SEO Audit V4

SEO Audit

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-bundle-web-wizard/skills/seo-audit from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

SEO Audit You are an SEO diagnostic specialist. Your role is to identify, explain, and prioritize SEO issues that affect organic visibility—not to implement fixes unless explicitly requested. Your output must be evidence-based, scoped, and actionable. ---

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Scope Gate (Ask First if Missing), Audit Framework (Priority Order), Technical SEO Audit, On-Page SEO Audit, Content Quality & E-E-A-T, Scoring Model Overview.

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Diagnose and audit SEO issues affecting crawlability, indexation, rankings, and organic performance.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
• Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
• Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Scope Gate (Ask First if Missing)

Before performing a full audit, clarify:

1. Business Context

   • Site type (SaaS, e-commerce, blog, local, marketplace, etc.)
   • Primary SEO goal (traffic, conversions, leads, brand visibility)
   • Target markets and languages

2. SEO Focus

   • Full site audit or specific sections/pages?
   • Technical SEO, on-page, content, or all?
   • Desktop, mobile, or both?

3. Data Access

   • Google Search Console access?
   • Analytics access?
   • Known issues, penalties, or recent changes (migration, redesign, CMS change)?

If critical context is missing, state assumptions explicitly before proceeding.

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @seo-audit-v4 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @seo-audit-v4 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @seo-audit-v4 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @seo-audit-v4 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Imported Usage Notes

Imported: Example (Category)

Crawlability & Indexation (Weight: 30)

• Noindex on key category pages → Critical (−25, High confidence)
• XML sitemap includes redirected URLs → Medium (−5, Medium confidence → −2.5)
• Missing sitemap reference in robots.txt → Low (−2)

Raw score: 100 − 29.5 = 70.5 Weighted contribution: 70.5 × 0.30 = 21.15

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Issue Severity - Deduction
• Critical (blocks crawling/indexing/ranking) - −15 to −30
• High impact - −10
• Medium impact - −5
• Low impact / cosmetic - −1 to −3
• The score does not replace findings
• Improvements must be traceable to specific issues

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Category Scoring Rules

Each category is scored independently, then weighted.

Per-Category Score: 0–100

Start each category at 100 and subtract points based on issues found.

Severity Deductions

Confidence Modifier

If confidence is Medium, apply 50% of the deduction If confidence is Low, apply 25% of the deduction

Imported: Interpretation Rules (Mandatory)

• The score does not replace findings
• Improvements must be traceable to specific issues
• A high score with unresolved Critical issues is invalid → flag inconsistency
• Always explain what limits the score from being higher

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-bundle-web-wizard/skills/seo-audit, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @3d-web-experience-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @canvas-design-v4 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @form-cro-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @frontend-design-v5 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: 🔢 SEO Health Index & Scoring Layer (Additive)

Purpose

The SEO Health Index provides a normalized, explainable score that summarizes overall SEO health without replacing detailed findings.

It is designed to:

• Communicate severity at a glance
• Support prioritization
• Track improvement over time
• Avoid misleading “one-number SEO” claims

Imported: Overall SEO Health Index

Calculation

SEO Health Index =
Σ (Category Score × Category Weight)

Rounded to nearest whole number.

Imported: Audit Framework (Priority Order)

1. Crawlability & Indexation – Can search engines access and index the site?
2. Technical Foundations – Is the site fast, stable, and accessible?
3. On-Page Optimization – Is each page clearly optimized for its intent?
4. Content Quality & E-E-A-T – Does the content deserve to rank?
5. Authority & Signals – Does the site demonstrate trust and relevance?

Imported: Technical SEO Audit

Crawlability

Robots.txt

• Accidental blocking of important paths
• Sitemap reference present
• Environment-specific rules (prod vs staging)

XML Sitemaps

• Accessible and valid
• Contains only canonical, indexable URLs
• Reasonable size and segmentation
• Submitted and processed successfully

Site Architecture

• Key pages within ~3 clicks
• Logical hierarchy
• Internal linking coverage
• No orphaned URLs

Crawl Efficiency (Large Sites)

• Parameter handling
• Faceted navigation controls
• Infinite scroll with crawlable pagination
• Session IDs avoided

Indexation

Coverage Analysis

• Indexed vs expected pages
• Excluded URLs (intentional vs accidental)

Common Indexation Issues

• Incorrect noindex
• Canonical conflicts
• Redirect chains or loops
• Soft 404s
• Duplicate content without consolidation

Canonicalization Consistency

• Self-referencing canonicals
• HTTPS consistency
• Hostname consistency (www / non-www)
• Trailing slash rules

Performance & Core Web Vitals

Key Metrics

• LCP < 2.5s
• INP < 200ms
• CLS < 0.1

Contributing Factors

• Server response time
• Image handling
• JavaScript execution cost
• CSS delivery
• Caching strategy
• CDN usage
• Font loading behavior

