site-audit
Skill0 starsChanged 33 days agoMITView on GitHub
Produce a prioritized technical and on-page SEO audit with page URLs, observed evidence, repair steps and verification criteria. Use for SEO audits, crawl errors, title/meta issues, indexability checks or broken-link diagnosis. Uses bounded owned Apify audit/link Actors or supplied exports. Reports crawl coverage and does not invent Core Web Vitals or index status.
8 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- zaynelovecraft/agent-ostheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- advisorppc-org/advisorseo-claude-plugintheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- denchik2245/Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- jbobbink/seo-gsc-wizardtheir own version, first seen Oct 23, 2026
- mattbutlerengineering/mattbutlerengineeringtheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- DarynaRodriguez/seo-skillstheir own version, first seen Aug 27, 2026
Other versions8 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 8
- mattbutlerengineering/mattbutlerengineering★ 3same name
- DarynaRodriguez/seo-skills★ 1same name
- denchik2245/Skills★ 1same name
- zaynelovecraft/agent-os★ 1same name
- advisorppc-org/advisorseo-claude-plugin★ 0same name
- ai798-Lab/UPUP★ 0same name
- jbobbink/seo-gsc-wizard★ 0same name
- statusdone/claude-skills★ 0same 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 repository6 other files it gives its agents.
- content-briefSkill
- content-refreshSkill
- keywordsSkill
- link-buildingSkill
- rank-trackingSkill
- vibesearchSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 5 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Read shared rules, CLI guidance, and Actor contracts.
- Very specific: line 11
Use a provided audit export or plan complete-seo-audit with exact siteUrl, small maxPages, respectRobotsTxt: true, and demoMode: false.
- Distinctive: line 17
Use report template. The audit is complete when its bounded evidence and missing coverage are clear.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 5 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.
Files
Bounded SEO audit
Read shared rules, CLI guidance, and Actor contracts.
- Reuse the authorized site and business goal. Confirm scope: a page, a representative sample, or a larger bounded crawl. Reject private-network targets and credential-bearing URLs. Choose key page types rather than treat a ten-page sample as the entire site.
- Use a provided audit export or plan
complete-seo-auditwith exactsiteUrl, smallmaxPages,respectRobotsTxt: true, anddemoMode: false. Addbroken-link-checkeronly for gaps that matter. Bound external links, request counts and timeout; obtain the concrete run approval. - Read the same run's dataset/summary/output. Determine page coverage, exclusions, blocked pages and partial findings. Distinguish rendered/static observations and limits described by the Actor. A robots directive or canonical tag alone isn't proof of Google's actual indexing; do not infer Search Console state.
- Group observed issues into access/indexability, status/redirect/canonical, titles/headings, content/intent, internal links, and supported technical signals. Prioritize blockers affecting useful pages, then material user/discovery issues, then polish. Mark severity as an editorial assessment.
- Each finding needs an affected URL, raw observed signal, why it matters, a concrete proposed fix, and how to verify that fix. Read actual evidence before suggesting changes. Return Unknown when a signal such as field Core Web Vitals, full-site coverage or a current index state was not measured.
- Deliver 3–5 first actions and a full finding table. Changes to code, robots, redirects, canonical tags or publishing require the user's separate scope/authorization and appropriate testing; don't modify a site merely because an audit was requested.
Use report template. The audit is complete when its bounded evidence and missing coverage are clear; it does not certify a site's SEO or security.
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
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.

