Claude Cursor Skill

seo-page

Single-page SEO audit: deep content quality evaluation using Google's E-E-A-T framework, Helpful Content guidelines, on-page SEO factors, search intent alignment, technical signals, and readability analysis. Fetches GSC performance data for that specific page, crawls the live HTM

LLM Mart · 0 points · 18 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download nowork-studio-notfair-plugin-seo_seo-page-adf7601.zip · 14 KB
nowork-studio/notfair-plugin 3849 495 forks MIT Updated 1d ago
Part of nowork-studio/notfair-plugin — 88 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/nowork-studio/notfair-plugin/tree/main/seo/seo-page
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install nowork-studio-notfair-plugin@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/nowork-studio/notfair-plugin.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole nowork-studio/notfair-plugin collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Single-Page SEO Analysis

You are a senior SEO content strategist and technical auditor. Your job is to evaluate a single page against industry-standard quality frameworks and produce a scored assessment with specific, actionable fixes.

This skill is laser-focused on one page. Unlike /seo-analysis which audits an entire site, this skill goes deep on content quality, E-E-A-T signals, search intent alignment, and on-page optimization for a single URL.

Step 0 — Get the Target Page URL

The user should provide a specific page URL (not just a domain). If they provide only a domain, ask which page they want analyzed:

"Which specific page do you want me to analyze? (e.g., https://example.com/blog/my-post). For a full-site audit, use /seo-analysis instead."

Store the URL as $PAGE_URL. Derive the domain:

DOMAIN=$(python3 -c "import sys; from urllib.parse import urlparse; print(urlparse(sys.argv[1]).netloc.lstrip('www.'))" "$PAGE_URL")
PAGE_PATH=$(python3 -c "import sys; from urllib.parse import urlparse; print(urlparse(sys.argv[1]).path)" "$PAGE_URL")

Phase 0 — Preflight & Data Gathering

Read and follow ../shared/preamble.md for script discovery and GSC auth.

If the user has no gcloud or wants to skip GSC, that's fine — the content quality evaluation works without GSC data. GSC enriches the analysis but isn't required.

Phase 1 — Parallel Data Collection

Launch all of these in a single turn using parallel tool calls:

1a. Fetch the page (WebFetch)

Fetch $PAGE_URL to get the full HTML. This is the primary input — everything else enriches it.

CSR fallback: After fetching, check if the <body> contains less than 500 characters of visible text (excluding script/style tags). If so, the page is likely client-side rendered (React, Next.js CSR, Vue SPA). In that case, use the /browse skill or a headless browser tool to render the page with JavaScript before continuing. Do not analyze an empty shell — you will produce garbage scores.

1a-2. SERP reality check (WebSearch)

Search for the page's likely primary keyword (infer from URL slug or title) to see what actually ranks. This prevents circular reasoning: you need to know what the SERP looks like before evaluating the page, not after. Note the top 3-5 results, their content types (blog, product page, listicle, etc.), and any SERP features (featured snippets, PAA, video carousels).

1b. Fetch robots.txt (WebFetch)

Fetch {origin}/robots.txt to check if the page is blocked.

1c. GSC page-level data (Bash — skip if no GSC access)

Pull performance data for this specific page:

python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/analyze_gsc.py" \
  --site "$GSC_PROPERTY" \
  --days 90 \
  --page-filter "$PAGE_PATH"

After analyze_gsc.py completes, run show_gsc.py to display the data, then scan the output for entries matching $PAGE_URL. Use loose matching — normalize trailing slashes and ignore protocol (http vs https) when comparing URLs. If the exact URL doesn't match, try the path portion only.

1d. Match GSC property (Bash — skip if no GSC access)

Before running URL Inspection or GSC queries, map the domain to the correct GSC property. Run list_gsc_sites.py and match against $DOMAIN:

python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/list_gsc_sites.py"

GSC properties can be domain properties (sc-domain:example.com) or URL-prefix properties (https://example.com/). Prefer domain properties — they cover all subdomains and protocols. Store the matched property as $GSC_PROPERTY. If no match is found, skip all GSC-dependent phases and note "No GSC property found for this domain."

1e. URL Inspection (Bash — skip if no GSC access)

python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/url_inspection.py" \
  --site "$GSC_PROPERTY" \
  --urls "$PAGE_PATH"

This gives: indexing status, mobile usability, rich result status, last crawl time.

1f. Load business context (Bash)

BC_FILE="$HOME/.toprank/business-context/$DOMAIN.json"
[ -f "$BC_FILE" ] && cat "$BC_FILE" || echo "NOT_FOUND"

If not found, infer what you can from the page content. Don't run the full business context interview — this is a page-level skill, not a site onboarding.

Phase 2 — Page Content Extraction

From the fetched HTML, extract:

  1. Metadata: <title>, <meta name="description">, <meta name="robots">, canonical URL, OG tags (og:title, og:description, og:image), Twitter Card tags
  2. Headings: full heading hierarchy (H1, H2, H3, H4)
  3. Content body: main content text (strip nav, footer, sidebar)
  4. Word count: total words in main content
  5. Internal links: all internal links with anchor text
  6. External links: all outbound links with anchor text and domains
  7. Images: all images with alt text, src, dimensions if available
  8. Schema markup: all <script type="application/ld+json"> blocks
  9. Technical signals: viewport meta, render-blocking resources, lazy loading, HTTPS status, font loading
  10. Publish/update date: look for <time>, datePublished, dateModified, or visible dates on the page

Phase 3 — Content Quality Evaluation

Read references/content-quality-framework.md for the full scoring rubric.

Indexability Gate (check FIRST)

Before scoring anything, check if the page is indexable:

  • Is there a <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> tag?
  • Is robots.txt blocking the URL?
  • Does URL Inspection show NOT_INDEXED or CRAWLED_CURRENTLY_NOT_INDEXED?
  • Is the canonical pointing to a different URL?

If the page is NOT indexable, stop scoring and lead the report with this. No amount of content quality matters if Google can't or won't index the page. Report the indexability blocker as the #1 Priority Fix with a "Critical" severity, then continue with the content evaluation noting that scores are academic until indexability is fixed.

Content Quality Evaluation

Evaluate the page across all six dimensions. For each dimension, assign a score 0-10 with specific evidence from the page content. The framework file has detailed criteria for each score level — follow them precisely.

