agentleFS
JeffLi1993JeffLi1993/seo-audit-skill/seo-audit/SKILL.md

seo-audit

Skill746 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub

An SEO agent skill for quick, lightweight, default single-page SEO audits. Performs basic on-page and site-level checks and outputs a structured basic SEO audit report. Use when the user asks for "SEO audit", "SEO check", "check my page SEO", "page analysis", or wants a first-pass review of a URL. If the user requests "deep audit", "full report", "technical SEO audit", or "advanced SEO", use seo-audit-full instead.

  • Installs packages

185 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use openseo-review-web-content, openseo-release-notes and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • JwuthriSkill

    openseo-review-web-content

    Write and review content for the OpenSEO website (web/) — blog posts, guides, feature pages, FAQs. Distills the philosophy for on-brand, useful, accurate content. Use whenever adding or editing user-facing prose in web/content or web/src.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • JwuthriSkill

    openseo-release-notes

    Cut an OpenSEO release — bump the version, draft user-facing release notes from commits since the last tag, run a review + subagent-verification pass, and open a "release: vX.X.X" PR. Use when the user asks to prepare a release, bump the version, or write release notes.

    Also in 6 projects that use this

  • nicepkgSkill

    community-led-growth

    Expert in community-led growth (CLG) - leveraging user communities to drive acquisition, retention, and expansion. Covers building developer communities, user groups, ambassador programs, and turning customers into advocates. Knows the difference between community as a feature vs community as a growth engine, and how to measure community ROI. Use when "community-led, CLG, ambassador program, champion program, user community, developer community, word of mouth, user group, " mentioned.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • nicepkgSkill

    ph-community-outreach

    Engage Reddit, Indie Hackers, Hacker News and other communities for Product Hunt launches. Use this skill to identify relevant communities, craft appropriate posts, and drive cross-platform engagement without appearing spammy.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • xfstudioSkill

    micro-saas-launcher

    Expert in launching small, focused SaaS products fast - the indie hacker approach to building profitable software. Covers idea validation, MVP development, pricing, launch strategies, and growing to sustainable revenue. Ship in weeks, not months. Use when: micro saas, indie hacker, small saas, side project, saas mvp.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • akii-technologies-ltdSkill

    keyword-clustering

    Cluster and organize keywords into topical groups for SEO. Use when the user asks to "cluster keywords", "group keywords", "organize keywords", "keyword mapping", "topic clusters", "keyword grouping", "build a content plan", "pillar pages", "topical authority", "semantic clustering", or pastes a list of keywords.

    Also in 12 projects that use this

  • +4 more from nicepkg
  • +2 more from Jwuthri

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

31 rules. 0 are common, 25 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 164 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 25

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 6

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    No specific depth is requested — this is the default entry point

    line 26
  2. Very specific:

    If the user wants more depth, upgrade to seo-audit-full:

    line 29
  3. Distinctive:

    If only a URL is provided and no source code or crawler data is available, clearly state:

    line 43
  4. Very specific:

    If yes → run: open reports/example-com-audit.html

    line 65
  5. Distinctive:

    Run these scripts before writing any findings.

    line 82
  6. Distinctive:

    Pass: if contact is reachable via any of: dedicated contact page (HTTP 200) · About page with contact details · footer/nav mailto, email, …

    line 116
  7. Distinctive:

    Fail: only when no contact pathway exists anywhere on the site

    line 117
  8. Distinctive:

    If a check is not in the allowed lists above, do NOT output it — not even if you find issues.

    line 130
  9. Distinctive:

    No exceptions. No "bonus" checks.

    line 131
  10. Very specific:

    Use each field's detail string as the starting point for the Evidence line in findings

    line 138
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not contradict the script output unless you have additional observable evidence

    line 139
  12. Very specific:

    Never leave llm_review_required: true unresolved — always make an explicit judgment call.

    line 147
  13. Distinctive:

    Follow these steps in order:

    line 219
  14. Distinctive:

    If the user explicitly provided a keyword → use it directly

    line 224
  15. Distinctive:

    If not → read the page H1, title, and first paragraph, then infer the single most likely target keyword phrase (what would a searcher type …

    line 225
  16. Distinctive:

