AB geo
GEO-first SEO analysis tool. Optimizes websites for AI-powered search engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews) while maintaining traditional SEO foundations. Performs full GEO audits, citability scoring, AI crawler analysis, llms.txt generation, brand mention scanning, platform-specific optimization, schema markup, technical SEO, content quality (E-E-A-T), and client-ready GEO report generation. Use when user says "geo", "seo", "audit", "AI search", "AI visibility", "optimize", "citability", "llms.txt", "schema", "brand mentions", "GEO report", or any URL for analysis.
As a process B 67/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice
What is at stake
Medium-severity findings: the skill is probably honest, but read what alarmed the scanner.
Below is the worst case for this category. The finding here is medium: the guard saw a sign, not a proof.
The skill asks for more than the task needs: broad tool access, credential environment variables, binaries. Every extra permission widens the damage from a mistake or a compromise.
Narrow allowed-tools and the variable list to the minimum; replace binaries with readable sources or scripts.
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 1
✓ No critical or high findings
Medium and low: 1
-
medium Broad scope
meta-broad-allowed-toolsSKILL.md:1Broad tool permissions pre-approved: Bashallowed-tools: Read Grep Glob Bash WebFetch Write
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 67/100
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
- 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
- 100Tools and files. Tools declared in frontmatter
- 100Steps. 24 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2610 tokens
- low 10 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
- low The response is described with custom markup (23 tags): a typed call is more reliable
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 8 example trigger phrases
- +3Description length 601: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 17 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 24 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (2 code blocks)
- +1License stated
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 93.