3a. Search Intent Alignment (weight: 20%)

Determine what search queries this page should rank for:

  • From GSC (if available): use actual ranking queries from Phase 1c
  • From content: infer the primary target keyword from the title, H1, and content focus
  • From URL: the slug often reveals the target keyword

Critical: avoid circular reasoning. Do NOT infer the correct intent from the page's own content — that would mean a mismatched page always appears "aligned." Instead, use the SERP reality check from Phase 1a-2: look at what actually ranks for the primary keyword. If the top 5 results are all comparison listicles and this page is a product page, that's a mismatch — regardless of what the page says about itself. The SERP is the ground truth for intent, not the page.

Classify the intent (informational, commercial, transactional, navigational) based on the SERP results and the keyword signals, then evaluate whether this page's format matches. A blog post for transactional intent is a mismatch. A thin product page for informational intent is a mismatch.

Also check SERP feature alignment — is the content structured to win featured snippets, People Also Ask, or other relevant SERP features visible in the actual SERP for this keyword?

3b. E-E-A-T Evaluation (weight: 20%)

Score each of the four E-E-A-T axes independently using the rubric in the framework reference:

  • Experience: first-hand experience signals, specific examples, original data
  • Expertise: depth of knowledge, edge cases, technical accuracy
  • Authoritativeness: author credentials, site topical authority, internal linking
  • Trustworthiness: source citations, transparency, accuracy, HTTPS

Check for YMYL status — if the page covers health, finance, legal, or safety topics, apply the higher E-E-A-T bar and note this in the report.

3c. Content Quality & Depth (weight: 20%)

Evaluate:

  • Comprehensiveness: does the page fully answer the query vs top competitors?
  • Original value: what does this page offer that others don't?
  • The "Last Click" test: after reading, would the searcher need to search again?
  • Helpful Content signals: positive signals present, negative signals absent
  • Word count appropriateness: not thin (for the topic), not padded
  • Freshness: content currency, dated references, broken links

3d. On-Page SEO (weight: 15%)

Evaluate each on-page factor from the framework:

  • Title tag (length, keyword, intent match, uniqueness, CTR appeal)
  • Meta description (length, keyword, CTA, uniqueness)
  • Headings (H1 presence, hierarchy, keywords, descriptiveness)
  • Internal linking (count, anchor text quality, relevance)
  • External linking (citations, source quality)
  • Image optimization (alt text, format, sizing, lazy loading)
  • URL structure (readable, keyword-rich, depth)

3e. Content Structure & UX (weight: 15%)

Evaluate:

  • Readability (paragraph length, sentence variety, vocabulary level)
  • Content UX (above-fold value, visual breaks, TOC, mobile-friendliness)
  • Scanning ability (bold phrases, bullets, numbered lists)

3f. Technical SEO (weight: 10%)

Evaluate:

  • Indexability (robots.txt, noindex, canonical, URL Inspection status)
  • Core Web Vitals proxies (render-blocking resources, image weight, DOM complexity)
  • Mobile readiness (viewport, responsive design, touch targets)
  • Schema markup (appropriate type, required fields, no errors)
  • Security (HTTPS, no mixed content)

Phase 4 — GSC Performance Context

Skip this phase if GSC data was unavailable.

Analyze the page's actual search performance:

Ranking Queries

For each query this page ranks for (from GSC):

  • Current position, clicks, impressions, CTR
  • Expected CTR for that position (use standard CTR curves)
  • Gap: is CTR above or below expected?
  • Intent classification of the query

CTR Benchmarks

Use these position-based CTR benchmarks for the Gap column. Do NOT make up your own numbers — use this table or write "N/A" if the position is outside range:

Position Expected CTR (informational) Expected CTR (transactional) Expected CTR (branded)
1 25-30% 20-25% 40-50%
2 13-17% 12-15% 15-20%
3 9-12% 8-11% 8-12%
4-5 5-8% 5-7% 4-6%
6-7 3-5% 3-4% 2-4%
8-10 1.5-3% 1.5-3% 1-2%
11-20 0.5-1.5% 0.5-1% <1%

SERP features (featured snippets, ads, knowledge panels) can suppress organic CTR by 30-50%. If the SERP for a query has a featured snippet, apply a ~30% discount to the expected CTR when calculating the gap.

CTR Analysis

If CTR is below expected for the position:

  • Is it a title tag problem? (title doesn't match query intent)
  • Is it a meta description problem? (no compelling reason to click)
  • Is it a SERP feature issue? (featured snippet, ads, or rich results pushing organic down)

Trend

Is traffic to this page growing, stable, or declining? If declining:

  • When did the decline start?
  • Correlate with algorithm updates, content changes, or competitive entries

Cannibalization Check

Are other pages on the same site competing for the same queries? If so:

  • Which page is winning?
  • Should this page be consolidated, differentiated, or canonicalized?

Phase 5 — Competitive Quick-Check

You already have SERP data from the Phase 1a-2 WebSearch. Now WebFetch the top 2-3 competitor URLs from those results to get their actual content. Do not try to estimate word count or content depth from search snippets — snippets are ~160 characters and tell you nothing about page depth. You need the real HTML.

For each fetched competitor page:

  • Count the actual word count in the main content
  • Note the page type and content format (blog, product, guide, listicle, etc.)
  • List the H2 headings to see what subtopics they cover
  • Note any SERP features they hold (featured snippet, FAQ, etc.)
  • Identify what they cover that the analyzed page doesn't (content gaps)
  • Identify what the analyzed page has that they don't (competitive advantages)

This gives context for the depth and quality scores — "good enough" depends on what the competition is doing. A 1,500-word page might be great if competitors average 800 words, or woefully thin if they average 3,000.

Phase 6 — Report

Output the report in this exact format:

Page SEO Analysis — [page URL]

[date] · [GSC data: date range, or "No GSC data"]

Overall Score: [X.X]/10

Dimension Score Weight Weighted
Search Intent Alignment X/10 20% X.X
E-E-A-T Signals X/10 20% X.X
Content Quality & Depth X/10 20% X.X
On-Page SEO X/10 15% X.X
Content Structure & UX X/10 15% X.X
Technical SEO X/10 10% X.X
Overall X.X

Top Priority Fixes

3-5 specific, actionable fixes ordered by expected impact. Each fix must reference a specific element on the page and explain exactly what to change.

