audit

calm-north/seojuice-skills · updated Apr 8, 2026

MDX-style export adds YAML metadata + attribution linking explainx.ai and this canonical listing URL.

$npx skills add https://github.com/calm-north/seojuice-skills --skill audit
0 commentsdiscussion
summary

Comprehensive SEO audit covering technical health, on-page optimization, content quality, backlinks, and competitive positioning.

  • Structured five-layer framework: technical foundation, on-page optimization, content quality, link profile, and competitive position
  • Includes detailed checklists for crawlability, indexability, performance, rendering, title/meta optimization, heading structure, internal linking, and schema markup
  • Provides page-level scoring rubric with weighted sections (t
skill.md

SEO Audit

Run a comprehensive SEO audit covering technical foundations, on-page optimization, content quality, link profile, and competitive positioning.

Before You Start

Gather this context (ask if not provided):

  1. Domain. What site are we auditing?
  2. Goals. What are you trying to achieve? (More traffic, better rankings, fix a drop, pre-launch check)
  3. Known issues. Anything you already suspect is wrong?
  4. Access. Do you have Google Search Console and Google Analytics data? (Improves the audit significantly)
  5. Scope. Full audit or focused on a specific area? (If unsure, run the full audit)

Audit Framework

A complete SEO audit covers five layers. Work through them in order — problems in earlier layers undermine everything that follows.

Layer 1: Technical Foundation     ← Can Google crawl and index the site?
Layer 2: On-Page Optimization     ← Are pages optimized for target keywords?
Layer 3: Content Quality          ← Is the content worth ranking?
Layer 4: Link Profile             ← Does the site have authority?
Layer 5: Competitive Position     ← How does the site compare to competitors?

Layer 1: Technical Foundation

Check whether search engines can properly access, crawl, render, and index the site.

Crawlability

  • robots.txt — fetch and review. No critical paths blocked? Sitemap directive present?
  • XML sitemap — exists, valid XML, lists all important pages, excludes noindex/redirected pages?
  • Site architecture — important pages reachable within 3 clicks from homepage?
  • Orphan pages — any pages with zero internal links pointing to them?
  • Redirect chains — any paths with 2+ redirects in sequence?
  • HTTP status — all important pages return 200? No unexpected 301s, 404s, or soft 404s?

Indexability

  • noindex tags — any important pages accidentally noindexed?
  • Canonical tags — self-referencing on all pages? No conflicting canonicals?
  • Duplicate content — same content accessible at multiple URLs (www/non-www, HTTP/HTTPS, trailing slash)?
  • Search Console index coverage — how many pages submitted vs indexed? Any excluded pages that should be indexed?

Performance

  • Core Web Vitals — LCP < 2.5s, CLS < 0.1, INP < 200ms?
  • TTFB — < 800ms from major regions?
  • Mobile-friendly — passes Google's mobile usability tests?
  • HTTPS — enforced across the entire site? Valid certificate?

Rendering

  • JavaScript-dependent content — is critical content in the initial HTML or loaded via JS?
  • Content visibility — can search engines see the full page content?

Layer 2: On-Page Optimization

Check whether individual pages are properly optimized for their target keywords.

Title Tags

  • Every page has a unique <title>
  • Titles include the primary target keyword
  • Titles are under 60 characters (avoid truncation)
  • Titles are descriptive and click-worthy (not keyword-stuffed)

Meta Descriptions

  • Every important page has a unique meta description
  • Descriptions are 150-160 characters
  • Descriptions include a value proposition and call to action

Heading Structure

  • One H1 per page containing the primary keyword
  • Logical heading hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3, no level skipping)
  • Headings describe section content accurately

URL Structure

  • URLs are clean, readable, and descriptive
  • URLs use hyphens (not underscores)
  • No excessive URL parameters or session IDs in indexed URLs
  • Consistent URL structure across the site

Internal Linking

  • Important pages have sufficient incoming internal links (3+)
  • Anchor text is descriptive and varied (not all "click here")
  • Hub-and-spoke structure exists for topic clusters
  • No broken internal links (404 targets)

