Agent skill

Benchmark Methodology

by affaan-m in affaan-m/ECC

Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing…

MITAuto-check passedEducation

Install Benchmark Methodology

skills CLI
$ npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill benchmark-methodology -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install affaan-m/ECC benchmark-methodology --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/affaan-m/ECC.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/skills/benchmark-methodology .claude/skills/benchmark-methodology && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
benchmark-methodology
GitHub stars
276k
Used in
1 other repo
Token cost
~2.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,037 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
683
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing…

  • Works in 9 steps: Positioning clarity & distinctiveness… → Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness… → Visual identity & site craft (15%) —… → …
  • Scoring competitors
  • SKILL.md covers When to Activate, Client positioning brief…, Why these dimensions and The nine dimensions (with…, plus 6 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Benchmark Methodology is an agent skill from affaan-m/ECC. Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client tension) with 1-5 evidence-anchored rubrics and a tension 2x2 plot. Use when benchmarking or scoring competitors, building a competitive comparison matrix, or grading rival positioning before assembling the report; runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure.

Its SKILL.md is about 2.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. It is a single SKILL.md file with no bundled scripts.

It sits in Education, covering Quizzes and assessments and Positioning and messaging. The repository describes itself as: The agent harness performance optimization system. Skills, instincts, memory, security, and research-first development for Claude Code, Codex, Opencode, Cursor and beyond. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Scoring competitors
  • Building a competitive comparison matrix
  • Grading rival positioning before assembling the report
  • Runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure

Example prompts

  • “/benchmark-methodology”

Workflow steps

9 steps, taken from the first numbered list in SKILL.md.

  1. Positioning clarity & distinctiveness (18%) — Is the studio's position
  2. Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness (15%) — Does the copy have an
  3. Visual identity & site craft (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual
  4. Service offer & packaging (12%) — Productized and legible (named
  5. Evidence & credibility (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,
  6. Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity (10%) — Signals they can land
  7. Thought leadership / content presence (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,
  8. Pricing transparency & engagement model (5%) — Is pricing/engagement
  9. [Client's strategic tension] (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 4eb71d9. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Benchmark Methodology loads about 2.5k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 131 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,037 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~131
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~2.5k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from affaan-m/ECC at commit 4eb71d9, republished under its MIT licence (© affaan-m). 1,037 words, ~2,457 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/benchmark-methodology/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
benchmark-methodology
description
Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client tension) with 1-5 evidence-anchored rubrics and a tension 2x2 plot. Use when benchmarking or scoring competitors, building a competitive comparison matrix, or grading rival positioning before assembling the report; runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure.
license
MIT

Benchmark Methodology

Use this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into comparable, defensible scores. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with explicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is the point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same number for any competitor.

When to Activate

  • A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.
  • Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.
  • Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.
  • Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.

Client positioning brief (establish first)

Before scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:

  • Strategic tension — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.
  • Differentiator — what makes the client's moat. This informs which dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.
  • Brand balance — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.

Why these dimensions

The client competes on a specific tension held across two poles, not on service breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two dimensions — the tension poles — are scored separately and never averaged together, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival achieves both simultaneously.

The nine dimensions (with weights)

Weights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false composite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.

  1. Positioning clarity & distinctiveness (18%) — Is the studio's position sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?
  2. Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness (15%) — Does the copy have an ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?
  3. Visual identity & site craft (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual system; site as proof-of-craft.
  4. Service offer & packaging (12%) — Productized and legible (named sprints/audits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.
  5. Evidence & credibility (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes, case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.
  6. Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity (10%) — Signals they can land and hold SaaS/fintech/B2B/enterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).
  7. Thought leadership / content presence (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks, newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.
  8. Pricing transparency & engagement model (5%) — Is pricing/engagement legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.
  9. [Client's strategic tension] (5% as a flag; score BOTH poles, report separately) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already there?

Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)

Anchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the specifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.

  • 1 — Absent / generic. No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable from a template. Active liability.
  • 2 — Below par. Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing. Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.
  • 3 — Competent / table-stakes. Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets expectation, ownable by nobody.
  • 4 — Strong / distinctive. Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer would notice and cite.
  • 5 — Category-defining. Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the bar others react to.
Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5

Read the axis labels and their 1/3/5 anchors from the client's positioning brief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:

  • Memorability — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context · 5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.
  • Credibility — 1: feels risky/amateur · 3: safe, competent, unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.

