agentleFS
ADWilkinsonADWilkinson/astack/skills/discoverability/SKILL.md

discoverability

Skill0 starsChanged 8 days agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnose and fix why Google, Bing or AI answers miss or misdescribe a product. Use for SEO/GEO/AEO, ranking or indexing problems, canonical/robots/sitemap checks and search-focused content.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • k97/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 19, 2026
  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. k97/skills★ 1same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Keep structured data consistent with visible content.

    line 49

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Discoverability

Most visibility problems are boring and fixable: a page that crawlers cannot read, a canonical pointing elsewhere, a blocked bot, content rendered only in JavaScript, or no page that answers the question buyers actually ask. Find those before writing anything new.

<skill-dir> below means this skill's own folder. Run its scripts from the project root so output lands in the project, not in the installed skill.

1. Audit what crawlers actually get

node <skill-dir>/scripts/page-audit.mjs https://example.com https://example.com/pricing https://example.com/vs/competitor

For each URL it reports the redirect chain, noindex, canonical, title and description length, html lang, h1 count, how much text exists in server HTML, the share card and og:image (status, type, real dimensions), JSON-LD validity, robots.txt rules for Googlebot, Bingbot, OAI-SearchBot, ChatGPT-User, GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended and Applebot-Extended, and whether the URL is in the sitemap.

Fix errors first. The usual culprits:

  • Client-rendered content: low "server text" means crawlers and answer engines see an empty shell. Render the core content on the server or prerender.
  • Canonical points elsewhere, often a trailing-slash, www or locale mismatch.
  • Search bots blocked by robots.txt, a WAF or bot protection. Training crawlers (GPTBot, Google-Extended) are a separate choice from search crawlers (OAI-SearchBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot); keep the owner's opt-outs deliberate.
  • Not in the sitemap, or the sitemap lists redirected URLs.
  • Missing or broken share card: also hurts click-through when links are shared.

2. Fix the query cohort before measuring

Pick 8 to 20 queries real buyers type, from Search Console, support questions, sales calls and competitor comparison terms. Group by intent: problem ("how to X"), solution category ("best X for Y"), comparison ("A vs B"), alternatives ("A alternative"), and branded. Map each group to the one page that should answer it. Freeze the exact wording, locale and engines; this cohort is your baseline.

3. Baseline

  • Search Console (if available): impressions, clicks, CTR and position for the cohort's pages and queries, for a dated window, with country and device filters written down.
  • Answer engines: a fresh conversation per query, no hints, three runs for the important ones. Record separately whether the product is mentioned, cited (linked) and recommended. A blocked or failed run is missing data, never a zero.

The full protocol is in search and answer measurement.

4. Find the reason, then make the smallest fix

For each gap, look at what the engines cite instead. Usually it is a page that answers the question directly with specifics: a comparison table, real prices, a how-to with steps, original data. Ask what this product can say that is true and that nobody else has.

Priority:

  1. Technical blockers from step 1.
  2. Improve the existing best page for the intent: answer in the first paragraph, specifics over adjectives, a table where buyers compare, updated dates, internal links from related pages.
  3. A new page only for a distinct intent with no good existing page. Comparison and alternatives pages must be fair and current.

Keep structured data consistent with visible content. No special file or markup guarantees inclusion in AI answers; Google's guidance is that ordinary SEO eligibility applies (see the reference for current docs).

Ship the fix (ship if installed) and re-run page-audit.mjs against production.

5. Read out

Re-run the frozen cohort after the engines have had time to recrawl (days to weeks, not hours). Compare mention, citation and recommendation counts with valid-run totals, and Search Console for equal-length windows. Look at qualified conversions from the affected landing pages. Name concurrent releases, seasonality and model updates. Record continue, change or stop, and the next read date.

Never

  • Keyword-stuff, cloak, or show crawlers different content than users.
  • Mass-generate thin pages per keyword or per city.
  • Claim a ranking or AI-citation improvement from a single run or a single day.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.