@stacksjs/defaults 0.75.109 → 0.75.110

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-ai-seo/references/content-types.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+# AI SEO by Content Type
+
+Tactical guidance for optimizing specific content types for AI search citation. These tactics work for non-Google AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot) and don't hurt Google AI Overviews / AI Mode.
+
+For the cross-cutting strategy, see [SKILL.md](../SKILL.md).
+
+---
+
+## SaaS Product Pages
+
+**Goal:** Get cited in "What is [category]?" and "Best [category]" queries. (Citation is the realistic goal here; being *recommended* in the answer depends on offsite consensus - see [citations-vs-recommendations.md](citations-vs-recommendations.md).)
+
+**Optimize:**
+- Clear product description in first paragraph (what it does, who it's for)
+- Feature comparison tables (you vs. category, not just competitors)
+- Specific metrics ("processes 10,000 transactions/sec" not "blazing fast")
+- Customer count or social proof with numbers
+- Pricing transparency (AI cites pages with visible pricing) - add a `/stacks-marketing-pricing.md` file so AI agents can parse your plans without rendering your page (see "Machine-Readable Files" in the main skill)
+- FAQ section addressing common buyer questions
+
+---
+
+## Blog Content
+
+**Goal:** Get cited as an authoritative source on topics in your space.
+
+**Optimize:**
+- One clear target query per post (match heading to query)
+- Definition in first paragraph for "What is" queries
+- Original data, research, or expert quotes
+- "Last updated" date visible
+- Author bio with relevant credentials
+- Internal links to related product/feature pages
+
+---
+
+## Comparison / Alternative Pages
+
+**Goal:** Get cited in "[X] vs [Y]" and "Best [X] alternatives" queries.
+
+**Optimize:**
+- Structured comparison tables (not just prose)
+- Fair and balanced (AI penalizes obviously biased comparisons)
+- Specific criteria with ratings or scores
+- Updated pricing and feature data
+- Cite the `stacks-marketing-competitors` skill for building these pages
+
+---
+
+## Industry / Segment Pages
+
+**Goal:** Get recommended when a prompt names an industry or company size ("email marketing software for e-commerce," "RFP software for government," "enterprise [category]"). Models increasingly sort brands into segments and personalize answers, so a generic page can lose to a competitor's segment page.
+
+**Optimize:**
+- One page per core industry or segment you actually serve, with industry-specific workflows, integrations, compliance, and customer proof
+- Start with core segments. Many pages are fine if each adds real, segment-specific value; templated pages that only swap the industry name are what the scaled-content policy targets (see the `stacks-marketing-programmatic-seo` skill)
+- Match the segment language used on your third-party profiles (see [positioning-and-consensus.md](positioning-and-consensus.md))
+
+---
+
+## Documentation / Help Content
+
+**Goal:** Get cited in "How to [X] with [your product]" queries.
+
+**Optimize:**
+- Step-by-step format with numbered lists
+- Code examples where relevant
+- HowTo schema markup
+- Screenshots with descriptive alt text
+- Clear prerequisites and expected outcomes
+
+---
+
+## Local Business / Ecom (Google emphasis)
+
+Google's AI features pull from product feeds and business profiles for local + ecom queries. Optimize:
+
+- **Merchant Center feeds** kept current with accurate inventory, pricing, attributes
+- **Google Business Profile** complete with hours, services, photos, posts, Q&A answered
+- **Reviews** - recent + sufficient volume; respond to reviews to signal active management
+- **Service area schema** for local services
+- **Business Agent** (where available) for conversational customer engagement

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-ai-seo/references/format-volatility.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# Format Volatility - Which Content Formats AI Cites (and How Fast That Changes)
+
+Citation-*source* volatility (Reddit wiped overnight, Gemini favoring owned sites) is covered in [agent-readiness.md](agent-readiness.md). This reference covers the second volatility axis: citation-*format* - which page types AI engines retrieve and cite, and the August 2026 evidence that heavily-exploited formats get demoted.
+
+Read this before recommending comparison pages, listicles, or "best X" content for AI visibility. The advice changed materially with ChatGPT 5.6.
+
+## The ChatGPT 5.6 format shift (August 2026)
+
+Data from Peec AI (shared by Tomek Rudzki via Lily Ray, Aug 2026), comparing ChatGPT retrieval behavior before and after the 5.6 launch:
+
+**Fan-out queries** - the modifiers that declined most as a share of ChatGPT's background searches:
+
+- "vs"
+- "comparison"
+- "top"
+- "best"
+- "reviews"
+
+At the same time: a surge in `site:` searches and modifiers like **"official"**.
+
+**Citations by page type** - share of total ChatGPT citations:
+
+| Page type | Pre-5.6 | Post-5.6 | Change |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| Listicles ("Top 10 X," "8 best Y") | 15.77% | 7.80% | **−50.5%** |
+| Comparison pages ("X vs Y," alternatives) | 9.08% | 6.17% | **−32.1%** |
+
+The interpretation (Lily Ray's, and it fits the fan-out data): these are exactly the two formats companies scaled for GEO over the prior 18 months, and ChatGPT adjusted retrieval to mitigate the spam. The `site:`/"official" surge points the same direction - **toward primary sources and owned domains, away from aggregator formats**.
