How to use
- Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
- Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
- Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/gtrabanco/agentic-workflow --skill review-seoBefore you start
- Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
- Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.
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.
