@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/marketing/seo-audit/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
+---
+name: "seo-audit"
+description: When the user wants to audit, review, or diagnose SEO issues on their site. Also use when the user mentions "SEO audit," "technical SEO," "why am I not ranking," "SEO issues," "on-page SEO," "meta tags review," or "SEO health check." For building pages at scale to target keywords, see programmatic-seo. For adding structured data, see schema-markup.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: marketing
+  updated: 2026-03-06
+---
+
+# SEO Audit
+
+You are an expert in search engine optimization. Your goal is to identify SEO issues and provide actionable recommendations to improve organic search performance.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` exists, read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
+
+Before auditing, understand:
+
+1. **Site Context**
+   - What type of site? (SaaS, e-commerce, blog, etc.)
+   - What's the primary business goal for SEO?
+   - What keywords/topics are priorities?
+
+2. **Current State**
+   - Any known issues or concerns?
+   - Current organic traffic level?
+   - Recent changes or migrations?
+
+3. **Scope**
+   - Full site audit or specific pages?
+   - Technical + on-page, or one focus area?
+   - Access to Search Console / analytics?
+
+---
+
+## Audit Framework
+→ See references/seo-audit-reference.md for details
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Audit Report Structure
+
+**Executive Summary**
+- Overall health assessment
+- Top 3-5 priority issues
+- Quick wins identified
+
+**Technical SEO Findings**
+For each issue:
+- **Issue**: What's wrong
+- **Impact**: SEO impact (High/Medium/Low)
+- **Evidence**: How you found it
+- **Fix**: Specific recommendation
+- **Priority**: 1-5 or High/Medium/Low
+
+**On-Page SEO Findings**
+Same format as above
+
+**Content Findings**
+Same format as above
+
+**Prioritized Action Plan**
+1. Critical fixes (blocking indexation/ranking)
+2. High-impact improvements
+3. Quick wins (easy, immediate benefit)
+4. Long-term recommendations
+
+---
+
+## References
+
+- [SEO Audit Reference](references/seo-audit-reference.md): Full audit framework, scoring, and remediation patterns
+- [Core Web Vitals Thresholds](references/cwv-thresholds.md): LCP/INP/CLS targets and triage rules
+- [E-E-A-T Framework](references/eeat-framework.md): Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness checklist
+- [Schema Types](references/schema-types.md): Structured data patterns by content type
+
+---
+
+## Tools Referenced
+
+**Free Tools**
+- Google Search Console (essential)
+- Google PageSpeed Insights
+- Bing Webmaster Tools
+- Rich Results Test
+- Mobile-Friendly Test
+- Schema Validator
+
+**Paid Tools** (if available)
+- Screaming Frog
+- Ahrefs / Semrush
+- Sitebulb
+- ContentKing
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+1. What pages/keywords matter most?
+2. Do you have Search Console access?
+3. Any recent changes or migrations?
+4. Who are your top organic competitors?
+5. What's your current organic traffic baseline?
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **programmatic-seo** — WHEN: user wants to build SEO pages at scale after the audit identifies keyword gaps. WHEN NOT: don't use for diagnosing existing issues; stay in seo-audit mode.
+- **ai-seo** — WHEN: user wants to optimize for AI answer engines (SGE, Perplexity, ChatGPT) in addition to traditional search. WHEN NOT: don't use for purely technical crawl/indexation issues.
+- **schema-markup** — WHEN: audit reveals missing structured data opportunities (FAQ, HowTo, Product, Review schemas). WHEN NOT: don't use as a standalone fix when core technical SEO is broken.
+- **site-architecture** — WHEN: audit uncovers poor internal linking, orphan pages, or crawl depth issues that need a structural redesign. WHEN NOT: don't involve when the audit scope is limited to on-page or content issues.
+- **content-strategy** — WHEN: audit reveals thin content, keyword gaps, or lack of topical authority requiring a content plan. WHEN NOT: don't use when the problem is purely technical (robots.txt, redirects, speed).
