SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AB seo-content-audit

Audit existing content across a site to decide what to keep, update, merge, redirect, or delete. Use this skill whenever the user wants to audit existing content, fix content decay, resolve keyword cannibalization, prune underperforming pages, prioritize content updates, or apply a keep/update/merge/redirect/delete framework to a content library. Triggers on content audit, content decay, content refresh, cannibalization, keyword cannibalization, prune content, delete pages, redirect old pages, content inventory, what to keep, what to update, content scorecard, evergreen refresh. Also triggers when traffic is dropping site-wide and the cause might be content quality, even if 'audit' is not said explicitly.

rampstackco/claude-skills Agent Skills author: rampstackco 4 files body ≈ 1 892 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 8 h ago

Audit existing content across a site to decide what to keep, update, merge, redirect, or delete.

As a process B 75/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting

AnalyzerMarketingtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
75/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Failures and branches w 10
50
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 2 more places: claude-skills, claude-skills

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • 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 · 0

    ✓ No critical or high findings

    Files scanned: 4. 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 75/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 11 mutating operations with no state check
    • 50Failures and branches. 0 branches, has a failure section
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 68 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1892 tokens
    • low 11 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill

    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

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 714: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 17 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 68 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (1 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (2 of 2)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.