Summarising a competitor's content is easy and nearly useless. What matters is narrower: what they are claiming, which of it they actually evidence, who they are speaking to, and what they never mention.
This reads the material you supply — an article, a talk transcript, a launch post, a stack of them — and reports positioning rather than plot. Which claims carry a number, a customer or a study behind them, and which are asserted. Which audience the language is written for. Where their story changed between one piece and the next.
And it reads for absence, which no summariser does. A rival who never mentions price, never names a customer, or meets every integration question with "coming soon" has told you something specific. Silence is only visible when you go looking for it, and it is usually the most actionable thing in the pile.
Instead of a week of reading nobody schedules.
The unevidenced ones are where your own evidence wins.
What they avoid is often what they cannot do.
What they consistently never mention. No summariser produces this, and it is usually the most useful finding.
Which assertions carry a number, a customer or a study — and which are just said confidently.
The vocabulary, the objections handled, the assumed budget. Positioning shows in the language.
Where their message shifted between pieces. A change of story is a change of strategy.
Every finding carries the line it came from, so you can judge it yourself.
It reports what they published about themselves, not what anyone says about them.
Why Research in particular. Summaries of a competitor's content are useless. What matters is which claims they evidence and what they never mention — and absence only shows up when something goes looking for it.
Runs unattended
Started by you or by an event, and it finishes on its own. Nothing waits for someone to be at a desk.
The same standard every time
The two-hundredth item is held to the bar the first one was. Consistency is the part people cannot sustain.
It cannot act on its own
Content Intelligence Agent has no path to sending, spending or committing. That limit is why its output is safe to act on.
This agent runs server-side through the PROMIVO runtime. Each run is logged step by step and every tool call is permission-checked before it executes.
Read-only by design. This agent has no path to sending, spending, publishing or committing anything. Where that limit is the product, removing it would remove the reason to trust the output.
Demo dataIllustrative sample output, abridged.
{
"company": "Rival A",
"material": [],
"whatWeSell": "Contract review"
}{
"claims": [
{
"claim": "Reviews contracts 10x faster",
"quote": "\"…up to 10x faster than manual review.\"",
"status": "asserted",
"evidence": "No baseline, no method, no customer attached in any of the four pieces supplied."
}
],
"audience": "Written for operations rather than legal — no clause vocabulary anywhere, and the objections handled are about workload, not risk.",
"escalate": false,
"positioning": "Speed. Every piece leads on time saved; none leads on accuracy.",
"storyChanged": [
"March described 'assisting your legal team'. August describes 'replacing your first pass'. That is a different buyer."
],
"neverMentions": [
{
"subject": "What happens when it is wrong",
"whyItStandsOut": "Four pieces about contract review and no mention of error handling, escalation, or lawyer sign-off. In this market that absence is a position."
},
{
"subject": "Pricing",
"whyItStandsOut": "No figure or range anywhere, including on the pricing page."
}
]
}No integrations required.
What actually changed in their positioning, not their wording.
How incumbents talk, and to whom.
Where every rival is saying the same unevidenced thing.
$199/month
Billed monthly through your PROMIVO subscription. Cancel at any time.
Runs consume your plan allowance for agent executions and tokens. See plan limits.
It reads a transcript. Supply one and it works from what was said; it does not watch video and will not pretend to have seen something it read.
It reports what their published material shows and what it avoids. Inferring intent from marketing copy is guesswork dressed as insight, and it says so rather than doing it.
No. It reads what a company published about itself. Repeating an allegation about a competitor is a risk to you, not to them.
No reviews yet. Reviews open once customers have run this agent.
Tell us what to change and our team will scope a customised version for your business.
Customize this agent