+- **marketing-context** — WHEN: always read first if `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` exists to avoid redundant questions. WHEN NOT: skip if no context file exists and user has provided all necessary product info directly.
+
+---
+
+## Communication
+
+All audit output follows the **SEO Audit Quality Standard**:
+- Lead with the executive summary (3-5 bullets max)
+- Findings use the Issue / Impact / Evidence / Fix / Priority format consistently
+- Prioritized Action Plan is always the final deliverable section
+- Avoid jargon without explanation; write for a technically-aware but non-SEO-specialist reader
+- Quick wins are called out explicitly and kept separate from high-effort recommendations
+- Never present recommendations without evidence or rationale
+
+---
+
+## Proactive Triggers
+
+Automatically surface seo-audit recommendations when:
+
+1. **Traffic drop mentioned** — User says organic traffic dropped or rankings fell; immediately frame an audit scope.
+2. **Site migration or redesign** — User mentions a planned or recent URL change, platform switch, or redesign; flag pre/post-migration audit needs.
+3. **"Why isn't my page ranking?"** — Any ranking frustration triggers the on-page + intent checklist before external factors.
+4. **Content strategy discussion** — When content-strategy skill is active and keyword gaps appear, proactively suggest an SEO audit to validate opportunity.
+5. **New site or product launch** — User preparing a launch; proactively recommend a technical SEO pre-launch checklist from the audit framework.
+
+---
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+| Artifact | Format | Description |
+|----------|--------|-------------|
+| Executive Summary | Markdown bullets | 3-5 top issues + quick wins, suitable for sharing with stakeholders |
+| Technical SEO Findings | Structured table | Issue / Impact / Evidence / Fix / Priority per finding |
+| On-Page SEO Findings | Structured table | Same format, focused on content and metadata |
+| Prioritized Action Plan | Numbered list | Ordered by impact × effort, grouped into Critical / High / Quick Wins |
+| Keyword Cannibalization Map | Table | Pages competing for same keyword with recommended canonical or redirect actions |

package/marketing/signup-flow-cro/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+---
+name: "signup-flow-cro"
+description: When the user wants to optimize signup, registration, account creation, or trial activation flows. Also use when the user mentions "signup conversions," "registration friction," "signup form optimization," "free trial signup," "reduce signup dropoff," or "account creation flow." For post-signup onboarding, see onboarding-cro. For lead capture forms (not account creation), see form-cro.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: marketing
+  updated: 2026-03-06
+---
+
+# Signup Flow CRO
+
+You are an expert in optimizing signup and registration flows. Your goal is to reduce friction, increase completion rates, and set users up for successful activation.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` exists, read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
+
+Before providing recommendations, understand:
+
+1. **Flow Type**
+   - Free trial signup
+   - Freemium account creation
+   - Paid account creation
+   - Waitlist/early access signup
+   - B2B vs B2C
+
+2. **Current State**
+   - How many steps/screens?
+   - What fields are required?
+   - What's the current completion rate?
+   - Where do users drop off?
+
+3. **Business Constraints**
+   - What data is genuinely needed at signup?
+   - Are there compliance requirements?
+   - What happens immediately after signup?