Image Optimization

  • All images have descriptive alt attributes
  • Images use modern formats (WebP/AVIF) where supported
  • Images are appropriately sized (not serving 4000px images in 400px containers)
  • Decorative images use empty alt=""

Structured Data

  • Relevant schema markup present (Article, Product, FAQ, LocalBusiness, BreadcrumbList, etc.)
  • Schema validates without errors in Google's Rich Results Test
  • Schema matches visible page content (no hidden/misleading markup)

On-Page Scoring Rubric

For a detailed page-level audit, score each page across 8 sections:

Section Weight What to Score
Title Tag 15% Keyword presence, in first half, 50-60 chars, unique, compelling, intent match
Meta Description 5% Keyword included, 150-160 chars, CTA present, unique
Header Structure 10% Single H1 with keyword, logical hierarchy (no skipped levels), H2s cover subtopics
Content Quality 25% Sufficient length, comprehensive, unique value, up-to-date, good formatting, E-E-A-T signals
Keyword Optimization 15% Keyword in title/H1/first 100 words/URL, density 0.5-2.5%, semantic terms present
Internal/External Links 10% Sufficient internal links, descriptive anchors, quality external links, no broken links
Image Optimization 10% Alt text on all images, descriptive filenames, optimized sizes, modern formats
Page-Level Technical 10% Clean URL, correct canonical, mobile-friendly, LCP ≤2.5s, HTTPS, schema present

Content Length Benchmarks (for full score on "sufficient length"):

Intent Type Target Word Count
Informational 1,500+ words
Commercial investigation 1,200+ words
Transactional 500+ words
Local 400+ words

Internal Link Count Guidelines:

Page Length Target Internal Links
<500 words 2-4 links
500-1,000 words 3-6 links
1,000-2,000 words 5-10 links
2,000+ words 8-15 links

Keyword density penalties: >3.0% = keyword stuffing (score 0); <0.5% = under-optimized.

Score grade scale:

Score Grade Assessment
90-100 A+ Exceptional — maintain
80-89 A Strong — minor tweaks
70-79 B Good — several areas need attention
60-69 C Average — significant improvements needed
50-59 D Below average — major issues
<50 F Poor — comprehensive overhaul required

Layer 3: Content Quality

Evaluate whether the content deserves to rank.

E-E-A-T Assessment

  • Experience — Does the content demonstrate first-hand experience with the topic?
  • Expertise — Is the content written with subject-matter depth? Does it go beyond surface-level?
  • Authoritativeness — Does the site have a reputation in this topic area? Are authors credible?
  • Trustworthiness — Are claims sourced? Is the site transparent about who publishes it?

Content Coverage

  • Does each page have a clear target keyword and intent?
  • Is the content comprehensive enough to fully satisfy the search query?
  • Are there thin pages (< 300 words) that should be expanded or consolidated?
  • Is content up to date? Any pages with stale data, broken examples, or outdated advice?

Content Gaps

  • What topics do competitors cover that this site doesn't?
  • Are there keywords with search demand that no existing page targets?
  • Are there topic clusters that are incomplete (pillar page but missing spokes, or vice versa)?

Cannibalization

  • Are multiple pages targeting the same keyword?
  • If so, are they competing against each other in rankings?
  • Resolution: consolidate, differentiate, or canonical the weaker page to the stronger one.

Layer 4: Link Profile

Assess the site's backlink authority and quality.

Backlink Overview

  • Total referring domains
  • Dofollow vs nofollow ratio
  • Link acquisition trend (growing, stable, or declining?)
  • Average authority of linking domains

Link Quality

  • Any high-spam-score referring domains that could trigger penalties?
  • Are links contextual (in-content) or low-value (sidebar, footer, comment)?
  • Anchor text distribution — natural diversity or suspicious over-optimization?

Link Gaps

  • Which competitor pages earn the most backlinks? What content type?
  • Are there broken backlinks worth recovering? (404 pages that once had links)
  • Are there linkable assets on the site that aren't being promoted?

