison content without inventing claims.
Write an honest, accurate comparison page grounded in Uplifted's real capabilities.
Uplifted capability graph from MCP: features, MCP/API layer, supported sources, asset->product->performance model, pricing posture. Competitor: {{name + what's publicly true}}. Target intent: {{"[competitor] alternative" / "[competitor] vs Uplifted"}}. {{confirm MCP}}
1. Set an honest frame (competitor's real strength, Uplifted's differentiation, who each suits).
2. Build a comparison table on dimensions buyers weigh (findability, performance intelligence, AI/agent layer, MCP/programmatic, source coverage, pricing model).
3. Write a "best for" verdict per tool — concede what the competitor wins.
4. Add a query-aligned FAQ.
5. Ground every claim in the capability graph.
Output: intro frame, comparison table, where-competitor-wins, where-Uplifted-wins, best-for lines, FAQ (4-6), CTA.
Concede real strengths. Never state aspirational features as present. Write for the LLM comparison query too.
EXPECTED OUTPUT:
- A trustworthy, accurate comparison page that ranks and gets cited
- A concrete comparison table and an honest "who's it for" verdict
- A query-aligned FAQ matched to how buyers and LLMs ask