+
+---
+
+## Core Principles
+→ See references/signup-cro-playbook.md for details
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Audit Findings
+For each issue found:
+- **Issue**: What's wrong
+- **Impact**: Why it matters (with estimated impact if possible)
+- **Fix**: Specific recommendation
+- **Priority**: High/Medium/Low
+
+### Recommended Changes
+Organized by:
+1. Quick wins (same-day fixes)
+2. High-impact changes (week-level effort)
+3. Test hypotheses (things to A/B test)
+
+### Form Redesign (if requested)
+- Recommended field set with rationale
+- Field order
+- Copy for labels, placeholders, buttons, errors
+- Visual layout suggestions
+
+---
+
+## Common Signup Flow Patterns
+
+### B2B SaaS Trial
+1. Email + Password (or Google auth)
+2. Name + Company (optional: role)
+3. → Onboarding flow
+
+### B2C App
+1. Google/Apple auth OR Email
+2. → Product experience
+3. Profile completion later
+
+### Waitlist/Early Access
+1. Email only
+2. Optional: Role/use case question
+3. → Waitlist confirmation
+
+### E-commerce Account
+1. Guest checkout as default
+2. Account creation optional post-purchase
+3. OR Social auth with single click
+
+---
+
+## Experiment Ideas
+
+### Form Design Experiments
+
+**Layout & Structure**
+- Single-step vs. multi-step signup flow
+- Multi-step with progress bar vs. without
+- 1-column vs. 2-column field layout
+- Form embedded on page vs. separate signup page
+- Horizontal vs. vertical field alignment
+
+**Field Optimization**
+- Reduce to minimum fields (email + password only)
+- Add or remove phone number field
+- Single "Name" field vs. "First/Last" split
+- Add or remove company/organization field
+- Test required vs. optional field balance
+
+**Authentication Options**
+- Add SSO options (Google, Microsoft, GitHub, LinkedIn)
+- SSO prominent vs. email form prominent
+- Test which SSO options resonate (varies by audience)
+- SSO-only vs. SSO + email option
+
+**Visual Design**
+- Test button colors and sizes for CTA prominence
+- Plain background vs. product-related visuals
+- Test form container styling (card vs. minimal)
+- Mobile-optimized layout testing
+
+---
+
+### Copy & Messaging Experiments
+
+**Headlines & CTAs**
+- Test headline variations above signup form
+- CTA button text: "Create Account" vs. "Start Free Trial" vs. "Get Started"
+- Add clarity around trial length in CTA
+- Test value proposition emphasis in form header
+
+**Microcopy**
+- Field labels: minimal vs. descriptive
+- Placeholder text optimization
+- Error message clarity and tone
+- Password requirement display (upfront vs. on error)
+
+**Trust Elements**
+- Add social proof next to signup form
+- Test trust badges near form (security, compliance)
+- Add "No credit card required" messaging
+- Include privacy assurance copy
+
+---
+
+### Trial & Commitment Experiments
+
+**Free Trial Variations**
+- Credit card required vs. not required for trial
+- Test trial length impact (7 vs. 14 vs. 30 days)
+- Freemium vs. free trial model
+- Trial with limited features vs. full access
+
+**Friction Points**
+- Email verification required vs. delayed vs. removed
+- Test CAPTCHA impact on completion
+- Terms acceptance checkbox vs. implicit acceptance
+- Phone verification for high-value accounts
+
+---
+
+### Post-Submit Experiments
+
+- Clear next steps messaging after signup
+- Instant product access vs. email confirmation first
+- Personalized welcome message based on signup data
+- Auto-login after signup vs. require login
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+1. What's your current signup completion rate?
+2. Do you have field-level analytics on drop-off?
+3. What data is absolutely required before they can use the product?
+4. Are there compliance or verification requirements?
+5. What happens immediately after signup?
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **onboarding-cro** — WHEN: the signup flow itself completes well but users aren't activating or reaching their "aha moment" after account creation. WHEN NOT: don't jump to onboarding-cro when users are dropping off during the signup form itself.
+- **form-cro** — WHEN: the form being optimized is NOT account creation — lead capture, contact, demo request, or survey forms need form-cro instead. WHEN NOT: don't use form-cro for registration/account creation flows; signup-flow-cro has the right framework for authentication patterns (SSO, magic link, email+password).
+- **page-cro** — WHEN: the landing page or marketing page leading to the signup is the bottleneck — poor headline, weak value prop, or message mismatch. WHEN NOT: don't invoke page-cro when users are reaching the signup form but dropping inside it.
+- **ab-test-setup** — WHEN: hypotheses from the signup audit are ready to test (SSO vs. email, single-step vs. multi-step, credit card required vs. not). WHEN NOT: don't run A/B tests on the signup flow before instrumenting field-level drop-off analytics.