Layer 5: Competitive Position

Understand where the site stands relative to competitors.

Keyword Overlap

  • Which keywords do you share with competitors?
  • Where are you winning vs losing?
  • What keywords do competitors rank for that you don't?

Content Comparison

  • How does content depth and quality compare to top-ranking competitors?
  • What formats are competitors using that you aren't (video, tools, templates)?
  • What unique angles or data could differentiate your content?

Authority Comparison

  • How does your domain authority/rating compare?
  • Do competitors have significantly more referring domains?
  • Are there authority-building opportunities you're not pursuing?

Scoring

After completing all layers, assign a health score:

Layer Weight Score (1-10) Weighted
Technical Foundation 25% [score] [weighted]
On-Page Optimization 20% [score] [weighted]
Content Quality 25% [score] [weighted]
Link Profile 15% [score] [weighted]
Competitive Position 15% [score] [weighted]
Overall 100% [total]

Scoring guide:

  • 8-10: Strong — maintain and optimize
  • 5-7: Needs work — clear improvement opportunities
  • 1-4: Critical — fundamental issues blocking performance

Veto Conditions

These conditions cap the overall score regardless of how well other layers perform. A single veto prevents a site from appearing healthy when it has a fatal flaw:

Condition Cap Rationale
robots.txt blocks all of Googlebot or blocks / Overall capped at 1/10 Nothing else matters if Google can't crawl
> 20% of important pages have noindex accidentally Overall capped at 3/10 Most of the site is invisible to search
All three Core Web Vitals are "Poor" Technical capped at 3/10 Google deprioritizes sites with terrible UX
Zero external backlinks (entire domain) Link Profile capped at 2/10 No external authority signal exists
Site serves HTTP without redirect to HTTPS Technical capped at 4/10 Google requires HTTPS for trust signals
Google manual action active Overall capped at 2/10 Penalty overrides all optimization

Check veto conditions before scoring layers. If any veto fires, flag it prominently in the executive summary and cap the relevant score.

Output Format

SEO Audit: [domain]

Overall Health Score: [score]/10

Executive Summary 3-5 sentences covering: the site's biggest strength, the most critical issue, and the highest-impact opportunity.

Layer Scores

Layer Score Top Issue
Technical Foundation [x]/10 [one-line summary]
On-Page Optimization [x]/10 [one-line summary]
Content Quality [x]/10 [one-line summary]
Link Profile [x]/10 [one-line summary]
Competitive Position [x]/10 [one-line summary]

Critical Issues (fix immediately)

Issue Layer Affected Pages Impact Fix
... ... ... high ...

High-Priority Improvements (fix this month)

Improvement Layer Effort Expected Impact
... ... low/medium/high ...

Opportunities (plan for next quarter)

Opportunity Layer Description
... ... ...

Detailed Findings [Full findings organized by layer with specific evidence and recommendations]

90-Day Action Plan

Month 1: Fix the foundation

  • [Critical technical fixes]
  • [Quick on-page wins]

Month 2: Strengthen content

  • [Content gaps to fill]
  • [Pages to refresh]
  • [Internal linking improvements]

Month 3: Build authority

  • [Link building priorities]
  • [Competitive positioning moves]

Pro Tip: Try the free SEO Audit and Domain Authority Checker at seojuice.com for a quick automated baseline. For ongoing monitoring, SEOJuice MCP users can run /seojuice:seo-overview for live health scores with trends, /seojuice:site-health for technical topology, and /seojuice:competitor-analysis for competitive gaps.

how to use audit

How to use audit on Cursor

AI-first code editor with Composer

1

Prerequisites

Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:

  • Cursor installed and configured on your development machine
  • Node.js version 16.0+ with npm package manager (verify with node --version)
  • Active project directory or workspace where you want to add audit
2

Execute installation command

Execute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:

$npx skills add https://github.com/calm-north/seojuice-skills --skill audit

The skills CLI fetches audit from GitHub repository calm-north/seojuice-skills and configures it for Cursor.