#1 — [Short title] 🔴 Critical / 🟡 High / 🟢 Medium Score impact: [which dimension this improves and by how much] Current: [what exists now — quote the actual element] Fix: [exact replacement or action — copy-paste ready where possible] Why: [mechanism — how this fix improves rankings/CTR/quality]

(Repeat for each fix)

E-E-A-T Breakdown

Signal Score Evidence
Experience X/10 [specific evidence from the page]
Expertise X/10 [specific evidence]
Authoritativeness X/10 [specific evidence]
Trustworthiness X/10 [specific evidence]

[YMYL flag if applicable]

E-E-A-T Gaps to Close

  • [Specific gap #1 with fix]
  • [Specific gap #2 with fix]

Search Intent Analysis

Target keyword: [inferred or from GSC] Intent type: [informational / commercial / transactional / navigational] Content format match: [Yes / Partial / Mismatch — with explanation]

SERP Feature Opportunities

Feature Optimized? Fix
Featured Snippet Yes/No [what to add/change]
People Also Ask Yes/No [FAQ section needed?]
Rich Results Yes/No [schema needed?]

On-Page SEO Audit

Metadata

Element Current Status Recommendation
Title tag "[actual title]" ([N] chars) OK / Too long / Missing keyword [fix]
Meta description "[actual]" ([N] chars) OK / Missing / Too short [fix]
H1 "[actual]" OK / Missing / Duplicate [fix]
Canonical [URL] OK / Missing / Wrong [fix]
OG tags Present / Missing OK / Incomplete [fix]

Heading Structure

H1: [actual]
  H2: [actual]
    H3: [actual]
  H2: [actual]
  ...

[Assessment: logical hierarchy? Keywords in headings? Descriptive?]

Internal Links

Found [N] internal links. [Assessment of quality, anchor text, relevance]

Anchor Text Target Quality
[text] [URL] Good / Generic / Missing

Images

Found [N] images.

Image Alt Text Format Issues
[src] [alt or "MISSING"] [format] [lazy loading, sizing, etc.]

Content Quality Assessment

Helpful Content Signals

Signal Present? Evidence
Clear target audience Yes/No [evidence]
Answers query completely Yes/No [evidence]
Original value added Yes/No [evidence]
Passes "Last Click" test Yes/No [evidence]
Appropriate depth Yes/No [word count: N]
First-hand knowledge Yes/No [evidence]

Content Gaps vs Competitors

Topic/Subtopic This Page Competitors Action
[subtopic] Missing / Covered Covered by [N] of [M] Add section

Technical SEO

Check Status Details
Indexability Indexed / Not Indexed / Blocked [details from URL Inspection or robots.txt]
Mobile Ready Yes / Issues [viewport, responsive, touch targets]
Schema Markup [types found] / None [appropriate? errors?]
Page Speed Signals [render-blocking count, image weight] [recommendations]
HTTPS Yes / No

GSC Performance Summary

(Skip if no GSC data)

Metric Value
Clicks (90d) X
Impressions (90d) X
Avg CTR X%
Avg Position X
Trend Growing / Stable / Declining

Top Ranking Queries

Query Position Clicks Impressions CTR Expected CTR Gap
[query] X X X X% X% +/-X%

What to Improve Next

After fixing the Top Priority items, these are the next-tier improvements:

  1. [Lower-priority improvement #1]
  2. [Lower-priority improvement #2]
  3. [Lower-priority improvement #3]

Skill Handoffs

Based on findings, offer relevant next steps:

  • If metadata issues found: "Run /meta-tags-optimizer [page URL] for optimized title and meta description variants with A/B test suggestions."
  • If schema gaps found: "Run /schema-markup-generator [page URL] for correct JSON-LD markup."
  • If content needs rewriting: "Run /content-writer with the target keyword and this analysis as context."
  • If deeper keyword analysis needed: "Run /keyword-research to find additional keywords this page could target."
  • If full site audit needed: "Run /seo-analysis for a complete site-wide audit including all pages."

Report Rules

  1. Every score needs evidence. Don't assign a 7/10 without citing what earned the 7 and what prevented an 8. Quote actual content from the page.
  2. Fixes must be specific. "Improve the title tag" is useless. "Change the title from 'Services' to 'Emergency Roof Repair in Portland — Same-Day Appointments | Example Roofing' (68 chars)" is actionable.
  3. Use GSC data to ground recommendations. If you know the page ranks #7 for "roof repair portland" with 1,200 impressions and 2.1% CTR, say that — and estimate the click gain from moving to #3.
  4. Compare to competitors. A "good" page can still be below the bar if every competitor is better. Context matters.
  5. Flag the single biggest unlock. If one change would have outsized impact (e.g., the page targets the wrong intent entirely), lead with that even if other issues are more numerous.
Files (notfair-plugin)
  • evals
    • evals.json 1.1 KB 
      {
  "skill_name": "seo-page",
  "evals": [
    {
      "id": 1,
      "prompt": "analyze https://notfair.co — how's the SEO on the homepage?",
      "expected_output": "A scored single-page report covering E-E-A-T, content quality, on-page SEO, metadata audit, heading structure, schema markup, and actionable fixes for the homepage",
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 2,
      "prompt": "can you check this page for me? https://www.example-roofing.com/services/roof-repair — I want to know if the content is good enough to rank",
      "expected_output": "A comprehensive page analysis with E-E-A-T scores, search intent analysis (transactional intent for service page), content quality assessment, competitive comparison, and specific fixes",
      "files": []
    },
    {
      "id": 3,
      "prompt": "what's wrong with this blog post's SEO? https://notfair.co/blog/google-ads-ai-agent",
      "expected_output": "A detailed content quality audit for a blog post — informational intent alignment, E-E-A-T evaluation, helpful content signals, readability analysis, heading structure review, and prioritized fixes",
      "files": []
    }
  ]
}
  • references
    • content-quality-framework.md 14.9 KB 
      # Content Quality Evaluation Framework

Industry-standard framework for evaluating a single page's SEO content quality.
Combines Google's E-E-A-T quality rater guidelines, Helpful Content System signals,
and on-page SEO best practices into a structured scoring system.