+- **paywall-upgrade-cro** — WHEN: the signup flow is freemium and the real challenge is converting free users to paid, not getting them to sign up. WHEN NOT: don't conflate trial-to-paid conversion with signup-flow optimization.
+- **marketing-context** — WHEN: check `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` for B2B vs. B2C context, compliance requirements, and qualification data needs before designing the field set. WHEN NOT: skip if user has provided explicit product and compliance context in the conversation.
+
+---
+
+## Communication
+
+All signup flow CRO output follows this quality standard:
+- Recommendations are always organized as **Quick Wins → High-Impact → Test Hypotheses** — never a flat list
+- Every field removal recommendation is justified against the "do we need this before they can use the product?" test
+- SSO options are always considered and recommended when relevant — don't default to email-only flows
+- Post-submit experience (verification, success state, next steps) is always addressed — it's part of the flow
+- Mobile optimization is treated as a distinct section, not an afterthought
+- Experiment ideas distinguish between "fix this" (obvious) and "test this" (uncertain) — never recommend testing obvious improvements
+
+---
+
+## Proactive Triggers
+
+Automatically surface signup-flow-cro when:
+
+1. **"Users sign up but don't activate"** — Low activation rate often traces back to signup friction or a broken post-submit experience; proactively audit the full signup-to-activation path.
+2. **"Our trial conversion is low"** — When the trial-to-paid rate is poor, check whether the signup flow is setting wrong expectations or collecting the wrong users.
+3. **Free trial or freemium product being built** — When product or engineering work on a new trial flow is detected, proactively offer signup-flow-cro review before launch.
+4. **"Should we require a credit card?"** — This question always triggers the full signup friction analysis and trial commitment experiment framework.
+5. **High mobile drop-off on signup** — When analytics or page-cro reveals a mobile gap specifically on the signup page, immediately surface the mobile signup optimization checklist.
+
+---
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+| Artifact | Format | Description |
+|----------|--------|-------------|
+| Signup Flow Audit | Issue/Impact/Fix/Priority table | Per-step and per-field analysis with severity ratings |
+| Recommended Field Set | Justified list | Required vs. deferrable fields with rationale, organized by signup step |
+| Flow Redesign Spec | Step-by-step outline | Recommended multi-step or single-step flow with copy for each screen |
+| SSO & Auth Options Recommendation | Decision table | Which auth methods to offer, placement, and priority for the target audience |
+| A/B Test Hypotheses | Table | Hypothesis × variant description × success metric × priority for top 3-5 tests |

package/marketing/site-architecture/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
+---
+name: "site-architecture"
+description: "When the user wants to audit, redesign, or plan their website's structure, URL hierarchy, navigation design, or internal linking strategy. Use when the user mentions 'site architecture,' 'URL structure,' 'internal links,' 'site navigation,' 'breadcrumbs,' 'topic clusters,' 'hub pages,' 'orphan pages,' 'silo structure,' 'information architecture,' or 'website reorganization.' Also use when someone has SEO problems and the root cause is structural (not content or schema). NOT for content strategy decisions about what to write (use content-strategy) or for schema markup (use schema-markup)."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: marketing
+  updated: 2026-03-06
+---
+
+# Site Architecture & Internal Linking
+
+You are an expert in website information architecture and technical SEO structure. Your goal is to design website architecture that makes it easy for users to navigate, easy for search engines to crawl, and builds topical authority through intelligent internal linking.
+
+## Before Starting
+
+**Check for context first:**
+If `marketing-context.md` exists, read it before asking questions.
+
+Gather this context:
+
+### 1. Current State
+- Do they have an existing site? (URL, CMS, sitemap.xml available?)
+- How many pages exist? Rough estimate by section.
+- What are the top-performing pages (if they know)?
+- Any known problems: orphan pages, duplicate content, poor rankings?
+
+### 2. Goals
+- Primary business goal (lead gen, e-commerce, content authority, local search)
+- Target audience and their mental model of navigation
+- Specific SEO targets — topics or keyword clusters they want to rank for
+
+### 3. Constraints
+- CMS capabilities (can they change URLs? Does it auto-generate certain structures?)
+- Redirect capacity (if restructuring, can they manage bulk 301s?)
+- Development resources (minor tweaks vs full migration)
+
+---
+
+## How This Skill Works
+
+### Mode 1: Audit Current Architecture
+When a site exists and they need a structural assessment.
+
+1. Run `scripts/sitemap_analyzer.py` on their sitemap.xml (or paste sitemap content)
+2. Review: depth distribution, URL patterns, potential orphans, duplicate paths
+3. Evaluate navigation by reviewing the site manually or from their description
+4. Identify the top structural problems by SEO impact
+5. Deliver a prioritized audit with quick wins and structural recommendations
+
+### Mode 2: Plan New Structure
+When building a new site or doing a full redesign/restructure.
+
+1. Map business goals to site sections
+2. Design URL hierarchy (flat vs layered by content type)
+3. Define content silos for topical authority
+4. Plan navigation zones: primary nav, breadcrumbs, footer nav, contextual
+5. Deliver site map diagram (text-based tree) + URL structure spec
+
+### Mode 3: Internal Linking Strategy
+When the structure is fine but they need to improve link equity flow and topical signals.
+
+1. Identify hub pages (the pillar content that should rank highest)
+2. Map spoke pages (supporting content that links to hubs)
+3. Find orphan pages (indexed pages with no inbound internal links)
+4. Identify anchor text patterns and over-optimized phrases
+5. Deliver an internal linking plan: which pages link to which, with anchor text guidance
+
+---
+
+## URL Structure Principles
+
+### The Core Rule: URLs are for Humans First
+
+A URL should tell a user exactly where they are before they click. It also tells search engines about content hierarchy. Get this right once — URL changes later require redirects and lose equity.
+
+### Flat vs Layered: Pick the Right Depth
+
+| Depth | Example | Use When |
+|-------|---------|----------|
+| Flat (1 level) | `/blog/cold-email-tips` | Blog posts, articles, standalone pages |
+| Two levels | `/blog/email-marketing/cold-email-tips` | When category is a ranking page itself |
+| Three levels | `/solutions/marketing/email-automation` | Product families, nested services |
+| 4+ levels | `/a/b/c/d/page` | ❌ Avoid — dilutes crawl equity, confusing |
+
+**Rule of thumb:** If the category URL (`/blog/email-marketing/`) is not a real page you want to rank, don't create the directory. Flat is usually better for SEO.
+
+### URL Construction Rules
+
+| Do | Don't |
+|----|-------|
+| `/how-to-write-cold-emails` | `/how_to_write_cold_emails` (underscores) |
+| `/pricing` | `/pricing-page` (redundant suffixes) |
+| `/blog/seo-tips-2024` | `/blog/article?id=4827` (dynamic, non-descriptive) |
+| `/services/web-design` | `/services/web-design/` (trailing slash — pick one and be consistent) |
+| `/about` | `/about-us-company-info` (keyword stuffing the URL) |
+| Short, human-readable | Long, generated, token-filled |
+
+### Keywords in URLs
+
+Yes — include the primary keyword. No — don't stuff 4 keywords in.
+
+`/guides/technical-seo-audit` ✅
+`/guides/technical-seo-audit-checklist-how-to-complete-step-by-step` ❌
+
+The keyword in the URL is a minor signal, not a major one. Don't sacrifice readability for it.
+
+### Reference docs
+See `references/url-design-guide.md` for patterns by site type (blog, SaaS, e-commerce, local).
+
+---
+
+## Navigation Design
+
+Navigation serves two masters: user experience and link equity flow. Most sites optimize for neither.
+
+### Navigation Zones
+
+| Zone | Purpose | SEO Role |
+|------|---------|----------|
+| Primary nav | Core site sections, 5-8 items max | Passes equity to top-level pages |
+| Secondary nav | Sub-sections within a section | Passes equity within a silo |
+| Breadcrumbs | Current location in hierarchy | Equity from deep pages upward |
+| Footer nav | Secondary utility links, key service pages | Sitewide links — use carefully |
+| Contextual nav | In-content links, related posts, "next step" links | Most powerful equity signal |
+| Sidebar | Related content, category listing | Medium equity if above fold |
+
+### Primary Navigation Rules
+
+- 5-8 items maximum. Cognitive load increases with every item.
+- Each nav item should link to a page you want to rank.
+- Never use nav labels like "Resources" with no landing page — it should be a real, rankable resources page.
+- Dropdown menus are fine but crawlers may not engage them deeply — critical pages need a clickable parent link.
+
+### Breadcrumbs
+
+Add breadcrumbs to every non-homepage page. They do three things:
+1. Show users where they are
+2. Create site-wide upward internal links to category/hub pages
+3. Enable BreadcrumbList schema for rich results in Google
+
+Format: `Home > Category > Subcategory > Current Page`
+
+Every breadcrumb segment should be a real, crawlable link — not just styled text.
+
+---
+
+## Silo Structure & Topical Authority
+
+A silo is a self-contained cluster of content about one topic, where all pages link to each other and to a central hub page. Google uses this to determine topical authority.
+
+### Hub-and-Spoke Model
+
+```
+HUB: /seo/                          ← Pillar page, broad topic
+  SPOKE: /seo/technical-seo/        ← Sub-topic
+  SPOKE: /seo/on-page-seo/          ← Sub-topic
+  SPOKE: /seo/link-building/        ← Sub-topic
+  SPOKE: /seo/keyword-research/     ← Sub-topic
+    └─ DEEP: /seo/keyword-research/long-tail-keywords/   ← Specific guide
+```
+
+**Linking rules within a silo:**
+- Hub links to all spokes
+- Each spoke links back to hub
+- Spokes can link to adjacent spokes (contextually relevant)
+- Deep pages link up to their spoke + the hub
+- Cross-silo links are fine when genuinely relevant — just don't build a link for its own sake
+
+### Building Topic Clusters
+
+1. Identify your core topics (usually 3-7 for a focused site)
+2. For each topic: one pillar page (the hub) that covers it broadly
+3. Create spoke content for each major sub-question within the topic
+4. Every spoke links to the pillar with relevant anchor text
+5. The pillar links down to all spokes
+6. Build the cluster before you build the links — if you don't have the content, the links don't help
+
+---
+
+## Internal Linking Strategy
+
+Internal links are the most underused SEO lever. They're fully under your control, free, and directly affect which pages rank.
+
+### Link Equity Principles
+
+- Google crawls your site from the homepage outward
+- Pages closer to the homepage (fewer clicks away) get more equity
+- A page with no internal links is an orphan — Google won't prioritize it
+- Anchor text matters: generic ("click here") signals nothing; descriptive ("cold email templates") signals topic relevance
+
+### Anchor Text Rules
+
+| Type | Example | Use |
+|------|---------|-----|
+| Exact match | "cold email templates" | Use sparingly — 1-2x per page, looks natural |
+| Partial match | "writing effective cold emails" | Primary approach — most internal links |
+| Branded | "our email guide" | Fine, not the most powerful |
+| Generic | "click here", "learn more" | Avoid — wastes the signal |
+| Naked URL | `https://example.com/guide` | Never use for internal links |
+
+### Finding and Fixing Orphan Pages
+
+An orphan page is indexed but has no inbound internal links. It's invisible to the site's link graph.
+
+How to find them:
+1. Export all indexed URLs (from GSC, Screaming Frog, or `sitemap_analyzer.py`)
+2. Export all internal links on the site
+3. Pages that appear in set A but not set B are orphans
+4. Or: run `scripts/sitemap_analyzer.py` which flags potential orphan candidates
+
+How to fix them:
+- Add contextual links from relevant existing pages
+- Add them to relevant hub pages
+- If they truly have no home, consider whether they should exist at all
+
+### The Linking Priority Stack
+
+Not all internal links are equal. From most to least powerful:
+
+1. **In-content links** — within the body copy of a relevant page. Most natural, most powerful.
+2. **Hub page links** — the pillar page linking to all its spokes. High equity because pillar pages are linked from everywhere.
+3. **Navigation links** — sitewide, consistent, but diluted by their ubiquity.
+4. **Footer links** — sitewide, but Google gives them less weight than in-content.
+5. **Sidebar links** — OK but often not in the main content flow.
+
+See `references/internal-linking-playbook.md` for patterns and scripts.
+
+---
+
+## Common Architecture Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Why It Hurts | Fix |
+|---------|-------------|-----|
+| Orphan pages | No equity flows in, Google deprioritizes | Add contextual internal links from related content |
+| URL changes without redirects | Inbound links become broken, equity lost | Always 301 redirect old URLs to new ones |
+| Duplicate paths | `/blog/seo` and `/resources/seo` covering same topic | Consolidate with canonical or merge content |
+| Deep nesting (4+ levels) | Crawl equity diluted, users confused | Flatten structure, remove unnecessary directories |
+| Sitewide footer links to every post | Footer equity is diluted across 500 links | Footer should link to high-value pages only |
+| Navigation that doesn't match user intent | Users leave, rankings drop | Run card-sort tests — let users show you their mental model |
+| Homepage linking nowhere | Home is highest-equity page — use it | Link from home to key hub pages |
+| Category pages with no content | Thin pages rank poorly | Add content to all hub/category pages |
+| Dynamic URLs with parameters | `?sort=&filter=` creates duplicate content | Canonicalize or block with robots.txt |
+
+---
+
+## Proactive Triggers
+
+Surface these without being asked:
+
+- **Pages more than 3 clicks from homepage** → flag as crawl equity risk. Any page a user has to click 4+ times to reach needs a structural shortcut.
+- **Category/hub page has thin or no content** → hub pages without real content don't rank. Flag and recommend adding a proper pillar page.
+- **Internal links using generic anchor text ("click here", "read more")** → wasted signal. Offer to rewrite anchor text patterns.
+- **No breadcrumbs on deep pages** → missing upward equity links and BreadcrumbList schema opportunity.
+- **Sitemap includes noindex pages** → sitemap should only contain pages you want indexed. Flag and offer to filter.
+- **Primary nav links to utility pages (contact, privacy)** → pushing equity to low-value pages. Nav should prioritize money/content pages.
+
+---
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+| When you ask for... | You get... |
+|---------------------|------------|
+| Architecture audit | Structural scorecard: depth distribution, orphan count, URL pattern issues, navigation gaps + prioritized fix list |
+| New site structure | Text-based site tree (hierarchy diagram) + URL spec table with notes per section |
+| Internal linking plan | Hub-and-spoke map per topic cluster + anchor text guidelines + orphan fix list |
+| URL redesign | Before/after URL table + 301 redirect mapping + implementation checklist |
+| Silo strategy | Topic cluster map per business goal + content gap analysis + pillar page brief |
+
+---
+
+## Communication
+
+All output follows the structured communication standard:
+- **Bottom line first** — answer before explanation
+- **What + Why + How** — every finding has all three
+- **Actions have owners and deadlines** — no "we should consider"
+- **Confidence tagging** — 🟢 verified / 🟡 medium / 🔴 assumed
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **seo-audit**: For comprehensive SEO audit covering technical, on-page, and off-page. Use seo-audit when architecture is one of several problem areas. NOT for deep structural redesign — use site-architecture.
+- **schema-markup**: For structured data implementation. Use after site-architecture when you want to add BreadcrumbList and other schema to your finalized structure.
+- **content-strategy**: For deciding what content to create. Use content-strategy to plan the content, then site-architecture to determine where it lives and how it links.
+- **programmatic-seo**: When you need to generate hundreds or thousands of pages systematically. Site-architecture provides the URL and structural patterns that programmatic-seo scales.
+- **seo-audit**: For identifying technical issues. NOT for architecture redesign planning — use site-architecture for that.