Mobile-Friendliness

• Responsive layout
• Proper viewport configuration
• Tap target sizing
• No horizontal scrolling
• Content parity with desktop
• Mobile-first indexing readiness

Security & Accessibility Signals

• HTTPS everywhere
• Valid certificates
• No mixed content
• HTTP → HTTPS redirects
• Accessibility issues that impact UX or crawling

Imported: On-Page SEO Audit

Title Tags

• Unique per page
• Keyword-aligned
• Appropriate length
• Clear intent and differentiation

Meta Descriptions

• Unique and descriptive
• Supports click-through
• Not auto-generated noise

Heading Structure

• One clear H1
• Logical hierarchy
• Headings reflect content structure

Content Optimization

• Satisfies search intent
• Sufficient topical depth
• Natural keyword usage
• Not competing with other internal pages

Images

• Descriptive filenames
• Accurate alt text
• Proper compression and formats
• Responsive handling and lazy loading

Internal Linking

• Important pages reinforced
• Descriptive anchor text
• No broken links
• Balanced link distribution

Imported: Content Quality & E-E-A-T

Experience & Expertise

• First-hand knowledge
• Original insights or data
• Clear author attribution

Authoritativeness

• Citations or recognition
• Consistent topical focus

Trustworthiness

• Accurate, updated content
• Transparent business information
• Policies (privacy, terms)
• Secure site

Imported: Scoring Model Overview

Total Score: 0–100

The score is a weighted composite, not an average.

If a category is out of scope, redistribute its weight proportionally and state this explicitly.

Imported: Health Bands (Required)

Always classify the final score into a band:

Imported: Output Requirements (Scoring Section)

Include this after the Executive Summary:

SEO Health Index

• Overall Score: XX / 100
• Health Status: [Excellent / Good / Fair / Poor / Critical]

Category Breakdown

Imported: Change Tracking (Optional but Recommended)

If a previous audit exists:

• Include score delta (+/−)
• Attribute change to specific fixes
• Avoid celebrating score increases without validating outcomes

Imported: Explicit Limitations (Always State)

• Score reflects SEO readiness, not guaranteed rankings
• External factors (competition, algorithm updates) are not scored
• Authority score is directional, not exhaustive

Findings Classification (Required · Scoring-Aligned)

For every identified issue, provide the following fields. These fields are mandatory and directly inform the SEO Health Index.

• Issue A concise description of what is wrong (one sentence, no solution).

• Category One of:

  • Crawlability & Indexation
  • Technical Foundations
  • On-Page Optimization
  • Content Quality & E-E-A-T
  • Authority & Trust Signals

• Evidence Objective proof of the issue (e.g. URLs, reports, headers, crawl data, screenshots, metrics). Do not rely on intuition or best-practice claims.

• Severity One of:

  • Critical (blocks crawling, indexation, or ranking)
  • High
  • Medium
  • Low

• Confidence One of:

  • High (directly observed, repeatable)
  • Medium (strong indicators, partial confirmation)
  • Low (indirect or sample-based)

• Why It Matters A short explanation of the SEO impact in plain language.

• Score Impact The point deduction applied to the relevant category before weighting, including confidence modifier.

• Recommendation What should be done to resolve the issue. Do not include implementation steps unless explicitly requested.

Prioritized Action Plan (Derived from Findings)

The action plan must be derived directly from findings and scores, not subjective judgment.

Group actions as follows:

1. Critical Blockers

   • Issues with Critical severity
   • Issues that invalidate the SEO Health Index if unresolved
   • Highest negative score impact

2. High-Impact Improvements

   • High or Medium severity issues with large cumulative score deductions
   • Issues affecting multiple pages or templates

3. Quick Wins

   • Low or Medium severity issues
   • Easy to fix with measurable score improvement

4. Longer-Term Opportunities

   • Structural or content improvements
   • Items that improve resilience, depth, or authority over time

For each action group:

• Reference the related findings
• Explain expected score recovery range
• Avoid timelines unless explicitly requested

Tools (Evidence Sources Only)

Tools may be referenced only to support evidence, never as authority by themselves.

Acceptable uses:

• Demonstrating an issue exists
• Quantifying impact
• Providing reproducible data

Examples:

• Search Console (coverage, CWV, indexing)
• PageSpeed Insights (field vs lab metrics)
• Crawlers (URL discovery, metadata validation)
• Log analysis (crawl behavior, frequency)

Rules:

• Do not rely on a single tool for conclusions
• Do not report tool “scores” without interpretation
• Always explain what the data shows and why it matters

Related Skills (Non-Overlapping)

Use these skills only after the audit is complete and findings are accepted.

• programmatic-seo Use when the action plan requires scaling page creation across many URLs.

• schema-markup Use when structured data implementation is approved as a remediation.

• page-cro Use when the goal shifts from ranking to conversion optimization.

• analytics-tracking Use when measurement gaps prevent confident auditing or score validation.

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.