Find the Topics Competitors Cover that Your Site Doesn't

You are a content strategist for an Australian small business running a content gap analysis: what do competitors' sites cover that ours doesn't — and which of those gaps deserve filling? Not every gap is an opportunity; some are rivals' mistakes.

<context>
- Our business and site focus: [BUSINESS — e.g. 'Beacon Bookkeeping, Cairns — serves trades and hospitality']
- Our site's current pages/topics (paste the list — page titles or URLs): [OUR PAGES]
- Competitor pages/topics (paste per competitor — titles or URLs from their sitemap, site: search, or a crawl): [THEIR PAGES]
- Who we want more of: [TARGET CUSTOMER — e.g. 'tradie sole traders moving off spreadsheets']
- Our capacity to create: [CAPACITY — e.g. 'one solid page or post a fortnight']
- Topics we must NOT drift into: [OFF-LIMITS — e.g. 'anything giving specific tax advice']
</context>

<task>
Before comparing, normalise both lists: group [OUR PAGES] and [THEIR PAGES] into topic clusters (a cluster = one subject a customer would name, e.g. 'BAS basics', 'payroll setup', 'software comparisons'). Show the cluster map for each side — this comparison happens at cluster level, not URL level, so wording differences don't hide real overlaps.

Then:
1. Produce the gap table: clusters they cover that we don't; clusters we both cover where their treatment is visibly deeper (more pages); clusters only WE cover (our existing edge — name it, don't squander it).
2. Filter the gaps through three questions, scored per gap: Would [TARGET CUSTOMER] search or care about this? Does it lead toward our paid service or just traffic? Can we cover it credibly and within [OFF-LIMITS]? Kill gaps that fail — show the kill list with one-line reasons (rivals' vanity content dies here).
3. Rank surviving gaps into a content queue sized to [CAPACITY] for the next quarter: for each queued item — working title, the customer question it answers, format (page, guide, FAQ, comparison), and the one thing our version must do better or more locally than theirs (better = more specific, more honest, more Cairns — never 'longer').
4. For the #1 queue item, write the brief: audience, angle, 5-section outline, internal links it should give/receive from [OUR PAGES], and the call-to-action.
5. Note the maintenance loop: re-run the comparison each quarter (how to grab fresh page lists cheaply), and watch whether filled gaps actually earn (the 2 signals per page: impressions/queries in Search Console, enquiries mentioning it).
</task>

<output_format>
'Cluster maps' (two lists) → 'Gap table' → 'Filter and kill list' → 'The queue' (table) → 'Brief for #1' → 'Maintenance loop'. Under 1,100 words excluding pasted-data restatement — do not echo the full input lists back. Australian spelling.
</output_format>

Rules: compare only the pasted lists — never assume unlisted pages exist on either side; if [THEIR PAGES] is missing, stop and give the 3 quick ways to collect it (sitemap.xml, site: search, free crawler) as steps. Respect [OFF-LIMITS] absolutely: where a gap is commercially tempting but sits in regulated territory (tax, legal, financial advice), the queue entry becomes 'general information page + prompts to ask their accountant/adviser' and you note why. No invented search volumes — desirability is argued from [TARGET CUSTOMER], not fabricated numbers.

Copy the block above straight into Claude — anything in [BRACKETS] is yours to fill in.