competitor-experience-audit

# Competitor Experience Audit

Capture the brand, UX, and site design that the leading sites in a vertical observably share, and where they fall short. The output is the experience bar a new build must meet or beat, grounded in cross-site patterns rather than aesthetic opinion.

Stack-agnostic. Works on any SiteShape (ecommerce-catalog, inventory-listing, hospitality-food, b2b-manufacturer, and so on). Auto-parts catalogs are the first test case, not the only target.

This skill is the brand / UX / design counterpart to a technical audit like `seo-onpage` or `accessibility-audit`. Technical findings are objective (a missing canonical is missing). Design is more subjective, so this skill is deliberately written to make the subjective assessable: every dimension is judged by observable questions about what the leading sites actually do, reported as patterns and gaps, and marked `not_assessable` whenever the evidence does not support a judgment.

---

## When to use

- Setting the experience bar for a new build in a vertical you have not built in before
- Capturing the design and UX conventions a credible site in the category is expected to carry
- Auditing the competitive field for a critic or strategy review where SEO and accessibility have been covered but design and experience have not
- Naming the positioning opportunity that recurs across the leaders (the gap even the leaders share)
- Pairing with a technical audit (SEO, accessibility) so the competitor review captures both axes

## When NOT to use

- Rating a single page or one brand's design taste in isolation (use `design-standards` or `brand-style-guide` for production design decisions on a known build)
- Backlink, keyword, or SERP-overlap competitive analysis (use `seo-competitor`)
- Generating a creative direction from scratch for a new brand (use `creative-direction` and `brand-discovery`)
- User research with real participants on your own product (use `ux-research`, `usability-testing`)
- Auditing a single page's on-page SEO or accessibility against the audit suite (use `seo-onpage`, `accessibility-audit`)

---

## Required inputs

- The vertical and a list of the leading sites in it (3 to 6 sites; more than 6 stops surfacing new patterns)
- Access to the rendered sites (a real browser view, not just static HTML; see "Static vs rendered" below)
- The site shape the audit feeds, if known (ecommerce-catalog, inventory-listing, etc.); this scopes which dimensions to weight
- Any explicit constraint on the build downstream (the brand voice, the audience, the conversion the build will own)

If the list of leading sites is unknown, ask. Picking the wrong field produces an experience bar against the wrong vertical.

### Static vs rendered

Some dimensions can be partially assessed from static HTML (primary navigation, the catalog/category surface count, the presence of search). Most cannot. Layout density, brand register, motion, trust-signal prominence, and the rendered hierarchy of the first viewport all need the rendered page to judge honestly. If you only have static HTML for a site, mark every rendered-only dimension `not_assessable` for that site rather than guessing.

---

## The framework: 7 experience dimensions

Each dimension is judged by observable questions across the leading sites in the field, then reported as a cross-site pattern plus the gap (where the leaders converge, and where even they fall short).

Score each dimension as `Pattern present` (the field converges on a recognizable convention), `Mixed` (the field splits across two or three approaches), or `Gap` (no convention emerges, or every leader misses it). Mark `not_assessable` when the evidence cannot support a judgment.

Never write `Good design` or `Bad design` or any aesthetic verdict. The dimensions are about what the field observably does, not whether you like it.

### 1. Primary-task prominence

Does the site lead with the visitor's primary job, or bury it?

- What is the largest, earliest interactive element on the first viewport? (For auto-parts: typically a fitment selector. For hospitality-food: a menu or reservation entry.)
- How many clicks or scrolls to the core task?
- Does the site protect the primary task from competing CTAs in the hero?

Observable signal: count the elements that compete for first attention, identify which one the layout actually privileges, name what the field converges on as the primary task.

### 2. Layout register and density

Is the layout retail-dense, editorial, or marketing-airy? Cross-reference `creative-direction` aesthetic positions (editorial restrained, polished standard, controlled maximalist, expressive maximalist) for vocabulary; do not redefine that here.

- How many distinct modules appear above the fold?
- What is the content-per-viewport ratio (dense storefront, calm editorial, generous marketing)?
- Does the page read as a storefront, a catalog, a landing page, or a brochure?

Observable signal: count modules above the fold across the field; describe the register the leaders share, not whether you find it attractive.

### 3. Merchandising and category surface

How much of the catalog or offering is surfaced at once, and in what shape?

- How many category, collection, or entry-point modules appear before scroll?
- How is depth signaled (mega-menu, grid, side rail, faceted search)?
- Is the surface flat (one tier visible) or hierarchical (parent plus child categories shown together)?

Observable signal: count the category entry points and describe the navigation depth pattern the field uses.

### 4. Primary navigation and search paths

Do the sites serve both the know-what-I-want path and the browse path?

- Is search prominent and primary, secondary, or absent?
- What paths are offered (by category, by brand, by attribute, by vehicle, by location, by occasion)?
- Where does the primary nav sit (top, side, sticky, mega-menu)?

Observable signal: list the paths the field offers, score whether each path is