Verwendung
- Installationsbefehl kopieren und das Quellpaket vor der Installation in der eigenen Agentenumgebung prüfen.
- Benötigte Werkzeuge, Zugangsdaten und Hosts im Original prüfen.
- Eingabe und gewünschtes Ergebnis beschreiben und die Ausgabe mit den Quellen abgleichen.
npx skills add https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-seoVor dem Start
- Die Installation umfasst weder Modellabo noch API-Kontingent oder Dateizugriffsrechte.
- Sterne und Installationen zeigen Aktivität, keine unabhängige Qualitäts- oder Sicherheitsprüfung.
Aus dem Quell-Repository gerendert; Überschriften, Beispiele, Code, Tabellen, Links und Bilder bleiben erhalten.
Review SEO (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits, never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
- ✓ Read the project's SEO doc first (e.g.
docs/frontend/SEO.md) — n/a all
items with the reason if the product has no public web surface
- ✓ Every new/changed public page has a unique title and meta description
within the project's declared lengths
- ✓ Canonical URL correct on new/changed routes (no accidental duplicates)
- ✓ Indexability intended = indexability actual (robots/noindex/sitemap state
matches the page's purpose)
- ✓ One h1 per page; heading levels don't skip
- ✓ Structured data valid for the content type the project declares (cite the
validator output when run)
- ✓ Links crawlable (real hrefs, not click handlers) on changed navigation
- ✓ Images on changed pages have descriptive filenames/alt where the SEO doc
requires
- ✓ No render-blocking regression for primary content (content present without
JS where the project declares SSR/SSG)
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence. Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios. An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
REVIEW SEO — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | critical|major|minor | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAILFAIL if any critical or major finding is open; PASS otherwise. Minor findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
Done when
- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output)
or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and
no code was changed.
