MalinandClaude Sonnet 5
ae61c7ce7b
Evaluated citeworthyio/seo-agent for reusable process knowledge. Relevant to this fleet's WordPress content sites (granja travel news, content-agent pipeline): a crawl-diagnose-approve-recrawl-measure loop for SEO metadata changes, a three-layer AI-crawler accessibility audit (robots policy, bot delivery, readable content), and a fail-closed method for generating and safely injecting Article JSON-LD. Keyword research and citation-probe pieces of the source repo were skipped as underdeveloped or too infra-coupled to be reusable here. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
87 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
87 lines
4.4 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: seo-change-lifecycle
|
|
description: Use when auditing a content site's SEO, proposing metadata changes, or evaluating whether an applied SEO change helped. Treat findings as measured conditions and close the loop through approval, delivered-output verification, and delayed Search Console comparison.
|
|
license: MIT
|
|
source: adapted from https://github.com/citeworthyio/seo-agent/blob/b78bb487f2819c3c7cc2ba6f3f5626ea0b841840/README.md (How it works, Findings lifecycle, Analytics)
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# SEO Change Lifecycle
|
|
|
|
An SEO edit is not complete when source content changes. It is complete only
|
|
after the served page is recrawled and the outcome has had time to emerge in
|
|
search data. Use this loop for metadata and technical on-page changes.
|
|
|
|
## 1. Snapshot what crawlers actually receive
|
|
|
|
Start from the sitemap and fetch every listed final URL. Record the delivered
|
|
status, title, meta description, canonical, robots directive, OpenGraph image,
|
|
and JSON-LD types. Do not audit templates or CMS fields in place of the response:
|
|
an edge rewrite, stale cache, redirect, or failed deployment can make the served
|
|
page disagree with its source.
|
|
|
|
If no usable sitemap exists, use a bounded, same-origin link crawl and label the
|
|
result incomplete. A link crawl cannot find orphan pages, so absence from that
|
|
sample is not evidence that a page does not exist.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Diagnose deterministic conditions
|
|
|
|
Prefer repeatable rules whose evidence can be preserved and checked again. At a
|
|
minimum, inspect:
|
|
|
|
- sitemap URLs returning errors or redirects;
|
|
- missing titles, duplicate titles, and titles whose core exceeds 60 characters
|
|
or whose delivered total exceeds 80;
|
|
- missing descriptions, descriptions shorter than 70 or longer than 160
|
|
characters, and descriptions ending in `...` because upstream truncation can
|
|
hide an over-long source value;
|
|
- missing or off-page canonicals;
|
|
- `noindex` pages still present in the sitemap;
|
|
- missing `og:image` and missing `Article` JSON-LD on known article routes.
|
|
|
|
Decode HTML entities before length checks so `&` counts as the one character a
|
|
reader sees. Key each finding by `(path, rule)`: keep it open while the condition
|
|
persists and auto-resolve it only when a fresh crawl no longer reproduces it.
|
|
This makes findings sensors, not tickets someone can close without fixing the
|
|
underlying page.
|
|
|
|
## 3. Draft a constrained proposal
|
|
|
|
Give a drafter the page's observed content, the exact failed rule, the current
|
|
served value, and the site's positive style guidance. Require the smallest field
|
|
change that can clear the finding. Use deterministic surgery when there is one
|
|
right answer (for example, removing a duplicated brand suffix or replacing a
|
|
canonical with the page's own normalized URL); a model adds risk without value.
|
|
|
|
Validate model output outside the model. Reject an unchanged value, forbidden
|
|
terms, a title that includes a suffix the publishing layer will append, or copy
|
|
outside the agreed length and sentence constraints. An invalid proposal is no
|
|
proposal, not a reason to relax the gate.
|
|
|
|
## 4. Review, apply, journal, and recrawl
|
|
|
|
Require human approval by default. Record the old value, approved value, field,
|
|
path, timestamp, and a reversible change identifier. After applying, fetch the
|
|
public URL again and compare the delivered field with the approved value. Keep
|
|
the finding in an `applied, awaiting recrawl` state until that comparison passes.
|
|
|
|
This extra verification catches the failures source inspection misses: a wrong
|
|
cache key, route gap, stale CDN response, lost edge binding, or deployment that
|
|
never reached the serving path. A successful write to a CMS or override store is
|
|
not proof that crawlers see the change.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Measure impact without claiming causation
|
|
|
|
Use page-level Search Console data, not site-wide totals. Leave a three-day
|
|
settling gap after the change, then compare equal 14-day before/after windows;
|
|
repeat with 28-day windows when enough data exists. Compare clicks and
|
|
impressions as per-day rates and CTR/position as impression-weighted averages.
|
|
Do not calculate a verdict if either window is absent or the two windows total
|
|
fewer than 50 impressions.
|
|
|
|
Treat a relative CTR movement of about 15% or an average-position movement of
|
|
about 1.0 as a review signal, with impression shifts checked for confounding.
|
|
Call the result correlation, never causation: seasonality, algorithm changes,
|
|
competitors, and query-mix changes remain plausible explanations. A negative
|
|
signal should open a review/revert decision, not trigger an automatic rollback.
|
|
|