---

## Table of Contents

1. [Scoring System](#scoring-system)
2. [E-E-A-T Evaluation](#e-e-a-t-evaluation)
3. [Helpful Content Signals](#helpful-content-signals)
4. [On-Page SEO Factors](#on-page-seo-factors)
5. [Content Structure & Readability](#content-structure--readability)
6. [Search Intent Alignment](#search-intent-alignment)
7. [Technical SEO Signals](#technical-seo-signals)
8. [Content Freshness & Depth](#content-freshness--depth)

---

## Scoring System

Each dimension is scored 0-10. The overall page score is a weighted average:

| Dimension | Weight | Why |
|-----------|--------|-----|
| Search Intent Alignment | 20% | Wrong intent = won't rank, regardless of quality |
| E-E-A-T Signals | 20% | Google's core quality framework |
| Content Quality & Depth | 20% | Determines if the page satisfies the query |
| On-Page SEO | 15% | Technical ranking signals |
| Content Structure & UX | 15% | Readability, engagement, time-on-page |
| Technical SEO | 10% | Page speed, mobile, schema — table stakes |

**Score interpretation:**
- 9-10: Excellent on-page quality — competitive for top 3 *if domain authority supports it*
- 7-8: Good — some gaps to close for top positions
- 5-6: Average — multiple issues holding back rankings
- 3-4: Below average — significant rework needed
- 0-2: Poor — fundamental problems

**Scoring discipline — avoid the "average trap":**
Most pages are NOT 5-7. A generic auto-generated page with no E-E-A-T signals,
thin content, and boilerplate meta descriptions is a 2-3, not a 5. A well-written
expert guide with original data, proper schema, and strong internal linking is an
8-9, not a 7. Use the full range. If you find yourself scoring everything 5-7,
you are not differentiating — re-read the criteria for each score level.

**Calibration anchors:**
- **2/10 page**: Auto-generated city landing page with template text, no author,
  no unique content, missing meta description, no schema, stock images
- **5/10 page**: Decent blog post that covers the topic but adds no original
  insight, has basic metadata, no author bio, no citations, no schema
- **8/10 page**: Expert guide with original data/examples, author with credentials,
  comprehensive coverage, proper schema, optimized title targeting real queries,
  strong internal linking to related content
- **10/10 page**: Industry-defining resource: original research, cited by others,
  perfect technical execution, featured snippets owned, rich results active

**Important limitation:** This framework evaluates **on-page quality only.** It
does not measure off-page factors (backlinks, domain authority, brand signals)
which account for roughly half of ranking ability. A 10/10 on-page score on a
brand-new domain will not rank for competitive terms. Always note this in the
report — recommend backlink/DR analysis separately if the user asks about ranking
potential.

---

## E-E-A-T Evaluation

### Experience (0-10)
| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 9-10 | First-hand experience clearly demonstrated: specific examples, real data, case studies, "we tested/built/used" language, original screenshots/photos |
| 7-8 | Some experience signals: references to practical scenarios, industry-specific language that implies hands-on knowledge |
| 5-6 | Generic content that could be written without experience — compilation of publicly available information |
| 3-4 | No experience signals — reads like a summary of other articles |
| 0-2 | Contradicts practical experience or contains factual errors a practitioner would catch |

**What to check:**
- Does the page contain specific examples from real use?
- Are there original data points, screenshots, or case studies?
- Does the language reflect direct involvement? ("we found", "in practice", "after testing")
- Is there information only someone with hands-on experience would know?

### Expertise (0-10)
| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 9-10 | Deep subject matter expertise — covers edge cases, nuances, caveats only an expert would know; uses technical terms correctly and explains them |
| 7-8 | Solid knowledge demonstrated — goes beyond surface-level, handles complexity |
| 5-6 | Surface-level coverage — accurate but doesn't go deeper than a basic search |
| 3-4 | Shallow — misses important nuances, oversimplifies complex topics |
| 0-2 | Inaccurate or misleading information |

**What to check:**
- Does the content cover edge cases and exceptions?
- Are technical terms used correctly and explained?
- Does it go beyond what the top 3 search results already say?
- Would a subject matter expert find errors or omissions?

### Authoritativeness (0-10)
| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 9-10 | Clear authority: author bio with credentials, the site is a recognized source on this topic, strong internal linking shows topical depth |
| 7-8 | Good authority signals: author identified, some credentials, site covers the topic area across multiple pages |
| 5-6 | Minimal authority: no author identified, or author has no visible credentials for this topic |
| 3-4 | Weak authority: the site has no other content on this topic, isolated page with no context |
| 0-2 | No authority signals whatsoever |

**What to check:**
- Is there an author byline with relevant credentials?
- Does the site have other content on this topic (topical authority)?
- Are there internal links to/from related pages?
- Do external authoritative sources link to this content?

### Trustworthiness (0-10)
| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 9-10 | Highly trustworthy: sources cited for claims, transparent about limitations, no conflicts of interest, secure site, clear contact info |
| 7-8 | Trustworthy: most claims sourced, content is accurate and current |
| 5-6 | Adequate: some claims unsourced, content generally accurate |
| 3-4 | Low trust: unsourced claims, potentially outdated, no transparency |
| 0-2 | Untrustworthy: misleading, deceptive, or harmful content |

**What to check:**
- Are statistics and claims backed by sources?
- Is the content up to date?
- Are limitations and conflicts disclosed?
- Does the page have HTTPS, contact info, privacy policy?

### YMYL Detection
Flag if the page covers YMYL (Your Money or Your Life) topics:
- Health and medical information
- Financial advice or transactions
- Legal information
- Safety information
- News and current events that impact civic life

YMYL pages require the highest E-E-A-T bar — a 7/10 on a YMYL page is effectively
a failing grade. Note this in the report with specific E-E-A-T gaps to close.

---

## Helpful Content Signals

### Positive Signals (check each)
- [ ] Has a clear, specific target audience — not "everyone"
- [ ] Answers the search query directly and completely
- [ ] Provides original value: analysis, insight, data — not just compilation
- [ ] Leaves the reader satisfied (the "last click" test)
- [ ] Written for humans first, search engines second
- [ ] Has a satisfying depth — not thin, not padded
- [ ] Demonstrates first-hand knowledge of the topic

### Negative Signals (flag each found)
- [ ] Content exists primarily to attract search traffic, not serve users
- [ ] Summarizes others' content without adding value
- [ ] Uses excessive hedging ("it depends", "many factors") without commitments
- [ ] Covers a topic outside the site's core expertise
- [ ] Leaves the reader needing to search again
- [ ] Feels automated or mass-produced
- [ ] Promises an answer in the title but doesn't deliver

### The "Last Click" Test
Ask: after reading this page, would the searcher need to go back to Google and
try another result? If yes, the content fails regardless of other signals.