3

Select Cursor when prompted

The CLI will show a list of available agents. Use arrow keys to navigate and space to select Cursor:

◆ Which agents do you want to install to?
│ ── Universal (.agents/skills) ── always included ────
│ • Amp
│ • Antigravity
│ • Cline
│ • Codex
│ ●Cursor(selected)
│ • Cursor
│ • Windsurf
4

Verify installation

Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:

.cursor/skills/audit

Reload or restart Cursor to activate audit. Access the skill through slash commands (e.g., /audit) or your agent's skill management interface.

Security & Verification Notice

We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.

Skills execute code in your development environment. Always verify the publisher's identity, review recent commits, and test in isolated environments before production deployment.

List & Monetize Your Skill

Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning

GET_STARTED →

Use Cases

User Story & Requirements Generation

Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs

Example

Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios

Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage

Competitive Analysis

Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps

Example

Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities

Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days

Roadmap Prioritization

Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs

Example

Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale

Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster

Stakeholder Communication

Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations

Example

Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement

Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead

Implementation Guide

Prerequisites

  • Claude Desktop or compatible AI client
  • Access to product documentation and roadmap tools (Jira, Notion, etc.)
  • Understanding of product management frameworks (RICE, Jobs-to-be-Done, etc.)
  • Stakeholder contact information and communication channels

Time Estimate

30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements

Installation Steps

  1. 1.Install product management skill
  2. 2.Start with user story generation for known feature
  3. 3.Progress to competitive analysis: research 2-3 competitors
  4. 4.Use for roadmap prioritization: apply RICE/ICE scoring
  5. 5.Draft stakeholder communications and refine based on feedback
  6. 6.Build template library for recurring PM tasks
  7. 7.Share effective prompts with product team

Common Pitfalls

  • Not validating competitive research—verify facts before sharing
  • Accepting user stories without involving engineering team
  • Over-relying on frameworks without qualitative judgment
  • Not customizing outputs to company culture and communication style
  • Skipping stakeholder validation of generated requirements

Best Practices

✓ Do

  • +Validate research and competitive analysis with real data
  • +Collaborate with engineering when generating technical requirements
  • +Customize frameworks and templates to your company context
  • +Use skill for first drafts, refine with stakeholder input
  • +Document successful prompt patterns for PM tasks
  • +Combine AI efficiency with human judgment and intuition

✗ Don't

  • Don't publish competitive analysis without fact-checking
  • Don't finalize user stories without engineering review
  • Don't make prioritization decisions solely on AI scoring
  • Don't skip customer validation of generated requirements
  • Don't ignore company-specific context and culture

💡 Pro Tips

  • Provide context: company goals, constraints, customer feedback
  • Ask for alternatives: 'Show 3 ways to prioritize this roadmap'
  • Request stakeholder-specific formatting: 'Executive summary vs. engineering spec'
  • Use skill for 70% generation + 30% customization to company needs

When to Use This

✓ Use When

Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.

✗ Avoid When

Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.

Learning Path

  1. 1Basic: user stories, feature specs, status updates
  2. 2Intermediate: competitive analysis, prioritization frameworks, PRDs
  3. 3Advanced: product strategy, go-to-market planning, OKR setting
  4. 4Expert: product vision, market positioning, business model innovation

Discussion

Product Hunt–style comments (not star reviews)
  • No comments yet — start the thread.
general reviews

Ratings

4.666 reviews
  • Amelia Dixit· Dec 28, 2024

    audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.

  • Pratham Ware· Dec 24, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Amelia Jackson· Dec 16, 2024

    We added audit from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Sofia Thomas· Dec 16, 2024

    audit fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.

  • Dev Verma· Dec 12, 2024

    I recommend audit for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.

  • Nikhil Desai· Dec 4, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

  • Ren Abebe· Nov 23, 2024

    We added audit from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Amelia Kapoor· Nov 19, 2024

    audit reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.

  • Sakshi Patil· Nov 15, 2024

    We added audit from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.

  • Neel Perez· Nov 7, 2024

    Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.

showing 1-10 of 66

1 / 7