@clize/clize 0.35.3 → 0.35.4

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@clize/clize",
-  "version": "0.35.3",
+  "version": "0.35.4",
   "mcpName": "ai.clize/clize",
   "description": "The real-world capability layer for AI agents — domains, email, deploy, media, SEO/GEO. CLI + MCP.",
   "keywords": [

package/skills/clize-seo/SKILL.md

@@ -78,17 +78,32 @@ One free source comes before the paid ones: **the entry read's own gsc face** (
 `gsc.topQueries` / `newQueries` are Google's list of what it already considers you relevant for.
 On a site with history it is the best-fitted word source there is; on a new site it is empty.
 
-### 1.1 Competitor teardown — the only command that produces words
+### 1.1 The sweep — exhaust the competitor space once, then top it up
+
+`competitors` is the one command that hands you keywords you did not think of, and it is cheap
+enough to run to exhaustion — which no round had done before 2026-09-03: three sites, a dozen
+rivals torn down in total at `--limit 25`, ledgers of 40–60 rows on sites whose honest cell
+space is a few hundred. Do it once per site, and again whenever a product line is added:
 
 ```
-clize seo competitors rival-one.com rival-two.com --limit 25
+clize seo competitors a.com b.com c.com --limit 100        # one call per market: --locale
 ```
 
-Two or three competitors × `--limit 25` is 50–75 candidates for about $0.09 a domain, pre-filtered
-by the only filter that matters: somebody already ranks on them. Read `topKeywords[].keyword`,
-drop their brand terms, keep the rest. Pick rivals *your size or one step up* — a category
-leader's list is head terms you cannot have; the site ranking #4 on your queries hands you the
-reachable tail. Run this **first**, before writing down a keyword of your own.
+| step | size | cost |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| list every rival: every host on every SERP you have bought (`items[].host`) plus each product line's direct rivals — sites your size or one step up, not category leaders (their list is head terms you cannot have) | 15–25 domains | $0 |
+| `competitors --limit 100`, per relevant market | 1,500–2,500 keywords, ~800 after dedupe | ~$0.04 a domain |
+| `seo keywords` on all of them, one call per market | ~800 | ~$0.20 |
+| `seo serp` on every `attackable`, `no_volume` and `no_data` survivor (§5) | ~300 | ~$6 |
+| rows into the ledger, each with a verdict | 80–120 buildable | — |
+
+About $8 and one session, and the ledger goes from forty rows to a hundred-plus. Read
+`topKeywords[].keyword`, drop their brand terms, keep the rest. Two things the sweep is not: it
+is not re-run every round (the 30-day cache makes that free and pointless — top up with the new
+hosts each round's SERPs reveal), and it does not replace §1.2 (a rival's list is what *they*
+rank for; your capability cells are what *you* can serve). Expect the SERP step to kill a third
+to a half of the low-KD survivors — walls the difficulty score cannot see (§4): PDF→Excel at KD 0
+in five markets was Adobe and iLovePDF in all five. That is the funnel working, not failing.
 