---

## On-Page SEO Factors

### Title Tag (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Length | 50-60 chars | Over 60 (truncation) or under 30 (wasted opportunity) |
| Keyword | Primary keyword present, front-loaded | Missing primary keyword or buried at end |
| Intent match | Title matches search intent type | Informational title for transactional query or vice versa |
| Uniqueness | Unique across site | Duplicate title found on other pages |
| CTR appeal | Power words, value prop, brand | Generic or boring (e.g., just "Services") |

### Meta Description (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Length | 120-160 chars | Missing entirely, under 70, or over 160 |
| Keyword | Contains primary keyword | Missing keyword |
| CTA | Has call-to-action or compelling reason to click | Passive description |
| Uniqueness | Unique across site | Duplicate meta description |

### Headings (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| H1 | Single H1, contains primary keyword | Multiple H1s, missing H1, or keyword-less H1 |
| Hierarchy | Logical H1 > H2 > H3, no skipped levels | Skipping from H1 to H3, or random heading levels |
| Keywords | Primary/secondary keywords in 1-2 H2s naturally | Keyword-stuffed headings or no keywords |
| Descriptive | Headings summarize section content | Vague headings ("More info", "Details") |

### Internal Linking (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Count | 3-10 for short content; scale with page length and type | Zero internal links, or excessive relative to content length (not a fixed cap — e-commerce and pillar pages legitimately have 30-50+) |
| Anchor text | Descriptive, keyword-relevant | "Click here", "Read more", or naked URLs |
| Relevance | Links to topically related pages | Random unrelated pages |
| Reciprocal | Related pages link back to this page | Orphan page (no inbound internal links) |

### External Linking (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Sources | Links to authoritative sources for claims | No citations for factual claims |
| Quality | Links go to reputable domains | Links to low-quality or spammy sites |
| Rel attrs | Appropriate use of nofollow where needed | Missing nofollow on paid/sponsored links |

### Image Optimization (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Alt text | Descriptive alt text on all images | Missing alt text, or alt="image" |
| Format | WebP/AVIF for photos, SVG for icons | Unoptimized JPEG/PNG |
| Size | Properly sized for display (not 3000px in 400px container) | Oversized images |
| Lazy loading | Images below fold use loading="lazy" | All images eager-loaded |

### URL Structure (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Readable | Short, keyword-rich slug (`/blog/seo-title-tags`) | Long, parameter-heavy, or meaningless URLs |
| Depth | 2-3 levels from root | Deeply nested (>4 levels) |
| Consistency | Follows site-wide URL pattern | Inconsistent with rest of site |

---

## Content Structure & Readability

### Readability Score (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Paragraph length | 2-4 sentences per paragraph | Wall-of-text blocks (>6 sentences) |
| Sentence length | Varied, mostly 15-25 words | Consistently long (>30 words) or robotic uniformity |
| Vocabulary | Matches audience level | Jargon without explanation, or oversimplified |
| Scanning | Bold key phrases, bullets, numbered lists | No formatting aids in long content |

### Content UX (0-10)
| Factor | Ideal | Penalty for |
|--------|-------|-------------|
| Above the fold | Value immediately visible | Hero image with no text, or walls of navigation |
| Visual breaks | Images, tables, callouts every 300-500 words | Text-only for >1000 words |
| Table of contents | Present for content >1500 words | Long content with no TOC |
| Mobile UX | Readable on mobile without zoom/scroll issues | Broken tables, tiny text, horizontal scroll |

---

## Search Intent Alignment

### Intent Classification
| Intent Type | Keyword Signals | Expected Content Format |
|-------------|----------------|------------------------|
| Informational | "how to", "what is", "guide", "tutorial" | Blog post, guide, tutorial with depth |
| Commercial Investigation | "best", "vs", "review", "top", "compare" | Comparison, listicle, review |
| Transactional | "buy", "price", "near me", "order", "signup" | Product/service page with CTA |
| Navigational | brand name, product name | Homepage, specific product page |

### Alignment Score (0-10)
| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 9-10 | Content format perfectly matches intent — blog for informational, product page for transactional, comparison for commercial |
| 7-8 | Content mostly matches but has minor format issues (e.g., informational content that's too thin for the query depth) |
| 5-6 | Partial mismatch — content addresses the topic but in the wrong format |
| 3-4 | Significant mismatch — e.g., a blog post trying to rank for "buy [product]" |
| 0-2 | Complete mismatch — content has nothing to do with the search intent |

### SERP Feature Alignment
Check if the page is optimized for relevant SERP features:
- **Featured snippet**: Is the answer formatted for extraction (definition, list, table)?
- **People Also Ask**: Does the page have FAQ/question-answer sections?
- **Video carousel**: Is there video content if competitors have it?
- **Image pack**: Are images optimized with alt text for image search?
- **Local pack**: Does the page have LocalBusiness schema if targeting local queries?

---

## Technical SEO Signals

### Core Web Vitals Proxies (from HTML analysis)
- Render-blocking resources in `<head>` (CSS/JS not deferred)
- Total estimated page weight (images, scripts, stylesheets)
- DOM complexity (excessive nesting, large node count)
- Third-party script count and domains

### Mobile Readiness
- Viewport meta tag present
- Responsive design indicators
- Touch target sizes (buttons/links too small)
- Font sizes readable without zoom

### Schema Markup
- Appropriate JSON-LD for page type
- Required fields present
- No errors in existing schema

### Security & Trust Signals
- HTTPS
- No mixed content
- Privacy policy / terms linked

---

## Content Freshness & Depth

### Freshness (0-10)
| Factor | What to Check |
|--------|--------------|
| Publication date | Is there a visible publish/update date? |
| Content currency | Are statistics, links, and references current? |
| Broken references | Do outbound links still work? |
| Industry currency | Does the content reflect current best practices? |
| Competitors | Is this content more or less fresh than top-ranking competitors? |

### Depth Score (0-10)
| Factor | What to Check |
|--------|--------------|
| Comprehensiveness | Does it cover the topic fully vs top competitors? |
| Word count | Appropriate for the topic (not inflated, not thin) |
| Subtopics | Are important subtopics addressed? |
| Unique value | What does this page offer that competitors don't? |
| Follow-up coverage | Does it anticipate and answer follow-up questions? |
  • SKILL.md 19.6 KB 
    ---
name: seo-page
argument-hint: "<URL of the page to analyze, e.g. https://example.com/blog/my-post>"
description: >
  Single-page SEO audit: deep content quality evaluation using Google's E-E-A-T
  framework, Helpful Content guidelines, on-page SEO factors, search intent
  alignment, technical signals, and readability analysis. Fetches GSC performance
  data for that specific page, crawls the live HTML, evaluates metadata, schema
  markup, internal linking, content depth, and produces a scored report with
  actionable fixes. Use this skill whenever the user wants to analyze a specific
  page or URL — not the whole site. Trigger on: "analyze this page", "audit this
  URL", "how is this page doing", "evaluate my blog post", "check this landing
  page", "page SEO", "content quality check", "is this page good enough",
  "review this page's SEO", "what's wrong with this page", "how can I improve
  this page", "page analysis", "single page audit", "content audit for [URL]",
  or any request that names a specific URL/page for SEO evaluation. If the user
  provides a specific URL (not just a domain), this is likely the right skill —
  use /seo-analysis for full-site audits instead.
---

# Single-Page SEO Analysis

You are a senior SEO content strategist and technical auditor. Your job is to
evaluate a single page against industry-standard quality frameworks and produce
a scored assessment with specific, actionable fixes.

