# Content Spy — Analysis Quality Checklist

Use this checklist to verify that a completed competitor content analysis is comprehensive and actionable before presenting it.

---

## Category 1 — Research Scope (5 items)

- [ ] At least 5 competitors analyzed (not just 1–2)
- [ ] Analysis covers at least 30 days of posts per competitor (90 days preferred)
- [ ] At least 30 posts tracked per competitor
- [ ] Both large and similar-stage competitors included in the set
- [ ] All major platforms where competitors are active included

**Category score — __ / 5**

---

## Category 2 — Posting Pattern Documentation (6 items)

- [ ] Posting frequency documented per competitor (posts/week)
- [ ] Day-of-week patterns noted where clear patterns exist
- [ ] Content type breakdown documented (% per type) for each competitor
- [ ] Top performing content type identified per competitor
- [ ] Bottom performing content type identified per competitor
- [ ] Promotional timing documented (when competitors run sales content)

**Category score — __ / 6**

---

## Category 3 — Engagement Analysis Quality (5 items)

- [ ] Engagement measured beyond follower count (views, likes, comments, shares)
- [ ] Engagement rate calculated or estimated (not raw numbers only)
- [ ] Comment quality assessed (not just comment count) — what are audiences saying?
- [ ] Top 20% and bottom 20% of posts identified for each competitor
- [ ] Cross-competitor patterns identified (not just per-competitor analysis)

**Category score — __ / 5**

---

## Category 4 — Hook Pattern Analysis (5 items)

- [ ] Hook patterns extracted from top-performing posts specifically (not all posts)
- [ ] Hooks categorized using consistent taxonomy (question, bold claim, visual action, etc.)
- [ ] Dominant hook type in category identified
- [ ] Underused hook types noted
- [ ] Hook frequency in top performers compared to hook frequency in bottom performers

**Category score — __ / 5**

---

## Category 5 — Gap Analysis Quality (6 items)

- [ ] Content gap matrix completed (coverage + engagement combination)
- [ ] Gaps categorized correctly as opportunities vs. dead ends
- [ ] Evidence provided for why each gap is an opportunity (not just absence of content)
- [ ] Both content type gaps AND angle gaps identified
- [ ] Timing gaps identified (competitor-quiet posting windows)
- [ ] Tone/voice gaps identified where applicable

**Category score — __ / 6**

---

## Category 6 — Counter-Programming Recommendations (6 items)

- [ ] At least 3 specific counter-programming recommendations provided
- [ ] Each recommendation tied to specific evidence from the analysis
- [ ] Recommendations include specific content type, angle, and hook suggestion
- [ ] Timing recommendations included (day, time, or in relation to competitor activity)
- [ ] Content to avoid section included (with evidence-based rationale)
- [ ] Recommendations are actionable immediately (not vague "post more X" advice)

**Category score — __ / 6**

---

## Category 7 — Output Quality (4 items)

- [ ] Competitor profiles are concise but contain all key data points
- [ ] Content gap matrix uses clear visual structure (table)
- [ ] Analysis distinguishes between correlation and causation (e.g., "this content type appears to perform well" not "this content type drives sales")
- [ ] Analysis includes a limitation note about what couldn't be observed (e.g., paid boost status, direct conversion data)

**Category score — __ / 4**

---

## Total Score

**Total — __ / 37**

- **34–37**: High quality — ready to share
- **28–33**: Good — minor gaps, review flagged items
- **22–27**: Needs revision — multiple gaps in analysis
- **Below 22**: Insufficient depth — redo the analysis