Competitor Ad Teardown — read their growth strategy from their ads — Claude Skill
A Claude Skill for Claude Code by Gooseworks — run /competitor-ad-teardown in Claude·Updated
Reverse-engineer a single competitor's full paid ad strategy
- Scrapes all active Meta and Google ads for one competitor
- Analyzes every landing page in their funnel
- Clusters ads into strategic campaigns by destination and message
- Identifies positioning bets and budget allocation patterns
- Surfaces vulnerabilities you can exploit with counter-plays
Who this is for
What it does
Before running paid campaigns against a key competitor, reverse-engineer everything they're doing.
Give your reps a real picture of how the competitor positions and converts at the top of the funnel.
Identify the weaknesses in their ad strategy and design ads that exploit them.
How it works
Take competitor name and domain as input
Scrape all Meta and Google ads with copy and landing page URLs
Fetch every landing page and analyze structure and CTAs
Cluster ads into strategic campaigns
Output teardown report with vulnerabilities and counter-plays
Metrics this improves
Works with
Want to use Competitor Ad Teardown?
Choose how to get started.
Install and run this skill locally on your computer.
Open a terminal on your computer and paste this command:
This downloads the skill with all its files to your computer:
Add -g at the end to make it available in all your projects.
Start Claude Code, then type the command:
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
- Competitor name + domain — Who are we tearing down?
- Your product — For comparison framing
- Channels — Meta, Google, or both? (default: both)
- Depth level:
- Standard: Ad scrape + landing page analysis
- Deep: Standard + historical comparison + funnel reconstruction
- 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:
| Dimension | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Strategic intent | What is this campaign trying to achieve? (Awareness / Lead gen / Free trial / Competitive displacement) |
| Target persona | Who is this ad speaking to? (Role, pain, stage) |
| Positioning bet | What market position are they claiming? |
| Hook strategy | Fear / Outcome / Social proof / Contrarian / Product-led |
| Conversion path | Ad → LP → CTA → [Demo call / Free trial / Content download] |
| Longevity signal | How long has this been running? (Longer = likely working) |
| A/B tests detected | Multiple creatives to same LP = active testing |
3C: Budget Allocation Inference
Based on ad volume and platform distribution, estimate where they're concentrating spend:
| Platform | Ad Count | % of Total | Estimated 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 Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Message-LP mismatch | Ad promises one thing, LP delivers another |
| Single-persona dependency | All ads target the same persona — missing segments |
| Platform concentration | Heavy on one platform, absent from others |
| No social proof | Ads or LPs lack credibility markers |
| Weak CTA | Asking for too much too soon (demo before value) |
| Generic positioning | Claims anyone could make — not differentiated |
| Stale creative | Same 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
| Component | Cost |
|---|---|
| Meta ad scraper | ~$0.20-0.50 (Apify) |
| Google ad scraper | ~$0.20-0.50 (Apify) |
| Landing page fetching | Free |
| Web Archive lookup (deep mode) | Free |
| Analysis | Free (LLM reasoning) |
| Total | ~$0.40-1.00 |
Tools Required
- Apify API token —
APIFY_API_TOKENenv 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"