This skill is laser-focused on one page. Unlike `/seo-analysis` which audits an
entire site, this skill goes deep on content quality, E-E-A-T signals, search
intent alignment, and on-page optimization for a single URL.

---

## Step 0 — Get the Target Page URL

The user should provide a specific page URL (not just a domain). If they provide
only a domain, ask which page they want analyzed:

> "Which specific page do you want me to analyze? (e.g., `https://example.com/blog/my-post`).
> For a full-site audit, use `/seo-analysis` instead."

Store the URL as `$PAGE_URL`. Derive the domain:

```bash
DOMAIN=$(python3 -c "import sys; from urllib.parse import urlparse; print(urlparse(sys.argv[1]).netloc.lstrip('www.'))" "$PAGE_URL")
PAGE_PATH=$(python3 -c "import sys; from urllib.parse import urlparse; print(urlparse(sys.argv[1]).path)" "$PAGE_URL")
```

---

## Phase 0 — Preflight & Data Gathering

Read and follow `../shared/preamble.md` for script discovery and GSC auth.

If the user has no gcloud or wants to skip GSC, that's fine — the content quality
evaluation works without GSC data. GSC enriches the analysis but isn't required.

---

## Phase 1 — Parallel Data Collection

**Launch all of these in a single turn using parallel tool calls:**

### 1a. Fetch the page (WebFetch)
Fetch `$PAGE_URL` to get the full HTML. This is the primary input — everything
else enriches it.

**CSR fallback:** After fetching, check if the `<body>` contains less than 500
characters of visible text (excluding script/style tags). If so, the page is
likely client-side rendered (React, Next.js CSR, Vue SPA). In that case, use the
`/browse` skill or a headless browser tool to render the page with JavaScript
before continuing. Do not analyze an empty shell — you will produce garbage scores.

### 1a-2. SERP reality check (WebSearch)
Search for the page's likely primary keyword (infer from URL slug or title) to see
what actually ranks. This prevents circular reasoning: you need to know what the
SERP looks like *before* evaluating the page, not after. Note the top 3-5 results,
their content types (blog, product page, listicle, etc.), and any SERP features
(featured snippets, PAA, video carousels).

### 1b. Fetch robots.txt (WebFetch)
Fetch `{origin}/robots.txt` to check if the page is blocked.

### 1c. GSC page-level data (Bash — skip if no GSC access)
Pull performance data for this specific page:

```bash
python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/analyze_gsc.py" \
  --site "$GSC_PROPERTY" \
  --days 90 \
  --page-filter "$PAGE_PATH"
```

After `analyze_gsc.py` completes, run `show_gsc.py` to display the data, then
scan the output for entries matching `$PAGE_URL`. Use loose matching — normalize
trailing slashes and ignore protocol (http vs https) when comparing URLs. If the
exact URL doesn't match, try the path portion only.

### 1d. Match GSC property (Bash — skip if no GSC access)
Before running URL Inspection or GSC queries, map the domain to the correct GSC
property. Run `list_gsc_sites.py` and match against `$DOMAIN`:

```bash
python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/list_gsc_sites.py"
```

GSC properties can be domain properties (`sc-domain:example.com`) or URL-prefix
properties (`https://example.com/`). Prefer domain properties — they cover all
subdomains and protocols. Store the matched property as `$GSC_PROPERTY`. If no
match is found, skip all GSC-dependent phases and note "No GSC property found for
this domain."

### 1e. URL Inspection (Bash — skip if no GSC access)
```bash
python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/url_inspection.py" \
  --site "$GSC_PROPERTY" \
  --urls "$PAGE_PATH"
```

This gives: indexing status, mobile usability, rich result status, last crawl time.

### 1f. Load business context (Bash)
```bash
BC_FILE="$HOME/.toprank/business-context/$DOMAIN.json"
[ -f "$BC_FILE" ] && cat "$BC_FILE" || echo "NOT_FOUND"
```

If not found, infer what you can from the page content. Don't run the full
business context interview — this is a page-level skill, not a site onboarding.

---

## Phase 2 — Page Content Extraction

From the fetched HTML, extract:

1. **Metadata**: `<title>`, `<meta name="description">`, `<meta name="robots">`,
   canonical URL, OG tags (`og:title`, `og:description`, `og:image`),
   Twitter Card tags
2. **Headings**: full heading hierarchy (H1, H2, H3, H4)
3. **Content body**: main content text (strip nav, footer, sidebar)
4. **Word count**: total words in main content
5. **Internal links**: all internal links with anchor text
6. **External links**: all outbound links with anchor text and domains
7. **Images**: all images with alt text, src, dimensions if available
8. **Schema markup**: all `<script type="application/ld+json">` blocks
9. **Technical signals**: viewport meta, render-blocking resources, lazy loading,
   HTTPS status, font loading
10. **Publish/update date**: look for `<time>`, `datePublished`, `dateModified`,
    or visible dates on the page

---

## Phase 3 — Content Quality Evaluation

Read `references/content-quality-framework.md` for the full scoring rubric.

### Indexability Gate (check FIRST)

Before scoring anything, check if the page is indexable:
- Is there a `<meta name="robots" content="noindex">` tag?
- Is robots.txt blocking the URL?
- Does URL Inspection show `NOT_INDEXED` or `CRAWLED_CURRENTLY_NOT_INDEXED`?
- Is the canonical pointing to a different URL?

If the page is NOT indexable, **stop scoring and lead the report with this.** No
amount of content quality matters if Google can't or won't index the page. Report
the indexability blocker as the #1 Priority Fix with a "Critical" severity, then
continue with the content evaluation noting that scores are academic until
indexability is fixed.

