agentleFS
fenjo26fenjo26/OpenGSC/.agents/skills/gsc-performance-review/SKILL.md

gsc-performance-review

Skill57 starsChanged 41 days agoMITView on GitHub

Review a site's Google Search Console performance via the OpenGSC MCP: find striking-distance wins, cannibalization conflicts, and weak pages, and produce a prioritized action plan.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If tracked keywords exist, pull get_rank_tracker and note keywords moving down.

    line 37
  2. Distinctive:

    Start with the top 3 actions ("do this first"), each with the expected effect.

    line 42
  3. Very specific:

    Do not invent metrics or queries.

    line 51
  4. Very specific:

    Do not recommend deleting pages.

    line 53
  5. Distinctive:

    Call it before any other tool.

    line 61
  6. Distinctive:

    Before any PAID tool, check the research log: if the same research ran within the last 30 days, reuse that result and say so instead of …

    line 66

≈ “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

OpenGSC Performance Review

Goal

Turn a site's synced GSC data into a short, prioritized list of actions: which queries to push onto page 1, which pages to consolidate, and where better titles/meta could unlock clicks.

Required inputs

  • The site (domain). If unknown, call list_sites first and ask the user which site to review.
  • Optional: lookback window in days (default 90 for opportunity analysis, 28 for the traffic overview).

OpenGSC MCP tools

  • list_sites: discover connected sites and their exact identifiers.
  • get_search_performance: totals + top queries/pages. Run once with dimension=query and once with dimension=page.
  • get_striking_distance: queries at positions 4–20 with real impressions — the fastest wins. The default band is right for most reviews; tighten to 4–10 for "almost there" pages only.
  • get_cannibalization: queries where 2+ of the site's own URLs compete; high-impression conflicts with close positions are consolidation candidates.
  • get_rank_tracker: tracked-keyword positions with direction (latest vs previous) — cross-reference against GSC average position when both exist.
  • get_ctr_benchmark: top-10 queries whose real CTR trails the benchmark for that position. Separates "we don't rank" from "we rank and nobody clicks" — two different fixes.
  • get_content_decay: pages trending down. A decaying page in the striking-distance list is a refresh, not a new piece.
  • get_content_groups: if the user has defined Content Groups or Topic Clusters, report by section rather than by URL — it is how they think about the site.
  • compare_periods: winners, losers, new and lost queries versus the previous window.

Workflow

  1. Resolve the site with list_sites if needed.
  2. Pull the overview: get_search_performance with dimension=query (28 days), then dimension=page.
  3. Pull get_striking_distance (90 days). Rank opportunities by impressions × closeness to page 1.
  4. Pull get_ctr_benchmark (90 days). Anything ranking top-10 with a large negative diff is a title/meta fix — cheaper and faster than any content work, so it goes near the top of the plan.
  5. Pull get_cannibalization (90 days). Flag conflicts where the "loser" URL takes a meaningful share of impressions.
  6. Pull get_content_decay. Pages already sliding need a refresh before they need optimization.
  7. If tracked keywords exist, pull get_rank_tracker and note keywords moving down.
  8. Synthesize a plan. Every recommendation must name a concrete query AND page from the data. For anything that turns into "rewrite this page", hand off to the page-optimization skill rather than writing it here.

Output format

Start with the top 3 actions ("do this first"), each with the expected effect. Then:

PriorityActionQueryPageEvidence

Close with anything that needs the user's judgment (e.g. two cannibalizing pages that both serve intent).

Guardrails

  • Do not invent metrics or queries. If a tool returns no data, say so and suggest the user syncs the site in OpenGSC first.
  • Positions are averages over the window — call them "avg position", not "rank".
  • Do not recommend deleting pages; recommend merge/redirect/differentiate and let the user decide.

Site context — read first, free

get_site_context is this skill's step zero. It returns the site's shared memory — business overview, current goal, positioning, writing preferences, the competitor list, key pages and the research log — and grounds every decision below in what the operator already told us.

  1. Call it before any other tool. If it errors or comes back empty, continue without it; never block the workflow on missing context.
  2. This skill especially needs: current_goal, key pages. If a needed section is empty, do a minimal inline fill — ask the user (or infer from the site and confirm), write it back with update_site_context, then continue. Never front-load a full interview.
  3. Before any PAID tool, check the research log: if the same research ran within the last 30 days, reuse that result and say so instead of re-buying it.
  4. On finish, write back what is durable — new or corrected key pages, competitors the work revealed, positioning facts the user stated — and append a research-log entry if the session spent paid units (appendResearchLog).

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.