    If no contact page, check the About page body for email, social, or contact details

    line 261
  17. Distinctive:

    Exists Pass: if any contact pathway is found (dedicated page, About, or footer/nav contact details)

    line 263
  18. Distinctive:

    Exists Fail: only when no contact information is found anywhere

    line 264
  19. Distinctive:

    Reachable Pass: if a contact page link or contact details appear in footer/nav

    line 265
  20. Distinctive:

    Reachable Warn: if contact is only reachable inside About page content, not directly in footer/nav

    line 266
  21. Very specific:

    Do not recommend creating /contact when About or footer already expose contact info — note the existing pathway instead

    line 267
  22. Distinctive:

    Skip entirely (N/A): if no hreflang tags found and site appears single-language

    line 273
  23. Distinctive:

    If hreflang tags present, check:

    line 274
  24. Distinctive:

    Reciprocal symmetry: every URL referenced must link back to all other variants — any broken link = Fail

    line 275
  25. Very specific:

    Language codes: must be valid BCP 47 (e.g.

    line 276
  26. Distinctive:

    x-default: should be present for language-selector or fallback pages — missing = Warn

    line 277
  27. Distinctive:

    html[lang] attribute: must match the primary hreflang of the page — mismatch = Warn

    line 278
  28. Distinctive:

    Only flag if the pattern is clearly inconsistent or en is unnecessarily prefixed

    line 283
  29. Distinctive:

    Do NOT explain what a check is, do NOT repeat information already visible in the status badge, do NOT treat the reader as unfamiliar with …

    line 345
  30. Distinctive:

    Every important finding must follow this structure:

    line 352
  31. Distinctive:

    Do not write vague conclusions.

    line 362

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 164 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

seo-audit — Basic SEO Audit

A lightweight SEO agent skill designed for quick, default single-page SEO audits. Powered by OpenClaw. Suitable for first-time page checks or when a rapid assessment is needed without full technical depth.


When to Use This Skill

Use seo-audit when:

  • The user says: "audit this page", "check SEO", "analyze my URL", "quick SEO check", "what's wrong with my page"
  • No specific depth is requested — this is the default entry point
  • The user needs a fast, readable summary rather than a comprehensive technical breakdown

If the user wants more depth, upgrade to seo-audit-full:

Tip: For deep technical audits, advanced on-page SEO, or full reports, use the seo-audit-full skill.


Input Expected

InputRequiredNotes
Page URLYesThe page to audit
Raw HTML or page contentOptionalEnables more accurate on-page analysis
GSC / analytics dataOptionalNot required for basic audit

If only a URL is provided and no source code or crawler data is available, clearly state:

Limitation: This audit is based on visible page content and publicly available signals only. Source code, GSC data, crawl logs, and performance metrics are not available for this audit.


Output

Produce a Basic SEO Audit Report by filling the template at assets/report-template.html, then save it to a file — never print raw HTML to the terminal.

File naming: reports/<hostname>-<slug>-audit.html

https://example.com/blog/best-tools → reports/example-com-blog-best-tools-audit.html
https://example.com/                → reports/example-com-audit.html

After saving, tell the user:

✅ Report saved → reports/example-com-audit.html
   Open it now? (yes / no)

If yes → run: open reports/example-com-audit.html


Template placeholders — fill each independently:

PlaceholderContent
{{summary_verdict}}One sentence: total checks run, how many failed/warned/passed
{{summary_critical_html}}<li> per critical (fail) item, or <li class="summary-empty">None</li>
{{summary_warnings_html}}<li> per warning item, or <li class="summary-empty">None</li>
{{summary_passing_html}}<li> per passing check, or <li class="summary-empty">None</li>

Scripts

Run these scripts before writing any findings. They output structured JSON — use the JSON directly as evidence; do not re-fetch the same URLs manually.

