# Aeo Content > AEO Content - Skill: `matteotitta/aeo-content` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add matteotitta/aeo-content` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/matteotitta/aeo-content/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: matteotitta (https://skillmd.com/u/matteotitta) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/matteotitta/aeo-content --- # AEO Content Produce articles citation-worthy by ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews using the CITABLE framework + retrieval-citation-trust pipeline. Two output modes: CITABLE block (800-1,500 words) for definition/FAQ/short BOFU pages, and authority long-form (2,000-4,000 words) for competitor comparisons, listicles, how-to guides, and industry guides. Review gate is Level 3 because output publishes externally under client domain. ## Doctrine inherited (Step 7 — 0626 rollout) Output complies with: - [`output-tenets.md`](../../../../rules/output-tenets.md) — the seven tenets - [`output-simplicity.md`](../../../../rules/output-simplicity.md) — length caps, three-layer source placement, robot-tells ban - [`doc-output-structure.md`](../../../../rules/doc-output-structure.md) — GDoc/Notion structural defaults (when published to either before site) - Step 6 calibration: see [[feedback_execution_doctrine_refinements_step6]] **Refinements applied to this skill:** | Code | Refinement | How it lands in aeo-content | |---|---|---| | **R1** | Source placement (three layers) | Published articles are **end-customer-facing**. **No "Sources" block on the rendered page** — citations live in working draft for QA only, then convert to inline links inside the prose at publish-time. The page itself never carries a sources block; that's an AI-citation tell. | | **R3** | Product-update tone | Any product / feature mention frames as "[Product] does X" not "we are thrilled to announce [Product]." Even hero comparison pages stay even-keeled. | | **R6** | CTA hierarchy | TOFU/MOFU articles (definition, FAQ, how-to, industry guide) → blog-CTA + sign-up secondary. BOFU articles (competitor comparison, listicle ending in vendor pick) → sign-up or trial primary. | | **R7** | FAQ titles + no sources block | FAQ articles use canonical FAQ titles ("What is [X]?", "How does [X] work?", "How to [task]"). Never marketing-flavored variants ("X in 60 seconds," "The ultimate guide to X"). No sources block, two-types pattern (educational longer / how-to ≤4 bullets). | | **R8** | Entity-name headings | Section headings repeat the entity name — "What [Product] does," "How [Product] is different" — not pronoun headings ("What it does"). Customers scan for the entity. | | **R9** | Action-oriented section names | "How to set up [X]" beats "Setup." "Why [X] matters" beats "Importance." "How [X] compares to [Y]" beats "Comparison." | ## When to run - After `aeo-strategy` produces an article queue (Mode B — title, keywords, cluster, funnel stage, mode supplied). - Standalone for a single article (Mode A — user provides topic + 3+ target queries). - After `landing-page-copy` finishes (auto-suggest: AEO content can extend a landing page into a citable hub). ## Inputs **Required:** topic/concept; 3+ target queries (primary + adjacent); company context (capabilities, differentiators). **Mode B from `aeo-strategy` queue:** article title, target keywords, cluster, funnel stage, content mode — skip Phase 1. **Optional (improve quality):** ICP research, competitor content, existing proof points, current page (for refresh), competitor research deep dives. **Client context:** auto-loaded from client CLAUDE.md — apply Voice & Messaging rules, vocabulary, anchors automatically. **Validation:** topic specific enough; ≥3 queries; company context available; mode determined. Full input matrix + validation checklist: the premium reference. ## Steps 1. **Validate inputs.** Confirm topic, queries, company context. If missing, ask user or offer Exa research per `.claude/rules/exa-protocol.md`. 2. **Phase 1.1 — Map queries to content type.** Use query pattern table in the premium reference ("[X] vs [Y]" → comparison; "What is [X]" → definition; "How to [X]" → problem-solution; "FAQ" or multi-question → FAQ). 3. **Phase 1.2 — Identify 5-7 adjacent intents.** Patterns: What/How/Why/vs/best/examples. These become H2 sections. 4. **Phase 1.3 — Load template.** From the premium reference (`comparison-page.md`, `definition-page.md`, `problem-solution-guide.md`, `faq-page.md`, `authority-long-form.md`, `bofu-comparison.md`, `mofu-listicle.md`, `mofu-how-to.md`, `content-refresh.md`). Confirm structure with user. 5. **Phase 2 — Apply CITABLE (7 letters).** C: BLUF (40-80w) + key facts box (3-5 sourced); I: answer primary in first 100w + H2s for adjacent; T: 3+ third-party sources, G2/Capterra if relevant; A: 1-2 quotable facts/section, inline `[Source, Year]`; B: 200-400w sections, TL;DR, comparison tables (<10 rows), jump links if >1,500w; L: visible "Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD" + refresh schedule; E: relationship statements + schema plan. Per-letter deliverables: the premium reference. 