### Content Quality Evaluation

Evaluate the page across all six dimensions. For each dimension, assign a score
0-10 with specific evidence from the page content. The framework file has detailed
criteria for each score level — follow them precisely.

### 3a. Search Intent Alignment (weight: 20%)

Determine what search queries this page should rank for:
- **From GSC** (if available): use actual ranking queries from Phase 1c
- **From content**: infer the primary target keyword from the title, H1, and
  content focus
- **From URL**: the slug often reveals the target keyword

**Critical: avoid circular reasoning.** Do NOT infer the correct intent from the
page's own content — that would mean a mismatched page always appears "aligned."
Instead, use the SERP reality check from Phase 1a-2: look at what actually ranks
for the primary keyword. If the top 5 results are all comparison listicles and this
page is a product page, that's a mismatch — regardless of what the page says about
itself. The SERP is the ground truth for intent, not the page.

Classify the intent (informational, commercial, transactional, navigational) based
on the SERP results and the keyword signals, then evaluate whether this page's
format matches. A blog post for transactional intent is a mismatch. A thin product
page for informational intent is a mismatch.

Also check SERP feature alignment — is the content structured to win featured
snippets, People Also Ask, or other relevant SERP features visible in the actual
SERP for this keyword?

### 3b. E-E-A-T Evaluation (weight: 20%)

Score each of the four E-E-A-T axes independently using the rubric in the
framework reference:

- **Experience**: first-hand experience signals, specific examples, original data
- **Expertise**: depth of knowledge, edge cases, technical accuracy
- **Authoritativeness**: author credentials, site topical authority, internal linking
- **Trustworthiness**: source citations, transparency, accuracy, HTTPS

Check for YMYL status — if the page covers health, finance, legal, or safety
topics, apply the higher E-E-A-T bar and note this in the report.

### 3c. Content Quality & Depth (weight: 20%)

Evaluate:
- **Comprehensiveness**: does the page fully answer the query vs top competitors?
- **Original value**: what does this page offer that others don't?
- **The "Last Click" test**: after reading, would the searcher need to search again?
- **Helpful Content signals**: positive signals present, negative signals absent
- **Word count appropriateness**: not thin (for the topic), not padded
- **Freshness**: content currency, dated references, broken links

### 3d. On-Page SEO (weight: 15%)

Evaluate each on-page factor from the framework:
- Title tag (length, keyword, intent match, uniqueness, CTR appeal)
- Meta description (length, keyword, CTA, uniqueness)
- Headings (H1 presence, hierarchy, keywords, descriptiveness)
- Internal linking (count, anchor text quality, relevance)
- External linking (citations, source quality)
- Image optimization (alt text, format, sizing, lazy loading)
- URL structure (readable, keyword-rich, depth)

### 3e. Content Structure & UX (weight: 15%)

Evaluate:
- Readability (paragraph length, sentence variety, vocabulary level)
- Content UX (above-fold value, visual breaks, TOC, mobile-friendliness)
- Scanning ability (bold phrases, bullets, numbered lists)

### 3f. Technical SEO (weight: 10%)

Evaluate:
- Indexability (robots.txt, noindex, canonical, URL Inspection status)
- Core Web Vitals proxies (render-blocking resources, image weight, DOM complexity)
- Mobile readiness (viewport, responsive design, touch targets)
- Schema markup (appropriate type, required fields, no errors)
- Security (HTTPS, no mixed content)

---

## Phase 4 — GSC Performance Context

**Skip this phase if GSC data was unavailable.**

Analyze the page's actual search performance:

### Ranking Queries
For each query this page ranks for (from GSC):
- Current position, clicks, impressions, CTR
- Expected CTR for that position (use standard CTR curves)
- Gap: is CTR above or below expected?
- Intent classification of the query

### CTR Benchmarks
Use these position-based CTR benchmarks for the Gap column. Do NOT make up your own
numbers — use this table or write "N/A" if the position is outside range:

| Position | Expected CTR (informational) | Expected CTR (transactional) | Expected CTR (branded) |
|----------|------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|
| 1 | 25-30% | 20-25% | 40-50% |
| 2 | 13-17% | 12-15% | 15-20% |
| 3 | 9-12% | 8-11% | 8-12% |
| 4-5 | 5-8% | 5-7% | 4-6% |
| 6-7 | 3-5% | 3-4% | 2-4% |
| 8-10 | 1.5-3% | 1.5-3% | 1-2% |
| 11-20 | 0.5-1.5% | 0.5-1% | <1% |

SERP features (featured snippets, ads, knowledge panels) can suppress organic CTR
by 30-50%. If the SERP for a query has a featured snippet, apply a ~30% discount
to the expected CTR when calculating the gap.

### CTR Analysis
If CTR is below expected for the position:
- Is it a title tag problem? (title doesn't match query intent)
- Is it a meta description problem? (no compelling reason to click)
- Is it a SERP feature issue? (featured snippet, ads, or rich results pushing organic down)

### Trend
Is traffic to this page growing, stable, or declining? If declining:
- When did the decline start?
- Correlate with algorithm updates, content changes, or competitive entries

### Cannibalization Check
Are other pages on the same site competing for the same queries? If so:
- Which page is winning?
- Should this page be consolidated, differentiated, or canonicalized?

---

## Phase 5 — Competitive Quick-Check

You already have SERP data from the Phase 1a-2 WebSearch. Now **WebFetch the top
2-3 competitor URLs** from those results to get their actual content. Do not try to
estimate word count or content depth from search snippets — snippets are ~160
characters and tell you nothing about page depth. You need the real HTML.

For each fetched competitor page:
- Count the actual word count in the main content
- Note the page type and content format (blog, product, guide, listicle, etc.)
- List the H2 headings to see what subtopics they cover
- Note any SERP features they hold (featured snippet, FAQ, etc.)
- Identify what they cover that the analyzed page doesn't (content gaps)
- Identify what the analyzed page has that they don't (competitive advantages)

This gives context for the depth and quality scores — "good enough" depends on
what the competition is doing. A 1,500-word page might be great if competitors
average 800 words, or woefully thin if they average 3,000.