Dependencies: pip install requests (html parsing uses Python stdlib)

# Step 1: site-level checks (robots.txt + sitemap.xml)
python scripts/check-site.py https://example.com

# Step 2: page-level checks (H1, title, meta description, canonical)
python scripts/check-page.py https://example.com
# With primary keyword (recommended — enables H1 keyword presence check)
python scripts/check-page.py https://example.com --keyword "running shoes"

# Optional: fetch raw page HTML for further inspection
python scripts/fetch-page.py https://example.com --output page.html

# Step 3: JSON-LD schema validation
python scripts/check-schema.py https://example.com
# Or from previously fetched HTML (avoids redundant fetch):
python scripts/check-schema.py --file page.html

Each script exits with code 0 (all pass/warn) or 1 (any fail/error).

STRICT SCOPE — do not add any check not listed below. No exceptions.

Allowed site-level checks (in {{site_checks_html}}):

  • robots.txt · sitemap.xml · 404 Handling · URL Canonicalization · i18n / hreflang

Allowed E-E-A-T checks (in {{eeat_checks_html}}):

  • About Us · Contact · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Media/Partners (only if present)

Contact logic (Contact row only):

  • A dedicated /contact page is not required
  • Pass if contact is reachable via any of: dedicated contact page (HTTP 200) · About page with contact details · footer/nav mailto, email, social links, or contact form
  • Fail only when no contact pathway exists anywhere on the site
  • Missing /contact alone is not a fail when About or footer/nav already expose contact info

Allowed page-level checks (in {{page_checks_html}}), output in this exact order: URL Slug · Title Tag · Meta Description · H1 Tag · Canonical Tag · Image Alt Text · Word Count · Keyword Placement · Heading Structure · Internal Links · Schema (JSON-LD)

Image Alt Text logic:

  • Parse <img> tags from static HTML
  • Pass: all images have non-empty alt (decorative images with alt="" are OK)
  • Warn: any content image missing alt attribute
  • Unverified (status-info): 0 images found in static HTML → likely JS-rendered, cannot verify

⛔ HARD RULE — Output ONLY the check rows defined in report-template.html. If a check is not in the allowed lists above, do NOT output it — not even if you find issues. No exceptions. No "bonus" checks. No improvisation. The template is the single source of truth. Treat it as a strict whitelist.

Still BANNED (belong to seo-audit-full): OG tags · Twitter Card · Social tags · Page Weight · Core Web Vitals · Robots Meta

How to use the JSON output:

  • Map each field's status → pass / warn / fail / error directly to the report check table
  • Use each field's detail string as the starting point for the Evidence line in findings
  • Do not contradict the script output unless you have additional observable evidence
  • Separate check groups with <div class="subsection-label">Label</div> inside {{site_checks_html}}: Crawlability · URL Canonicalization · i18n / hreflang · Schema (JSON-LD) and <div class="subsection-label">E-E-A-T Trust Pages</div> before {{eeat_checks_html}}

LLM review — mandatory when llm_review_required: true:

The script flags fields that require semantic or quality judgment it cannot perform. Never leave llm_review_required: true unresolved — always make an explicit judgment call.

H1 — triggered when keyword_match == "partial":

h1_text : (from h1.values[0])
keyword : (the --keyword passed to the script)

Judge: Does this H1 semantically cover the keyword's search intent?
  - Consider synonyms, natural variants, topic coverage
  - yes → downgrade to "pass", note the variant
  - no  → keep "warn" or upgrade to "fail", explain the gap

Title — triggered when keyword_match == "partial" OR keyword_position != "start":

title   : (from title.value)
keyword : (the --keyword passed)

Judge:
  1. Does the title semantically cover the keyword's search intent?
  2. Is the title grammatically correct and naturally readable?
  3. Keyword position — apply different standards by page type:
     - Homepage   : Brand + core keyword is correct (e.g. "Acme | AI Workflow Automation")
                    Do NOT flag brand-first as a problem.
     - Inner pages: Core keyword should lead (e.g. "AI Workflow Automation for Teams — Acme")
                    Flag if keyword is buried mid-title without good reason.

IMPORTANT — do NOT flag these as negatives:
  - Years (e.g. "2026") → signal freshness, increase CTR — treat as positive unless
    the page is explicitly evergreen content where dating would hurt longevity.
  - Numbers (e.g. "5 best", "Top 10", "3 steps") → set clear expectations,
    consistently outperform non-numeric titles in CTR — always treat as a plus.
  - Specific qualifiers ("Open-Source", "Self-Hosted", "Free") → narrow intent
    and attract higher-quality clicks — do not penalize.