 ### 1.2 Capability-surface enumeration — cross the axes, don't brainstorm
 
@@ -126,7 +141,7 @@ A round is a funnel with a known size and a known price — and there is no such
 "analysis round": every round ends in pages or in a blocker the human must clear (§10).
 
 ```
-30–100 candidates            (§1: competitor teardown + capability matrix)
+500–1,000 candidates once   (§1.1 sweep), then 30–100 a round (§1.2 matrix + top-ups)
    → seo keywords            price the whole list in one batched call
    → drop `wall`; keep `attackable`, `no_volume` and `no_data`   (§5: the SERP decides, not the volume table)
    → seo serp each survivor  the SERP check that KD cannot replace  (§4)
@@ -140,12 +155,13 @@ A round is a funnel with a known size and a known price — and there is no such
 | step | price | note |
 | --- | --- | --- |
 | `seo keywords`, 40 words | **~$0.10** | one batched call; per-word cost is negligible next to the fixed cost, so **always send the whole list at once** |
-| `seo competitors`, 3 domains × 25 | **~$0.28** | the cheapest words you will ever buy |
+| `seo competitors`, one domain × `--limit 100` | **~$0.04** | the cheapest words you will ever buy — a 20-domain sweep is under a dollar |
 | `seo serp`, one keyword | **~$0.02** | every survivor gets one, `no_data` cells included — 20–100 of these is $0.40–2.00 |
 | `seo check` | **free**, plus ~$0.005/word to price words it has never priced | the metrics are reused for 30 days, so a re-check costs nothing |
 | `seo spend` | **free** | itemized ledger of every charge — **copy it into the deliverable, never hand-tally** |
 
-**A complete cold start runs about $0.70–1.00.** That number is the *cost prior* — carry it.
+**The sweep is about $8, once; a round after it is about $1.** Those are the *cost priors* —
+carry them.
 
 Three behaviours follow, and all matter:
 
@@ -199,10 +215,10 @@ find out where every bet stands. `check` remembers the keyword list, the brand a
 property; it does not remember whether you shipped the page or sent the pitch, and it never
 will — it cannot measure those. That half of the state exists only here.
 
-| keyword | locale | sv | kd | serp verdict | intent | target page | page | placement | format | priority |
+| keyword | locale | sv | kd | serp verdict | intent | target page | page | placement | format · angle | priority |
 | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| openrouter alternative | en-US | 1,300 | 1 | listicle_window | commercial | /compare/openrouter/ | shipped:/compare/openrouter/, 08-30 | pitched: apidog roundup, 08-31 | comparison + pitch 8 roundups | P0 |
-| email api for ai agents | en-US | 0 (no_volume) | — | listicle_window | commercial | /inbox/ | shipped:/inbox/, 08-27 | none | landing + pitch 4 roundups | P0 |
+| openrouter alternative | en-US | 1,300 | 1 | listicle_window | commercial | /compare/openrouter/ | shipped:/compare/openrouter/, 08-30 | pitched: apidog roundup, 08-31 | comparison · *the only gateway that publishes its failover log* + pitch 8 roundups | P0 |
+| email api for ai agents | en-US | 0 (no_volume) | — | listicle_window | commercial | /inbox/ | shipped:/inbox/, 08-27 | none | landing · *an inbox the agent owns, not a Gmail it borrows* + pitch 4 roundups | P0 |
 | メッセージストリームでエラー | ja-JP | 2,900 | 0 | definition_wall (UGC) | informational | — | none | none | skip: Reddit/Zenn own it | — |
 
 - **`target page` is the intent; `page` and `placement` are the facts.** `target page` says which
@@ -216,8 +232,10 @@ will — it cannot measure those. That half of the state exists only here.
 - **A row with a page and no placement is half a bet.** Building the page and not placing it is
   manufacturing stock and never shipping it — the failure shape in the formula up top. The
   `placement` column is there so that half is visible at a glance instead of buried in prose.
-- **`target page` and `format` are part of the row.** "This keyword is good" is not a unit of
-  work; "write /compare/openrouter/ as a comparison page and pitch these eight roundups" is.
+- **`target page`, `format` and the angle are part of the row.** "This keyword is good" is not
+  a unit of work; "write /compare/openrouter/ as a comparison page and pitch these eight
+  roundups" is — and the angle (§7.1 ①) is the one line that says why that page and not a
+  competent copy of the occupants.
 - **Rows you decided against stay in the table**, with the reason. That is what stops the next
   session from re-buying the same keyword — and a `skip` row with a reason is a real finding.
 - **Opening the ledger on a site that already has analysis documents** (a plan, an older
@@ -299,6 +317,11 @@ run* — all six have been observed in real runs that read as finished.
    URLs, not qualified rows; a ledger of twenty rows and two pages is a session that spent itself
    on the analysis. Observed on kunavo: five rounds, five pages, three of the rounds at zero; and on clize.ai
    the opposite failure — eleven weeks in which no round ran at all. If a page costs a session, the first deliverable is the generator (§7).
+7. **Pages without a brief.** A page whose row names no occupant gap and no product asset is a
+   competent copy of the top 10, and at zero authority a competent copy does not rank: kunavo's
+   five model spec pages, built from the query alone against a page of opinion pieces, read zero
+   for three to eight weeks. The brief (§7.1 ①) is written before the page, and its angle sits in
+   the ledger row; no angle, no page.
 
 ---
 
@@ -576,7 +599,7 @@ pages built across two sessions, zero live. A session does not end with built, u
 
 | step | act | it passed if |
 | --- | --- | --- |