Plot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in the positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most important finding of the benchmark.

Show full SKILL.md (437 more words)Show less

How to collect the data

For each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):

  1. Competitor's own site — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing posture, named clients, manifesto/POV. Screenshot the homepage + one case study.
  2. Case studies / work — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names. Distinguish asserted ("we delivered X") from proven (metrics, named, verifiable).
  3. Review directories — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).
  4. LinkedIn — team size/model, founder narrative, content cadence → thought leadership, model.
  5. Portfolio / craft platforms — craft register (use the showcase native to the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).
  6. Content channels — newsletter/talks/writing → thought-leadership depth.

What to record per dimension: the score, one-line justification, and the source link/screenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.

Bias controls

  • No single composite score. Report dimension scores and the tension plot separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.
  • Asserted vs proven. Downgrade credibility/evidence scores for self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.
  • Aesthetic affinity bias. Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and credibility independently; a "boring" site may be winning bigger clients.
  • Recency / flashiness bias. Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may lack commercial depth — verify with directories/clients before scoring credibility.
  • Survivorship. The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market; note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories/reviews.
  • Calibrate across the set, not in isolation. Before finalizing, re-read scores side-by-side — a "4" must mean the same thing for every competitor. Adjust outliers.

Competitor profile card (output format)

Produce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles from:

## <Competitor name>
- **Profile / Tier:** <positioning stance · specialization · size band> / <Direct | Adjacent | Aspirational>
- **One-liner:** <how they position themselves, in their words>
- **Model / size / geography:** <solo|micro|boutique> · <region> · <pricing/engagement model>
- **Notable clients / evidence:** <named, with proven/asserted tag>

### Dimension scores
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |
| Brand voice / verbal distinctiveness | | | |
| Visual identity & site craft | | | |
| Service offer & packaging | | | |
| Evidence & credibility | | | |
| Enterprise-readiness / commercial maturity | | | |
| Thought leadership / content presence | | | |
| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |

### Tension plot
- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** <1–5> — <why>
- **Quadrant:** <high/high | high-1/low-2 | low-1/high-2 | low/low>

### Read for [client]
- **Strength to learn from:** <…>
- **Weakness to exploit / white-space it exposes:** <…>
- **Threat to [client]:** <…>

Hand the completed cards plus the tension plot to competitive-report-structure.

Anti-Patterns

  • Averaging the tension axes. The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.
  • Scoring without evidence. Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.
  • Creating a single composite score. Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.
  • Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting. The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.
  • Running before the competitor set is scoped. Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.
  • competitive-platform-analysis — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.
  • competitive-report-structure — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.

© affaan-m, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in skills/benchmark-methodology of affaan-m/ECC.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 4eb71d9

Used in 1 other repository

We found 2 copies of this SKILL.md (exact, near-identical or edited) in other folders, from 1 other GitHub owner. This page covers the copy in affaan-m/ECC, which our catalogue first saw on October 7, 2026.

Compare with similar skills

Benchmark Methodology next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Benchmark Methodology compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Benchmark Methodology this skillaffaan-m/ECC276k1 repos~2.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Competitive Teardownborghei/Claude-Skills891—~5.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
DeepTutor CLIHKUDS/DeepTutor41k—~2.8kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
AI Engineering Placement Quizrohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch66k—~2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Codebase to Coursezarazhangrui/codebase-to-course5.7k—~4.4kAutomated safety check: PassNone
AI Engineering Phase Quizrohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch66k—~2.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT

Similar skills

  • Competitive Teardown

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Systematic competitor analysis covering product teardowns, 12-dimension scoring rubric, feature comparison matrices, SWOT analysis, pricing model deconstruction, UX audits, and strategic action…

    891 GitHub stars~5.4k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • DeepTutor CLI

    HKUDS/DeepTutor

    Teaches the agent to set up and run DeepTutor from the command line: chat and capabilities, knowledge bases, partners, memory, sessions, notebooks and the server or Web app.