URL Slug — triggered when keyword_match != "full" or is_homepage == false:

slug    : (from url_slug.slug)
keyword : (the --keyword passed)

Judge:
  1. Does the slug contain the primary keyword or a natural variant?
  2. Is the path hierarchy logical? (/category/keyword is ideal)
  3. Is it concise and human-readable?
  Homepage (is_homepage: true): skip — no judgment needed.

Meta Description — always triggered when content is present:

meta_description : (from meta_description.value)
keyword          : (the --keyword passed)

Judge all four:
  1. Complete sentence(s)? (1-2 sentences, no fragments)
  2. Mentions a concrete result — not vague fluff?
     Good: "Cut design time by 60% with AI-powered templates"
     Bad:  "The best tool for all your design needs"
  3. Keyword or natural synonym used once — not stuffed?
  4. More specific than what a typical competitor would write?

IMPORTANT — do NOT flag these as negatives:
  - Years (e.g. "2026") → signal freshness, improve CTR for time-sensitive queries.
    Only note the year if the page is explicitly evergreen content where dating hurts.
  - Numbers (e.g. "5 best", "3 steps") → concrete specificity, strong CTR signal.
  - Trailing "and more." → minor style note at most, never a Warning or Fail.

Recommended Workflow

Follow these steps in order:

  1. Acknowledge scope — confirm this is a basic audit; note any missing data
  2. Infer primary keyword — fetch the page with fetch-page.py, then determine the primary keyword:
    • If the user explicitly provided a keyword → use it directly
    • If not → read the page H1, title, and first paragraph, then infer the single most likely target keyword phrase (what would a searcher type to find this page?)
    • State the inferred keyword explicitly before running checks:

      "Inferred primary keyword: open source claude alternatives"

  3. Run check-site.py — parse the JSON output for robots, sitemap, 404 handling, and URL canonicalization

    404 check: fetch <origin>/this-page-definitely-does-not-exist-seo-audit-check

    • Returns 404 → Pass · Returns 200 (soft 404) → Fail · Returns 301 to homepage → Warn

    URL Canonicalization checks (each is a separate sub-check):

    • HTTP→HTTPS: fetch http://<host> — must 301 to https://. Returns 200 → Fail.
    • www consistency: fetch both https://www.<host> and https://<host> — one must 301 to the other. Both return 200 → Warn.
    • Trailing slash: compare the URL actually served vs the canonical tag on the page. Mismatch → Warn.
    • Canonical match: canonical tag href must exactly match the final URL after all redirects. Mismatch → Warn.
  4. E-E-A-T infrastructure check — for each trust page below, check two layers:

    • Layer 1 — Exists: fetch the URL, check HTTP status (200 = exists, 404/redirect = missing)
    • Layer 2 — Reachable: fetch homepage HTML, check if footer or nav contains a link to this page
    PageRequired
    About UsYes
    ContactYes — see Contact-specific rules below
    Privacy PolicyYes
    Terms of ServiceYes
    Media / PartnersNo — include only if present

    Status rules (About, Privacy, Terms, Media/Partners):

    • Page missing (non-200) → Fail
    • Page exists but not linked in footer/nav → Warn
    • Page exists and linked in footer/nav → Pass
    • Optional page missing → skip, do not include row

    Contact-specific rules — a dedicated /contact page is optional:

