Search academic papers, scholarly articles, and research publications through SandBase. Use when asked for literature review, academic citations, scholarly research, paper discovery, or scientific evidence gathering.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Analyze competitor content coverage and uncover differentiated content opportunities using web search, page extraction, and DataForSEO content analysis. Use when asked for competitor content research, editorial gap analysis, content brief inputs, or topic whitespace.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Compare public content evidence to identify differentiated editorial and landing-page opportunities. This Skill calls the named search, extraction, and analysis capabilities in the SandBase API map through the SandBase MCP gateway. Use an authorized SandBase MCP connection and the discover → inspect → run workflow below; never request, print, or store an API key in the research output.
Read example workflows when the user needs a starting prompt or wants to understand the output.
Collect or infer: the target audience and their problems, the topic or category, 2–5 competitor domains or brands, the target's positioning and differentiation, content types in scope (blog, landing page, documentation, comparison, tool), and the intended use of findings (content calendar, brief backlog, editorial strategy).
Classify the request as one or more of:
Read the SandBase API map before selecting tools. Treat each listed tool_name as a capability identifier to resolve through the SandBase gateway:
sandbase_discover with the provider and capability to find the current endpoint name.name to sandbase_inspect; read inputSchema, pricing, and execute_as.execute_as to call sandbase_run using execute_as.arguments.name and schema-defined arguments. If it returns a run_id, poll sandbase_run_get within the task budget until completed or failed; report pending or failed runs without automatically resubmitting them.Use exa_search and cloudsway_search to map the competitor content landscape:
| Strategy | Approach |
|---|---|
| Topic coverage | Search for the category + each competitor's domain to find their published content |
| Question targeting | Search for buyer questions in the category and see which competitors answer them |
| Format variety | Search for comparisons, guides, tools, calculators, templates in the category |
| Freshness gaps | Search with date filters to find where competitor content is outdated |
Tips:
cloudsway_search for broader web coverage that may surface sources Exa doesn't index.Use context_dev_scrape_markdown and dataforseo_v3_on_page_content_parsing_live for deeper analysis:
When to extract full pages:
What to analyze in extracted content:
| Dimension | Questions to answer |
|---|---|
| Depth | How thorough is the coverage? What subtopics are included/excluded? |
| Freshness | When was it last updated? Are examples and data current? |
| Audience | Who is it written for? (beginner/advanced, role, industry) |
| Angle | What perspective or opinion does it take? |
| Format | How is information structured? (listicle, guide, comparison, tutorial) |
| Conversion | What CTA or next step does it offer? |
| Gaps | What questions does a reader still have after reading? |
Use dataforseo_v3_content_analysis_search_live to validate broader patterns:
For each identified opportunity, document:
Return a structured content intelligence brief:
| Topic / Question | Competitor 1 | Competitor 2 | Competitor 3 | Target | Gap type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ✅ deep | ⚠️ shallow | ❌ absent | ❌ absent | Full gap |
| ... | ✅ deep | ✅ deep | ✅ deep | ⚠️ outdated | Freshness gap |
| ... | ❌ absent | ❌ absent | ❌ absent | ❌ absent | Market gap |
| # | Opportunity | Gap type | Evidence | Audience value | Differentiation angle | Recommended format | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
For the top 3–5 opportunities, provide actionable briefs:
Brief: [Topic]
Observations about competitor content strategy (publishing cadence, preferred formats, topic clusters, content quality trends).
What couldn't be verified, what additional research would help, and confidence levels.
Before delivering, verify that:
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Search academic papers, scholarly articles, and research publications through SandBase. Use when asked for literature review, academic citations, scholarly research, paper discovery, or scientific evidence gathering.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Research emerging academic trends by combining scholarly databases, web sources, and news to identify rising research areas, breakthrough papers, and shifting scientific consensus. Ideal for R&D teams tracking frontier science.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create, implement, or review accessibility review work with format, accessibility, performance, and visual-verification controls. Use when the requested deliverable depends on accessibility review.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Plan, implement, or review agentic eval work in an existing codebase with compatibility, security, and verification controls. Use when the user explicitly requests agentic eval work.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Create or review ai seo deliverables with audience, evidence, voice, and conversion-quality controls. Use when the user explicitly asks for ai seo work.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Apply airflow dag patterns in reproducible local data workflows with version-aware APIs, explicit assumptions, and validation. Use when the user chooses airflow dag patterns or its strengths fit the task.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。