6. **Phase 3.1 — Add structural elements.** TL;DR box, ≥1 table, FAQ (5-10 questions), hub-and-spoke internal links, schema markup plan. 7. **Phase 3.2 — Apply citation-boost stack.** FAQ +40%, comparison table +30-40%, numbered list +25%, TL;DR +20%, key facts box +20%. Verify each present. 8. **Phase 3.3 — Generate schema.** JSON-LD for FAQPage/HowTo/Product. Validate schema matches visible content exactly (anti-hallucination rule 3). 9. **Self-evaluation gate.** All facts sourced? Citations real (URLs verified)? Schema matches visible? No invented stats/quotes/G2 ratings? If fail: use `[PLACEHOLDER]` or `[NEED TO VERIFY]`. 10. **Format output.** CITABLE block uses template in the premium reference; authority long-form uses templates directly. Inter font, sentence-case headers, [Source, Year] citations, max 10 row tables. 11. **Run pre-delivery checklist.** CITABLE audit + format quality + completeness — see the premium reference. 12. **Present at Review Gate 3** (deep review, external publication). Actions: [Approve] [Add sources] [Expand]. 13. **Post-output: offer iteration prompts** (refinement, expansion, quality) — see the premium reference. 14. **Capture learnings.** Log feedback signals; on user approval, save to `examples/[date]-[content-type].md` per the reference-capture format. 15. **Suggest chain.** → `lifecycle-marketing` (content feeds nurture), `landing-page-copy` (AEO enhances LPs), `competitor-research` (deeper comparison content). Full phase-by-phase walkthrough with checkpoints + flowchart: the premium reference. Mode + content-type mapping (BOFU/MOFU/TOFU): the premium reference. ## What good looks like ### Evaluations - BLUF ≤100 words and answers primary query directly? - Key facts box has 3-5 data points each with `[Source, Year]`? - H2s cover 5-7 adjacent intents (not just primary)? - Every section has 1-2 quotable facts with inline citations? - ≥1 comparison table AND ≥1 numbered list present? - FAQ has 5+ self-contained answers (40-60w direct + 100-200w expanded)? - "Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD" timestamp visible at top? - Schema JSON-LD matches visible content exactly (no hidden info)? - Hub-and-spoke internal links identified? - Zero invented stats/quotes/G2 ratings (all sources verifiable or marked `[PLACEHOLDER]`/`[NEED TO VERIFY]`)? - Output header includes skill name, date, font (Inter), version, content type? - Citations use inline `[Source, Year]` format consistently? - TL;DR matches mode (bullet list for CITABLE block, blockquote paragraph for authority long-form)? - Refresh schedule defined and content-type-appropriate? ## Sourced patterns — comparison page architecture For comparison / alternative / "vs." pages (alt page format, plural alternatives format, you-vs-competitor format, competitor-vs-competitor format): - **"Honesty Builds Trust" pattern.** Acknowledge competitor strengths and your own limitations explicitly. Reads as referee, not biased advocate. Trust-as-conversion. - **"Who it's for" sections per option.** On a plural alternatives page (e.g., "Best alternatives to X"), each listed alternative gets a "Who it's for" block — explicit ICP fit per option. Helps evaluators self-select; converts at higher rate than positioning-against-all. - **4–7 genuine alternatives on plural pages.** Fewer reads as biased; more reads as overwhelming. The 4–7 range optimizes for "this is helpful" perception. - **TL;DR-then-depth hierarchy.** Lead each option with a 1-sentence summary; follow with paragraph-level depth. Scanners take the TL;DR; deep readers go further. - **Conversion benchmark per source:** comparison / alternative pages convert at 5–15% vs. 0.5–2% for generic content. The format earns its place when the cluster exists. --- ## Final ship gate Run `/premortem --output` before ship. See [`/premortem` skill](../../../../meta/orchestration/premortem/SKILL.md) for the 5 execution domains (will-it-resonate / will-it-convert / will-it-stay-on-brand / will-stakeholder-push-back / will-it-degrade-over-time) and output template. Then run `/voice-reviewer` — the content ship gate: voice + brand quality (pm-loop.md). Trivial-case escape: `## Premortem\nNo failure modes — trivial change` satisfies the contract for genuinely trivial outputs. --- ## Persuasion & stickiness pass Output complies with [persuasion-and-stickiness.md](../../../../../rules/persuasion-and-stickiness.md) — Cialdini's 7 persuasion levers + Heath's SUCCESs. Deploy the 1-2 Cialdini levers that fit the reader's barrier (never all seven; every lever must be TRUE), run the SUCCESs diagnostic (Simple / Unexpected / Concrete / Credible / Emotional / Stories) over the near-final draft, then the rule's pre-ship gate.