    1. Try common paths (/contact, /contact-us) — HTTP 200 counts as Exists
    2. If no contact page, check the About page body for email, social, or contact details
    3. Also scan homepage footer and nav for mailto:, visible email, social links, or a contact form
    4. Exists Pass if any contact pathway is found (dedicated page, About, or footer/nav contact details)
    5. Exists Fail only when no contact information is found anywhere
    6. Reachable Pass if a contact page link or contact details appear in footer/nav
    7. Reachable Warn if contact is only reachable inside About page content, not directly in footer/nav
    8. Do not recommend creating /contact when About or footer already expose contact info — note the existing pathway instead
  5. Run check-page.py --keyword "<inferred_keyword>" — parse the JSON output for H1, title, meta description, canonical, and URL slug
  6. i18n / hreflang check — only run if the page contains hreflang tags or <html lang> suggests multi-language:
    • Skip entirely (N/A) if no hreflang tags found and site appears single-language
    • If hreflang tags present, check:
      • Reciprocal symmetry: every URL referenced must link back to all other variants — any broken link = Fail
      • Language codes: must be valid BCP 47 (e.g. zh-CN not zh, en-US not en-us) — wrong code = Warn
      • x-default: should be present for language-selector or fallback pages — missing = Warn
      • html[lang] attribute: must match the primary hreflang of the page — mismatch = Warn
      • URL structure: recommended pattern — default language (usually en) at root with no prefix, other languages under subpaths (/zh/, /es/).
        • /page (en) + /zh/page + /es/page → Pass
        • /en/page + /zh/page → Warn (en prefix is redundant, wastes crawl depth)
        • Only flag if the pattern is clearly inconsistent or en is unnecessarily prefixed
  7. Run check-schema.py — parse the JSON output for schema types and field validation

    python scripts/check-schema.py https://example.com
    # Or from previously fetched HTML:
    python scripts/check-schema.py --file page.html

    The script extracts JSON-LD blocks, validates @type and required fields per Schema.org spec. llm_review_required: true is always set — confirm inferred_page_type matches actual page content.

    Page type → expected @type reference:

    Page TypeExpected @typeMin. required fields
    HomepageWebSite + Organizationname, url, logo
    Blog / ArticleArticle or BlogPostingheadline, datePublished, author, image
    ProductProductname, image, offers (price, priceCurrency)
    FAQFAQPagemainEntity[].name, acceptedAnswer.text
    How-toHowToname, step[].text
    Local businessLocalBusinessname, address, telephone
    Generic landing—N/A — skip, no widely-supported type
    • Pass: correct @type present, all required fields valid, no conflicts
    • Warn: @type present but missing recommended fields
    • Fail: expected @type missing entirely
    • N/A: generic landing page — do not penalize
  8. Summarize findings — each finding must follow the Evidence / Impact / Fix format
  9. Priority actions — list the top 3 highest-impact fixes
  10. Render report — save to reports/<hostname>-<slug>-audit.html, then ask user to open
  11. Upgrade prompt — if issues beyond basic scope are found, suggest seo-audit-full

Report Detail Writing Rules

The Detail cell in check tables must follow these rules — no exceptions:

Pass → one short phrase. No lists, no elaboration.

Good: "Valid XML urlset · 104 URLs · referenced in robots.txt."
Bad:  "Valid XML urlset with 104 URLs. Correctly referenced in robots.txt.
       Blog posts are likely indexed through this sitemap."

Warn → one <div class="detail-issue"> with ≤2 bullet points. One <div class="detail-fix"> with the fix.

Good:
  <div class="detail-issue">· Title 48 chars — 2 below minimum. · Year "2026" will date the page.</div>
  <div class="detail-fix">Expand to 50–60 chars; remove year if evergreen.</div>

Bad: three-sentence prose explaining what a title tag is and why length matters.

Fail → same as Warn. Lead with the exact failure. No background explanations.

Do NOT explain what a check is, do NOT repeat information already visible in the status badge, do NOT treat the reader as unfamiliar with SEO basics.


Mandatory Finding Format

Every important finding must follow this structure:

**Finding: [Finding Title]**

- **Evidence:** [What was observed — direct quote, screenshot ref, or measurable data]
- **Impact:** [Why this matters for SEO or UX]
- **Fix:** [Specific, actionable recommendation]

Do not write vague conclusions. If evidence is insufficient, state assumptions explicitly.


Upgrade Prompt

Include this at the end of every basic audit report:

Want a deeper analysis? This was a basic SEO audit covering site-level signals and core on-page checks. For advanced technical SEO, content quality scoring, structured data analysis, and full crawl-based findings, use the seo-audit-full skill.


Reference Files

  • Detailed audit scope and field definitions: references/REFERENCE.md
  • Final HTML report template: assets/report-template.html
  • Site-level check script: scripts/check-site.py
  • Page-level check script: scripts/check-page.py
  • Raw page fetcher: scripts/fetch-page.py
  • Schema validation script: scripts/check-schema.py

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.