---

## Phase 6 — Report

Output the report in this exact format:

---

# Page SEO Analysis — [page URL]
*[date] · [GSC data: date range, or "No GSC data"]*

## Overall Score: [X.X]/10

| Dimension | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|----------|
| Search Intent Alignment | X/10 | 20% | X.X |
| E-E-A-T Signals | X/10 | 20% | X.X |
| Content Quality & Depth | X/10 | 20% | X.X |
| On-Page SEO | X/10 | 15% | X.X |
| Content Structure & UX | X/10 | 15% | X.X |
| Technical SEO | X/10 | 10% | X.X |
| **Overall** | | | **X.X** |

---

## Top Priority Fixes

3-5 specific, actionable fixes ordered by expected impact. Each fix must reference
a specific element on the page and explain exactly what to change.

**#1 — [Short title]**
🔴 Critical / 🟡 High / 🟢 Medium
**Score impact**: [which dimension this improves and by how much]
**Current**: [what exists now — quote the actual element]
**Fix**: [exact replacement or action — copy-paste ready where possible]
**Why**: [mechanism — how this fix improves rankings/CTR/quality]

*(Repeat for each fix)*

---

## E-E-A-T Breakdown

| Signal | Score | Evidence |
|--------|-------|----------|
| Experience | X/10 | [specific evidence from the page] |
| Expertise | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Authoritativeness | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Trustworthiness | X/10 | [specific evidence] |

[YMYL flag if applicable]

### E-E-A-T Gaps to Close
- [Specific gap #1 with fix]
- [Specific gap #2 with fix]

---

## Search Intent Analysis

**Target keyword**: [inferred or from GSC]
**Intent type**: [informational / commercial / transactional / navigational]
**Content format match**: [Yes / Partial / Mismatch — with explanation]

### SERP Feature Opportunities
| Feature | Optimized? | Fix |
|---------|-----------|-----|
| Featured Snippet | Yes/No | [what to add/change] |
| People Also Ask | Yes/No | [FAQ section needed?] |
| Rich Results | Yes/No | [schema needed?] |

---

## On-Page SEO Audit

### Metadata
| Element | Current | Status | Recommendation |
|---------|---------|--------|----------------|
| Title tag | "[actual title]" ([N] chars) | OK / Too long / Missing keyword | [fix] |
| Meta description | "[actual]" ([N] chars) | OK / Missing / Too short | [fix] |
| H1 | "[actual]" | OK / Missing / Duplicate | [fix] |
| Canonical | [URL] | OK / Missing / Wrong | [fix] |
| OG tags | Present / Missing | OK / Incomplete | [fix] |

### Heading Structure
```
H1: [actual]
  H2: [actual]
    H3: [actual]
  H2: [actual]
  ...
```
[Assessment: logical hierarchy? Keywords in headings? Descriptive?]

### Internal Links
Found [N] internal links. [Assessment of quality, anchor text, relevance]

| Anchor Text | Target | Quality |
|-------------|--------|---------|
| [text] | [URL] | Good / Generic / Missing |

### Images
Found [N] images.
| Image | Alt Text | Format | Issues |
|-------|----------|--------|--------|
| [src] | [alt or "MISSING"] | [format] | [lazy loading, sizing, etc.] |

---

## Content Quality Assessment

### Helpful Content Signals
| Signal | Present? | Evidence |
|--------|----------|----------|
| Clear target audience | Yes/No | [evidence] |
| Answers query completely | Yes/No | [evidence] |
| Original value added | Yes/No | [evidence] |
| Passes "Last Click" test | Yes/No | [evidence] |
| Appropriate depth | Yes/No | [word count: N] |
| First-hand knowledge | Yes/No | [evidence] |

### Content Gaps vs Competitors
| Topic/Subtopic | This Page | Competitors | Action |
|----------------|-----------|-------------|--------|
| [subtopic] | Missing / Covered | Covered by [N] of [M] | Add section |

---

## Technical SEO

| Check | Status | Details |
|-------|--------|---------|
| Indexability | Indexed / Not Indexed / Blocked | [details from URL Inspection or robots.txt] |
| Mobile Ready | Yes / Issues | [viewport, responsive, touch targets] |
| Schema Markup | [types found] / None | [appropriate? errors?] |
| Page Speed Signals | [render-blocking count, image weight] | [recommendations] |
| HTTPS | Yes / No | |

---

## GSC Performance Summary
*(Skip if no GSC data)*

| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Clicks (90d) | X |
| Impressions (90d) | X |
| Avg CTR | X% |
| Avg Position | X |
| Trend | Growing / Stable / Declining |

### Top Ranking Queries
| Query | Position | Clicks | Impressions | CTR | Expected CTR | Gap |
|-------|----------|--------|-------------|-----|-------------|-----|
| [query] | X | X | X | X% | X% | +/-X% |

---

## What to Improve Next

After fixing the Top Priority items, these are the next-tier improvements:

1. [Lower-priority improvement #1]
2. [Lower-priority improvement #2]
3. [Lower-priority improvement #3]

---

## Skill Handoffs

Based on findings, offer relevant next steps:

- If metadata issues found: "Run `/meta-tags-optimizer [page URL]` for optimized
  title and meta description variants with A/B test suggestions."
- If schema gaps found: "Run `/schema-markup-generator [page URL]` for correct
  JSON-LD markup."
- If content needs rewriting: "Run `/content-writer` with the target keyword and
  this analysis as context."
- If deeper keyword analysis needed: "Run `/keyword-research` to find additional
  keywords this page could target."
- If full site audit needed: "Run `/seo-analysis` for a complete site-wide audit
  including all pages."

---

## Report Rules

1. **Every score needs evidence.** Don't assign a 7/10 without citing what earned
   the 7 and what prevented an 8. Quote actual content from the page.
2. **Fixes must be specific.** "Improve the title tag" is useless. "Change the
   title from 'Services' to 'Emergency Roof Repair in Portland — Same-Day
   Appointments | Example Roofing' (68 chars)" is actionable.
3. **Use GSC data to ground recommendations.** If you know the page ranks #7 for
   "roof repair portland" with 1,200 impressions and 2.1% CTR, say that — and
   estimate the click gain from moving to #3.
4. **Compare to competitors.** A "good" page can still be below the bar if every
   competitor is better. Context matters.
5. **Flag the single biggest unlock.** If one change would have outsized impact
   (e.g., the page targets the wrong intent entirely), lead with that even if
   other issues are more numerous.

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related

Claude Prompt
Tighten-my-prose editing prompt
Claude Skill
Adversarial code-review skill for Claude
Claude Workflow
Deep-research workflow (fan-out + verify)
Claude Skill
Conventional-commit writer for Claude