    41k GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • AI Engineering Placement Quiz

    rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch

    Runs a 10-question quiz across five areas to place a learner in the AI Engineering from Scratch curriculum, so they skip what they already know.

    66k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated today
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • Codebase to Course

    zarazhangrui/codebase-to-course

    Turns a codebase into an interactive single-page HTML course for non-technical learners, with scroll modules, animated diagrams, quizzes and plain-English code translations.

    5.7k GitHub stars~4.4k tokensUpdated 6 mo ago
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • AI Engineering Phase Quiz

    rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch

    Quizzes you on a completed phase of the AI Engineering from Scratch course, taking a phase number or name and mapping it to that phase's directory.

    66k GitHub stars~2.1k tokensUpdated today
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • Scholar Evaluation

    K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-writer

    Provide qualitative-first, evidence-traceable developmental review of scholarly works and audit low-stakes research-assessment rubrics with optional local quality controls.

    2.4k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~2.9k tokens
    EducationAuto-check: notes

More from affaan-m/ECC

All 683 skills in this repo
  • Skill Stocktake

    affaan-m/ECC

    Audits your installed Claude skills and commands for quality, with a quick mode for recently changed skills and a full mode that evaluates all of them through subagents.

    276k GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~3.1k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Ingests, indexes, searches, edits and monitors video, audio and live streams through the VideoDB Python SDK, returning stream links, clips and timestamps.

    276k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~3.5k tokens
    Auto-check: notes
  • Docs Governance

    affaan-m/ECC

    Route broad documentation-governance requests to existing ECC skills and run an opt-in, read-only audit of mapped documentation roles, links, ADR indexes, and evidence references.

    276k GitHub stars~1.1k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Rules Distillation

    affaan-m/ECC

    Scans installed skills for principles that recur across them and proposes rule-file changes: append, revise, add a section, create a file or leave as covered.

    276k GitHub starsUsed in 2 repos~2.3k tokens
    Auto-check passed
  • Builds DRAFT counterparty agreements from one markdown template and a small JSON spec per party, with clauses picked by the party's role.

    276k GitHub stars~2.9k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Measures whether agents actually follow a skill, rule or agent definition by generating scenarios at three strictness levels and scoring tool-call traces.

    276k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~623 tokens
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Benchmark Methodology

What does Benchmark Methodology do?

Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing…. Benchmark Methodology is an agent skill from affaan-m/ECC. Score a scoped competitor set into comparable profile cards: nine weighted dimensions (positioning, voice, visual craft, offer packaging, evidence, enterprise-readiness, thought leadership, pricing, client tension) with 1-5 evidence-anchored rubrics and a tension 2x2 plot.

When should I use Benchmark Methodology?

Benchmark Methodology fits situations like: scoring competitors; building a competitive comparison matrix; grading rival positioning before assembling the report; runs after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure.

How do I install Benchmark Methodology in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill benchmark-methodology -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/benchmark-methodology in affaan-m/ECC) into .claude/skills/benchmark-methodology in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Benchmark Methodology in Codex?

Run `npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill benchmark-methodology -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (skills/benchmark-methodology in affaan-m/ECC) into .agents/skills/benchmark-methodology in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Benchmark Methodology in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add affaan-m/ECC --skill benchmark-methodology -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/benchmark-methodology, .gemini/skills/benchmark-methodology, .github/skills/benchmark-methodology and .opencode/skills/benchmark-methodology in your project.

What does Benchmark Methodology need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Benchmark Methodology is instructions for the agent only.

Does Benchmark Methodology access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Benchmark Methodology safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Benchmark Methodology use?

Benchmark Methodology is published under the MIT licence (declared in SKILL.md). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Benchmark Methodology use?

About 2.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 9.8k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Benchmark Methodology?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Benchmark Methodology: Competitive Teardown (borghei/Claude-Skills, 891 stars), DeepTutor CLI (HKUDS/DeepTutor, 41k stars), AI Engineering Placement Quiz (rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch, 66k stars) and Codebase to Course (zarazhangrui/codebase-to-course, 5.7k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Benchmark Methodology?

affaan-m (a GitHub user) maintains it in affaan-m/ECC, which has 276,111 GitHub stars. The repository holds 683 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 10, 2026.

Source: affaan-m/ECC on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.