-| ① outline | derive structure from `serp`'s `items` (data you already paid for): page type from what the top 10 is, length ≈ closest-shaped rival × 1.1–1.2, topic list from what they cover plus the gap you fill | every H2 can name which SERP occupant or gap it answers; delete any H2 that can't |
+| ① brief | five fields, written into the row before a word of the page: **intent** — what the searcher wants, from the query, the shapes in the top 10, and Search Console when the site already earns on it (§4); **occupants** — open and *read* the top 3–5 pages, not their titles: structure, length, what each answers, promises and lacks (you fetch them yourself; there is no command for this and $0); **product truth** — what the product actually does for this intent (gate 3) and what only it has: first-party data, a working tool, a capability the occupants lack; **angle** — one sentence naming an occupant gap that a product truth fills; **form** — page type from what the top 10 is, length ≈ closest-shaped rival × 1.1–1.2, every H2 mapped to an occupant or a gap, the first 200 words, the FAQ in that market's phrasing. One brief per family; locale siblings change terminology and FAQ only | the angle names a gap *and* an asset — no angle, no page, and the row becomes `skip: no angle`. The three pages that worked had one (clize's OpenClaw page: "an inbox the agent owns" against two "borrow your Gmail" occupants; tabledi's Japanese dedupe: full-width forms, which a wall of tutorials never mentions; kunavo's 529 page: real failover numbers nobody on the page had); the five that read zero did not |
 | ② produce | skeleton from `build site start`, judgment from here, words and code from you | first 200 words answer the query completely; your definition sentence is verbatim-identical site-wide |
 | ③ self-check | against the spec sheet — there is deliberately no audit command | visible FAQ ↔ JSON-LD strictly 1:1; ≥2 internal links with varied anchors |
 | ④ deploy | ship it | page live, in sitemap |
@@ -696,17 +719,13 @@ the 3–5 questions your money pages answer in the engines themselves (~15 minut
 and note who gets named. Zero is a reading.
 
 **Do not build a citation-probe cron** — a saved prompt set fired at N engines on a schedule.
-Field-tested and rejected, for three reasons that don't age: self-authored prompts carry
-self-confirmation bias (hits on questions you wrote prove little about questions users ask); on
-a low-authority site the output is a flat zero line that still costs keys, spend caps and
-upkeep; and a scheduled measurement nobody is present to act on is inventory, not signal — one
-such cron sat dark for two weeks without a single decision changing, which is the whole case in
-one sentence. A probe earns its keep only once there is something to *attribute*: sustained AI
-referrals (tens per month, holding for two months), a real attribution question ("why does the
-engine name the competitor and not us?"), or a before/after comparison around a content-pack
-launch. Until one of those fires, referrers plus the spot-check are the honest instruments.
-And all AI-citation measurement is sampling — trust trends against your own baseline, never
-absolute share.
+Field-tested and rejected: self-authored prompts carry self-confirmation bias, a low-authority
+site's probe is a flat zero line that still costs keys and upkeep, and a measurement nobody is
+present to act on is inventory (one such cron sat dark for two weeks without a decision
+changing). A probe earns its keep only when there is something to *attribute* — sustained AI
+referrals, a real attribution question, a before/after around a launch. Until then, referrers
+plus the spot-check; and all AI-citation measurement is sampling — trends against your own
+baseline, never absolute share.
 
 ---
 
@@ -841,7 +860,8 @@ appeared, stop where none did, and keep enumerating cells the ledger has not pri
 
 **A round is a pipeline, and it opens by building.** ⓪ **ship the qualified batch** — every
 `to build` row from the last round and every plan cell with its own SERP verdict (§3), in every
-ledger file — before reading a single number, while the session's budget is whole → ① read the
+ledger file, each built from its brief (§7.1 ①) — before reading a single number, while the
+session's budget is whole → ① read the
 feedback (`check`, free) → ② allocate (double down / stop loss / new bet) → ③ execute what is
 cheap now (siblings, retargets, placement drafts) and write the rest as the next session's
 `to build` rows → ④ book it (§3) → ⑤ report it (two tables, below). This round's analysis
@@ -908,11 +928,11 @@ to fill in. That state lives in the ledger or nowhere.
 What the human reads ends with two tables, not with findings. First, **this round's pages** —
 every row the round touched, one line each:
 
-| keyword | locale | serp | target URL | type | status |
-| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
-| hreflang 生成 | ja-JP | open (small sites) | /ja/seo/hreflang-tag-generator/ | tool | built |
-| open webui api key | en-US | open | /docs/integrations/open-webui | integration doc | to build: generator first |
-| claude code preise | de-DE | official_wall | — | — | skip |
+| keyword | locale | serp | target URL | type | angle | status |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| hreflang 生成 | ja-JP | open (small sites) | /ja/seo/hreflang-tag-generator/ | tool | also emits the sitemap `xhtml:link` block — no occupant does | built |
+| open webui api key | en-US | open | /docs/integrations/open-webui | integration doc | the one setup page that states the model-routing limit | to build: generator first |
+| claude code preise | de-DE | official_wall | — | — | — | skip |
 
 `status` is one of `built` (shipped this round), `to build`, `exists` (a page already carries
 it), `skip` (with the reason). A `to build` row carries a blocker, and only three exist: