@hanzlaa/rcode 4.3.2 → 4.4.0

package/rcode/skills/seo/on-page-seo-auditor/references/scoring-rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,525 @@
+# On-Page SEO Scoring Rubric
+
+Detailed scoring criteria for each of the 8 audit sections. Use this rubric to ensure consistent, objective scoring across audits.
+
+## How to Use This Rubric
+
+1. Score each section independently using the criteria below
+2. Apply the section weight to calculate the weighted score
+3. Sum all weighted scores for the overall page score (out of 100)
+4. Use calibration examples to verify your scoring is consistent
+
+## Section 1: Title Tag (Weight: 15%, Max: 15 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Keyword presence | 3 | Primary keyword appears in title |
+| Keyword position | 2 | Primary keyword in first half of title |
+| Length optimization | 2 | Between 50-60 characters |
+| Uniqueness | 2 | Title is unique across the site |
+| Compelling copy | 2 | Includes benefit, modifier, or hook |
+| Intent match | 2 | Title matches search intent accurately |
+| Brand inclusion | 1 | Brand name present (at end) |
+| No truncation risk | 1 | Displays fully in SERP without cutoff |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 15/15 (Excellent)**:
+- Title: "Keyword Research: 7 Proven Methods to Find Low-Competition Keywords | Brand"
+- 58 characters, keyword at front, benefit-driven, unique, brand at end
+
+**Score 11/15 (Good)**:
+- Title: "The Complete Guide to Keyword Research for Beginners"
+- 52 characters, keyword present but not at front, no brand, still compelling
+
+**Score 7/15 (Needs Work)**:
+- Title: "Keyword Research"
+- Too short (16 chars), no benefit, no brand, not compelling, generic
+
+**Score 3/15 (Poor)**:
+- Title: "Blog Post #47 - Untitled"
+- No keyword, no benefit, not descriptive, not unique
+
+**Score 0/15 (Missing)**:
+- No title tag present, or title tag is empty
+
+## Section 2: Meta Description (Weight: 5%, Max: 5 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Keyword inclusion | 1 | Primary keyword appears naturally |
+| Length optimization | 1 | Between 150-160 characters |
+| Call-to-action | 1 | Contains explicit or implicit CTA |
+| Unique description | 1 | Not duplicated from other pages |
+| Accurate summary | 1 | Accurately describes page content |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 5/5 (Excellent)**:
+- Description: "Learn 7 proven keyword research methods that top SEOs use to find low-competition opportunities. Includes free templates, real examples, and step-by-step walkthroughs. Get started today."
+- 155 chars, keyword present, CTA ("Get started"), accurate, unique
+
+**Score 3/5 (Needs Work)**:
+- Description: "This page talks about keyword research and some tips you might find useful for SEO."
+- 83 chars (too short), weak copy, no CTA, vague
+
+**Score 0/5 (Missing)**:
+- No meta description set; search engine generates snippet automatically
+
+## Section 3: Header Structure (Weight: 10%, Max: 10 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Single H1 present | 2 | Exactly one H1 on the page |
+| H1 contains keyword | 2 | Primary keyword in H1 text |
+| Logical hierarchy | 2 | No skipped levels (H1→H2→H3, not H1→H3) |
+| H2s cover key subtopics | 2 | H2s address main topic facets |
+| Descriptive headers | 1 | Headers describe section content clearly |
+| Keyword variations in H2s | 1 | Secondary keywords or LSI terms in subheadings |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 10/10 (Excellent)**:
+```
+H1: How to Do Keyword Research: A Step-by-Step Guide
+  H2: What Is Keyword Research and Why Does It Matter?
+  H2: 7 Keyword Research Methods That Work
+    H3: Method 1: Seed Keyword Brainstorming
+    H3: Method 2: Competitor Keyword Analysis
+    H3: Method 3: Google Autocomplete Mining
+  H2: Free Keyword Research Tools Compared
+  H2: How to Prioritize Keywords by Difficulty
+  H2: Keyword Research FAQ
+```
+- Single H1 with keyword, logical hierarchy, descriptive H2s with variations
+
+**Score 6/10 (Needs Work)**:
+```
+H1: Keyword Research
+H2: Introduction
+H2: Methods
+H2: Tools
+H2: Conclusion
+```
+- Single H1 but generic, H2s are vague, no keyword variations
+
+**Score 2/10 (Poor)**:
+```
+H1: Welcome to Our Blog
+H1: Keyword Research Guide
+H3: Some Tips
+H2: More Information
+```
+- Multiple H1s, skipped levels, generic, no keyword strategy
+
+## Section 4: Content Quality (Weight: 25%, Max: 25 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Sufficient length | 4 | Meets minimum for query type (see benchmarks) |
+| Comprehensive coverage | 4 | Covers all major subtopics that top-ranking pages cover |
+| Unique value | 4 | Original insights, data, or perspective not found elsewhere |
+| Up-to-date information | 3 | Statistics, dates, and references are current |
+| Proper formatting | 3 | Uses lists, tables, bold, images to improve readability |
+| Readability | 3 | Appropriate reading level for target audience |
+| E-E-A-T signals | 4 | Author byline, credentials, first-person experience, cited sources |
+
+### Content Length Benchmarks (for "Sufficient length" criterion)
+
+| Query Type | Minimum for 4/4 | Minimum for 3/4 | Minimum for 2/4 | Below 1/4 |
+|-----------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------|
+| Informational | 1,500+ words | 1,000-1,499 | 500-999 | <500 |
+| Commercial | 1,200+ words | 800-1,199 | 400-799 | <400 |
+| Transactional | 500+ words | 350-499 | 200-349 | <200 |
+| Local | 400+ words | 250-399 | 150-249 | <150 |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 25/25 (Excellent)**:
+- 2,400-word guide on keyword research
+- Covers all subtopics competitors cover plus unique methods
+- Contains original data from author's experiments
+- All statistics from the last 12 months
+- Well-formatted with tables, lists, images, code examples
+- Written at appropriate level for target audience
+- Author byline with SEO credentials, first-person "I tested" language
+
+**Score 16/25 (Good)**:
+- 1,600-word guide, covers main subtopics
+- Some unique insights but mostly curated information
+- Most statistics current, a few outdated
+- Good formatting but could use more visual elements
+- Author byline present but limited credentials
+
+**Score 8/25 (Needs Work)**:
+- 700-word article on an informational query (too thin)
+- Missing several subtopics competitors cover
+- No original data or insights
+- Several outdated statistics
+- Wall of text with minimal formatting
+- No author byline or E-E-A-T signals
+
+## Section 5: Keyword Optimization (Weight: 15%, Max: 15 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Keyword in title | 2 | Primary keyword in title tag |
+| Keyword in H1 | 2 | Primary keyword in H1 |
+| Keyword in first 100 words | 2 | Primary keyword appears early in content |
+| Keyword density (0.5-2.5%) | 2 | Natural density, not stuffed, not too sparse |
+| Secondary keywords present | 2 | 2-3 secondary/related keywords used |
+| LSI/semantic terms | 2 | Related terms and synonyms present |
+| Keyword in URL | 1 | Primary keyword in URL slug |
+| Keyword in image alt text | 1 | At least one image alt contains keyword naturally |
+| Keyword in meta description | 1 | Primary keyword in meta description |
+
+### Keyword Density Guidelines
+
+| Density | Score Impact | Assessment |
+|---------|-------------|-----------|
+| 0.5-1.0% | Full points | Natural, well-integrated |
+| 1.0-2.0% | Full points | Acceptable, slightly keyword-focused |
+| 2.0-2.5% | -1 point | Borderline, review for naturalness |
+| 2.5-3.0% | -2 points | Over-optimized, needs reduction |
+| >3.0% | 0 points for density | Keyword stuffing, immediate fix needed |
+| <0.5% | -1 point | Under-optimized, add more natural usage |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 15/15 (Excellent)**:
+- "keyword research" in title (position 1), H1, first sentence, URL slug, 1 image alt
+- Density: 1.2% across 2,000 words (24 occurrences, well-distributed)
+- Secondary keywords: "keyword tool", "search volume", "keyword difficulty" all present
+- LSI terms: "SEO", "search terms", "Google", "organic traffic", "SERP" present
+
+**Score 9/15 (Needs Work)**:
+- Keyword in title and H1, but not in first 100 words
+- Density: 0.3% (too sparse for a 2,000-word article)
+- Missing secondary keywords
+- No LSI/semantic terms beyond the primary keyword
+
+## Section 6: Internal/External Links (Weight: 10%, Max: 10 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Internal link count | 2 | 3-5+ contextual internal links (per 1,000 words) |
+| Internal link relevance | 2 | Links point to topically related pages |
+| Descriptive anchor text | 2 | Anchors describe destination, not "click here" |
+| External link quality | 2 | Links to authoritative, relevant external sources |
+| No broken links | 1 | All links return 200 status |
+| Link placement | 1 | Links placed naturally within content flow |
+
+### Internal Link Count Guidelines
+
+| Content Length | Minimum Links | Ideal Range | Too Many |
+|---------------|--------------|-------------|---------|
+| <500 words | 2 | 2-4 | >8 |
+| 500-1,000 words | 3 | 3-6 | >12 |
+| 1,000-2,000 words | 4 | 5-10 | >20 |
+| 2,000+ words | 5 | 8-15 | >25 |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 10/10 (Excellent)**:
+- 8 internal links in a 2,000-word article
+- All link to relevant related content
+- Anchor text like "learn about keyword difficulty scoring" (descriptive)
+- 3 external links to authoritative sources (Google documentation, industry studies)
+- Zero broken links
+
+**Score 5/10 (Needs Work)**:
+- 2 internal links in a 2,000-word article (too few)
+- One link uses "click here" anchor text
+- No external links to sources
+- One broken link found
+
+## Section 7: Image Optimization (Weight: 10%, Max: 10 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+#### Image alt text (WCAG 1.1.1 primary, SEO secondary)
+
+**Primary requirement (WCAG 1.1.1)**: every non-decorative image has alt text that is a **functional description** of the image content. A screen-reader user must get equivalent information.
+
+**Secondary (SEO)**: if the image relates to the page's primary keyword and the keyword appears naturally in a functional description, good. Never stuff.
+
+**Scoring**:
+- PASS: descriptive alt present on all content images; natural keyword inclusion where relevant
+- PARTIAL: descriptive alt present but some images missing alt; OR all alt present but some are keyword-stuffed
+- FAIL: missing alt on content images, OR alt text is just "image of X" / keyword list / decorative filler
+
+Never (regardless of SEO benefit): keyword stuffing, generic "image", missing alt on informational images.
+
+Reference: [WCAG 2.2 Success Criterion 1.1.1](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/non-text-content).
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Descriptive file names | 1 | Files named descriptively (keyword-research-tool.webp, not IMG_4532.jpg) |
+| Optimized file sizes | 2 | Images compressed appropriately (<200KB for photos, <50KB for graphics) |
+| Modern formats | 1 | Uses WebP or AVIF where supported |
+| Lazy loading | 1 | Below-fold images use loading="lazy" |
+
+### Image Size Guidelines
+
+| Image Type | Target Size | Format | Notes |
+|-----------|------------|--------|-------|
+| Hero/banner | <200KB | WebP | Resize to actual display dimensions |
+| Content photos | <150KB | WebP | Compress at 80% quality |
+| Screenshots | <100KB | WebP/PNG | Use PNG only if text clarity critical |
+| Icons/graphics | <30KB | SVG/WebP | SVG preferred for vector graphics |
+| Thumbnails | <50KB | WebP | Generate at actual thumbnail dimensions |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 10/10 (Excellent)**:
+- 5 images, all with descriptive alt text
+- Alt text: "screenshot of Ahrefs keyword research tool showing difficulty score"
+- Files named: keyword-research-tool-ahrefs.webp
+- All images <150KB, WebP format, lazy loading on below-fold images
+
+**Score 4/10 (Needs Work)**:
+- 3 images, 1 missing alt text
+- Alt text on others: "image1", "screenshot" (not descriptive)
+- Files named: IMG_3421.jpg, photo.png
+- One image is 1.2MB uncompressed JPEG
+
+## Section 8: Page-Level Technical (Weight: 10%, Max: 10 points)
+
+### Scoring Criteria
+
+| Criterion | Points | Requirement |
+|-----------|--------|-------------|
+| Clean URL structure | 2 | Short, descriptive, keyword-containing URL |
+| Correct canonical tag | 2 | Self-referencing canonical or appropriate cross-domain canonical |
+| Mobile-friendly | 2 | Passes mobile-friendly test, responsive layout |
+| Page speed (LCP) | 2 | LCP ≤2.5s on mobile |
+| HTTPS | 1 | Page served over HTTPS with valid certificate |
+| Schema markup | 1 | Appropriate schema type implemented (Article, FAQ, HowTo, etc.) |
+
+### URL Quality Guidelines
+
+| Aspect | Good | Bad |
+|--------|------|-----|
+| Length | /blog/keyword-research-guide | /blog/2024/01/15/the-complete-ultimate-guide-to-keyword-research-for-beginners-and-experts |
+| Keywords | /services/seo-audit | /services/page-id-4532 |
+| Characters | lowercase, hyphens | UPPERCASE, underscores, special chars |
+| Parameters | /products/shoes (clean) | /products?id=432&color=red&size=9 |
+
+### Calibration Examples
+
+**Score 10/10 (Excellent)**:
+- URL: /blog/keyword-research-guide (clean, keyword-present)
+- Self-referencing canonical tag present
+- Fully responsive, passes mobile-friendly test
+- LCP: 1.8s on mobile
+- HTTPS with valid certificate
+- Article + FAQ schema implemented
+
+**Score 5/10 (Needs Work)**:
+- URL: /blog/?p=4532 (not descriptive)
+- No canonical tag
+- Mobile-friendly but some tap targets too small
+- LCP: 3.2s (needs improvement)
+- HTTPS present
+- No schema markup
+
+## Overall Score Calculation
+
+### Formula
+
+```
+Overall Score = Sum of (Section Score / Section Max * Section Weight * 100)
+```
+
+### Example Calculation
+
+| Section | Raw Score | Max | Weight | Weighted Score |
+|---------|-----------|-----|--------|---------------|
+| Title Tag | 12 | 15 | 15% | 12.0 |
+| Meta Description | 4 | 5 | 5% | 4.0 |
+| Header Structure | 8 | 10 | 10% | 8.0 |
+| Content Quality | 20 | 25 | 25% | 20.0 |
+| Keyword Optimization | 11 | 15 | 15% | 11.0 |
+| Internal/External Links | 7 | 10 | 10% | 7.0 |
+| Image Optimization | 6 | 10 | 10% | 6.0 |
+| Page-Level Technical | 8 | 10 | 10% | 8.0 |
+| **Total** | | | **100%** | **76.0/100** |
+
+### Overall Score Interpretation
+
+| Score Range | Grade | Assessment |
+|------------|-------|-----------|
+| 90-100 | A+ | Exceptional — minor tweaks only |
+| 80-89 | A | Strong — a few optimization opportunities |
+| 70-79 | B | Good — several areas need attention |
+| 60-69 | C | Average — significant improvements needed |
+| 50-59 | D | Below average — major issues present |
+| <50 | F | Poor — comprehensive overhaul required |
+
+## Calibration Guidance
+
+### Avoiding Common Scoring Errors
+
+1. **Halo effect**: A great title does not mean great content. Score each section independently.
+2. **Recency bias**: Do not inflate scores for recently published content. Freshness is one factor among many.
+3. **Tool dependency**: If you cannot verify a metric (e.g., page speed without tool access), note it as "unverified" rather than guessing.
+4. **Competitor anchoring**: Score against the rubric criteria, not relative to competitors. Competitor comparison is a separate analysis step.
+5. **Intent mismatch**: A page with perfect technical SEO but wrong intent alignment should still score low on Content Quality.
+
+### When to Adjust Weights
+
+The default weights suit most content pages. Consider adjusting for:
+
+| Page Type | Increase Weight | Decrease Weight | Reason |
+|-----------|----------------|----------------|--------|
+| E-commerce product | Image Optimization, Technical | Content Quality | Products need visuals and speed more than long-form |
+| Long-form guide | Content Quality, Keywords | Image Optimization | Content depth matters most |
+| Landing page | Technical, Title | Content Quality | Speed and CTR drive conversions |
+| Local service page | Technical, Links | Keywords | NAP consistency and local signals matter more |
+
+Always document weight adjustments and the reasoning in the audit report.
+
+---
+
+## Scoring Rubric
+
+### Section Weight Distribution
+
+| Audit Section | Weight | Max Score | Rationale |
+|--------------|--------|-----------|-----------|
+| Title Tag | 15% | 15 | Strongest single ranking signal |
+| Meta Description | 5% | 5 | CTR impact, not direct ranking factor |
+| Header Structure | 10% | 10 | Content organization, semantic signals |
+| Content Quality | 25% | 25 | Strongest holistic ranking factor |
+| Keyword Optimization | 15% | 15 | Relevance signals |
+| Internal/External Links | 10% | 10 | Authority flow, context signals |
+| Image Optimization | 10% | 10 | Accessibility + image search opportunity |
+| Page-Level Technical | 10% | 10 | Core Web Vitals, mobile, security |
+
+### Scoring Scale per Factor
+
+| Score | Meaning | Action Required |
+|-------|---------|-----------------|
+| 10/10 | Excellent — follows all best practices | None |
+| 7-9/10 | Good — minor improvements possible | Optional optimization |
+| 4-6/10 | Needs work — notable issues | Fix within this week |
+| 1-3/10 | Poor — significant problems | Fix immediately (Critical) |
+| 0/10 | Missing or broken | Fix immediately (Blocking) |
+
+### Scoring Conversion Formula
+
+Each section is scored out of 10, then converted to the 100-point overall score using section weights:
+
+```
+Overall Score = Sum of (section_score x section_weight) x 10
+```
+
+Where section weights are: Title 0.15, Meta 0.05, Headers 0.10, Content 0.25, Keywords 0.15, Links 0.10, Images 0.10, Technical 0.10.
+
+**Worked example:**
+
+| Section | Score /10 | Weight | Weighted |
+|---------|-----------|--------|----------|
+| Title Tag | 8 | 0.15 | 1.20 |
+| Meta Description | 6 | 0.05 | 0.30 |
+| Header Structure | 9 | 0.10 | 0.90 |
+| Content Quality | 7 | 0.25 | 1.75 |
+| Keyword Optimization | 8 | 0.15 | 1.20 |
+| Internal/External Links | 5 | 0.10 | 0.50 |
+| Image Optimization | 6 | 0.10 | 0.60 |
+| Page-Level Technical | 7 | 0.10 | 0.70 |
+| **Total** | | **1.00** | **7.15** |
+
+**Overall Score** = 7.15 x 10 = **71 / 100**
+
+## Common Issue Resolution Playbook
+
+### Title Tag Issues
+
+| Issue | Impact | Quick Fix Template |
+|-------|--------|-------------------|
+| Missing title | Critical | Add: "[Primary Keyword]: [Benefit] | [Brand]" |
+| Too long (>60 chars) | Medium | Shorten: move brand to end, remove filler words |
+| Too short (<30 chars) | Medium | Expand: add modifier, benefit, or year |
+| Missing keyword | High | Rewrite to include primary keyword in first half |
+| Duplicate title | High | Make each page title unique; add page-specific modifier |
+
+### Meta Description Issues
+
+| Issue | Impact | Quick Fix Template |
+|-------|--------|-------------------|
+| Missing description | Medium | Write: "[What this page covers]. [Key benefit]. [CTA]." (150-160 chars) |
+| Too long (>160 chars) | Low | Trim from end; ensure core message fits in 150 chars |
+| Missing keyword | Low | Naturally incorporate primary keyword |
+| No CTA | Low | Add: "Learn more", "Discover", "Find out", "Get started" |
+| Duplicated across pages | Medium | Write unique description for each page |
+
+### Header Issues
+
+| Issue | Impact | Quick Fix |
+|-------|--------|-----------|
+| Missing H1 | Critical | Add one H1 per page containing primary keyword |
+| Multiple H1s | High | Keep one H1, convert others to H2 |
+| Skipped heading levels | Medium | Use sequential hierarchy: H1→H2→H3 |
+| Headers not descriptive | Medium | Rewrite to include keyword variations |
+| No H2s (single long block) | Medium | Break content into sections with descriptive H2s every 200-300 words |
+
+### Content Issues
+
+| Issue | Impact | Quick Fix |
+|-------|--------|-----------|
+| Thin content (<300 words) | Critical | Expand with subtopics, FAQ, examples |
+| Keyword stuffing (>3%) | High | Reduce usage, use synonyms and related terms |
+| No structured data | Medium | Add relevant schema (FAQ, HowTo, Article) |
+| Missing internal links | Medium | Add 3-5 contextual internal links |
+| No images | Low | Add 2-3 relevant images with alt text |
+
+## Industry Benchmark Data
+
+### Content Length Benchmarks by Query Type
+
+| Query Type | Top 10 Average Word Count | Recommended Minimum |
+|-----------|--------------------------|-------------------|
+| Informational (guides) | 2,200 words | 1,500 words |
+| Commercial (reviews) | 1,800 words | 1,200 words |
+| Transactional (product) | 800 words | 500 words |
+| Local (service pages) | 600 words | 400 words |
+| Definition queries | 1,200 words | 800 words |
+
+### Page Speed Benchmarks
+
+| Metric | Good | Needs Improvement | Poor |
+|--------|------|-------------------|------|
+| LCP | ≤2.5s | 2.5-4.0s | >4.0s |
+| FID/INP | ≤100ms/200ms | 100-300ms | >300ms |
+| CLS | ≤0.1 | 0.1-0.25 | >0.25 |
+| TTFB | ≤800ms | 800-1800ms | >1800ms |
+
+## Accessibility requirements (WCAG 2.2 AA)
+
+> U.S. private commercial websites face ADA Title III web-accessibility exposure that remains circuit-split at the federal level; DOJ's 2024 Title II rule binds state/local government sites, not private commercial sites. WCAG 2.2 AA is the de-facto conformance target cited in most settlements and consent decrees. EU sites face EN 301 549 / European Accessibility Act (2025) obligations. **Not legal advice.** The criteria below reflect audit practice and observable enforcement patterns (UsableNet 2024: 4,605 web accessibility lawsuits), not a federal bright-line rule.
+
+The following WCAG 2.2 AA criteria are in-scope for on-page SEO audits:
+
+| Criterion | Check |
+|---|---|
+| 1.1.1 Non-text content | All images have functional alt text |
+| 1.3.1 Info and relationships | Headings nested logically (no skipped H1→H3), no empty headings |
+| 1.4.3 Contrast (minimum) | Normal text ≥ 4.5:1 contrast with background; large text ≥ 3:1 |
+| 2.4.7 Focus visible | Keyboard focus indicator visible on all interactive elements |
+| 4.1.2 Name, role, value | ARIA labels on custom controls; form fields have accessible names |
+
+Failing these items is both an SEO signal (Google uses a11y signals in rankings) AND a legal risk. Flag as HIGH priority.
+

package/rcode/skills/seo/rank-and-rent-local-seo/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+---
+name: rank-and-rent-local-seo
+description: Playbook for building rank-and-rent "digital real estate" — pick a high-CPC local service niche, mine the long-tail subniches bigger companies ignore, mass-produce subniche×city pages, rank them, and monetize the calls/leads. Orchestrates the existing SEO skill set rather than re-doing it. Use when the user wants to start a local lead-gen / rank-and-rent site, find an SEO money niche, or systematically build out a local service vertical.
+---
+
+# Rank-and-Rent Local SEO
+
+**Build it once, rank it, rent the leads. A repeatable system for turning a high-value local service niche into recurring income — without paying per click.**
+
+## Description
+This is a *strategy* skill (an SOP), not a new tool. The mechanics — keyword research, competitor analysis, content generation, programmatic pages, schema, internal linking — already live in dedicated skills. This skill encodes the **business playbook** that decides *which niche, which keywords, which pages, and how to get paid*, then chains the existing skills to execute it.
+
+The core insight from the field: don't fight every agency for the head term (`water damage restoration <city>`). Go after the **middle and long-tail subniches** the big players ignore (`basement flooding cleanup`, `sewage backup cleanup`, `burst pipe water damage`), multiplied across many cities. High CPC on the head term proves the lead is valuable; the long-tail is where it's actually winnable.
+
+## When to Use
+- The user wants to start a rank-and-rent / "digital real estate" site or local lead-gen business.
+- The user is evaluating an SEO money niche (water damage, mold, roofing, towing, locksmith, personal injury, etc.).
+- The user wants to systematically build out a local service vertical across many cities.
+- The user asks "what subniches should I target" or "how do I monetize local SEO calls".
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+### Digital real estate
+You own/rank a property (the site). You rent it out — sell the calls/leads it generates to a local business, or run it as your own lead-gen asset. No inventory, no per-click cost once ranked.
+
+### CPC is a value signal, not a target
+A `$320` cost-per-click on `water remediation near me` means businesses pay ~$1,000 to acquire one call via ads. That same call has the same value when it comes from *your* ranked page — for free. High CPC = pick this niche. It does **not** mean chase that exact keyword.
+
+### Head vs. long-tail (the funnel)
+- **Head / top-of-funnel** (`water damage restoration <city>`): highest volume, brutal competition, everyone's there. Avoid as the entry point.
+- **Middle / long-tail subniches** (`basement flooding cleanup`, `appliance leak cleanup`, `ceiling water damage from upstairs leak`): lower volume each, high intent, ignored by big players, often with **available exact-match domains**. This is the wedge.
+
+### Subniche × city matrix
+One subniche × 100 cities = 100 pages. Pick winnable subniches, build them out across cities. The math compounds: even 10 calls/month at ~$300/call = ~$3k/month from one built-out niche.
+
+### The 90/91 rule
+Pick one niche and one subniche, then focus for 90 days without chasing shiny objects. Most failures are abandonment, not bad niches.
+
+## Workflow
+
+### Phase 1 — Niche selection (is the money here?)
+1. List candidate local-service niches with **emergency / high-ticket** demand.
+2. Use `keyword-research` + Google Keyword Planner to pull CPC and volume for the head terms.
+3. Keep niches where head-term CPC is high (lead value high) — see `rules/niche-selection.md`.
+
+### Phase 2 — Subniche discovery (where is it winnable?)
+1. Scoop the full keyword universe for the seed niche (Keyword Planner → 800+ ideas; download).
+2. Mine competitor **service-page menus**, People Also Ask, People Also Search, Reddit/forum threads with `competitor-analysis` + `serp-analysis`.
+3. Run the AI subniche prompt (`templates/subniche-research-prompt.md`) and reconcile with `content-gap-analysis` to find subniches **ignored by the big players**.
+4. Output: a ranked list of 5–10 target subniches. See `rules/subniche-discovery.md`.
+
+### Phase 3 — Build the matrix (mass pages)
+1. Choose the target cities (start with the cities a buyer already wants calls in).
+2. Generate subniche × city pages with `seo-site-builder` + `seo-content-factory`.
+3. Localize with `geo-content-optimizer` / `entity-optimizer`, add `schema-markup-generator` (LocalBusiness/Service), silo with `internal-linking-optimizer`.
+4. QA every page with `on-page-seo-auditor` + `technical-seo-checker`. See `rules/city-matrix-and-pages.md`.
+
+### Phase 4 — Rank & monetize
+1. Secure exact-match domains where cheap/available; consider GBP where the niche allows (see caveats).
+2. Track with `rank-tracker`; build authority with `backlink-analyzer` / `domain-authority-auditor`.
+3. Convert calls → income: rent the site, sell leads per-call, or flat monthly. See `rules/monetization.md`.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### Skills this playbook orchestrates
+| Skill | Used for |
+|-------|----------|
+| `keyword-research` | Seed keywords, CPC/volume, Keyword Planner scoop |
+| `competitor-analysis`, `serp-analysis` | Competitor service pages, SERP/PAA mining |
+| `content-gap-analysis` | Finding subniches the big players ignore |
+| `seo-site-builder`, `seo-content-factory` | Programmatic subniche×city pages |
+| `geo-content-optimizer`, `entity-optimizer` | Local relevance, NAP, "near me" intent |
+| `schema-markup-generator` | LocalBusiness / Service structured data |
+| `internal-linking-optimizer` | City/subniche silo structure |
+| `on-page-seo-auditor`, `technical-seo-checker` | Per-page QA |
+| `rank-tracker`, `backlink-analyzer`, `domain-authority-auditor` | Ranking + off-page |
+
+## File References
+- **Niche selection**: `rules/niche-selection.md`
+- **Subniche discovery**: `rules/subniche-discovery.md`
+- **City matrix & pages**: `rules/city-matrix-and-pages.md`
+- **Monetization**: `rules/monetization.md`
+
+## Integration
+- **Related Skills**: keyword-research, competitor-analysis, content-gap-analysis, seo-site-builder, seo-content-factory, geo-content-optimizer, schema-markup-generator, internal-linking-optimizer, rank-tracker, seo-growth-orchestrator
+- **Templates**: `templates/subniche-research-prompt.md`, `templates/service-city-page.md`
+
+## Validation Checklist
+- [ ] Niche chosen on lead-value evidence (CPC/volume), not gut feel
+- [ ] 5–10 long-tail subniches identified that big competitors ignore
+- [ ] Target city list defined (ideally backed by a real buyer)
+- [ ] Pages built via existing skills, not hand-rolled, and QA'd
+- [ ] A concrete monetization path chosen before scaling pages
+- [ ] Focus committed for 90 days on one niche/subniche (90/91 rule)