+
+## What this changes (and what it doesn't)
+
+**It does NOT mean "stop making comparison pages."** Comparison and best-of content still:
+
+- Converts human buyers (its original job)
+- Gets cited by Google AI Overviews (which follow core rankings, not ChatGPT's retrieval)
+- Feeds Gemini and Perplexity, which haven't shown the same demotion
+- Answers real mid-funnel queries on your own site
+
+**It DOES mean:**
+
+1. **Stop justifying scaled listicle/comparison production with "it wins AI citations."** On ChatGPT - the largest AI answer surface - that rationale lost half its force in one release.
+2. **The "official"/primary-source shift favors your owned pages.** Product pages, docs, pricing pages, original research - the pages only you can publish - are rising as the citable class. This compounds the Gemini finding (business-owned sites ≈ 60% of citations).
+3. **Format strategy is now per-platform.** Check which engines matter for your category before choosing formats:
+
+| Format | ChatGPT (post-5.6) | Google AIO | Gemini | Perplexity |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Listicles / best-of | Demoted | Rankings-dependent | OK | OK |
+| Comparison / vs pages | Demoted | Rankings-dependent | OK | OK |
+| Original research + data | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong |
+| Product/docs/pricing (owned, "official") | **Rising** | Strong | **Dominant** | Strong |
+| How-to / guides | Steady | Strong | OK | Strong |
+
+*(Table caveat: the demotion was measured on ChatGPT only. "OK" for Gemini/Perplexity means no demotion has been reported there - not that stability was measured. Any engine can ship its own 5.6-style shift.)*
+
+4. **Treat every number above as a dated snapshot.** Same doctrine as source volatility: these are Aug 2026 measurements of a moving system. Verify against your own citation monitoring before betting budget.
+
+## LinkedIn as a citation surface
+
+LinkedIn is among the most-cited domains for professional queries, but the surface mix shifted during 2026 and differs by engine: ChatGPT moved from Pulse articles to feed posts, Perplexity and Copilot still cite articles and company pages, and Gemini barely cites LinkedIn at all. A post's first words still become its URL slug, so front-load the target phrase.
+
+Correction: LinkedIn's guide doesn't say Articles get ~60% of citations versus ~40% for Posts. It says articles, newsletters, and posts *combined* account for 60%. Third-party splits put Articles ahead overall (roughly 60-70% vs 25-35%), but not on ChatGPT anymore.
+
+Full breakdown by engine, crawler access, a `noindex` self-check, and what makes posts citable: [linkedin-ai-citations.md](linkedin-ai-citations.md).
+
+## DIY diagnostic: extract ChatGPT's real fan-out queries
+
+You don't need a tool to see what ChatGPT actually searches for in your niche (method circulating publicly, Aug 2026):
+
+1. Run an important query for your category in ChatGPT (with search).
+2. Open DevTools → Network tab, refresh the conversation (URL id after `/c/`).
+3. Find the conversation response payload and search it for `queries`.
+4. You'll see the literal background searches ChatGPT fanned out to.
+
+**Use it for:** building your query-test list from *real* fan-out behavior instead of guesses; checking whether your category's fan-outs still use "best/vs" modifiers or have shifted to `site:`/"official" patterns; finding sub-topics your content doesn't cover.
+
+**Then work backwards from the domains.** If the fan-out runs `site:` searches on third-party sources (Gartner, G2, Capterra) for your category, those profiles are your priority list, often ahead of new pages on your own site. See [positioning-and-consensus.md](positioning-and-consensus.md).
+
+**Do not use it for:** auto-generating and mass-publishing an article per fan-out query. That's the exact scaled-content pattern 5.6 demoted (and Google's scaled content abuse policy names). The diagnostic is for coverage planning, not content spam.
+
+## Measurement rigor: AI answers are non-deterministic
+
+A single ChatGPT answer is an anecdote, not a measurement - the same prompt returns different sources run-to-run. (The statistical-rigor framing here is popularized by Initial Commit's AEO audit skill, Josh Pigford, Aug 2026; the practice stands on its own.)
+
+When auditing or monitoring:
+
+- **Track prompts like keywords.** "I'm looking for the best X," "what is the best X," and "find me the best X" usually return the same brands. Collapse wording variants into one core prompt per intent, and spend the budget on repeat runs instead.
+- **Run each query 3-5 times per platform**, fresh session each time.
+- **Track mention/citation *rate*** ("cited in 3 of 5 runs"), never a yes/no from one run.
+- **Report the sample size** with every number ("40% mention rate, n=5") so future-you knows how much to trust it.
+- **Compare rates over time, not runs.** A drop from 4/5 to 3/5 is noise; a drop from 4/5 to 0/5 sustained across a month is signal.
+- Before diagnosing *why* you're not cited, split causes the way an audit should: **technical** (can't be crawled/parsed - see agent-readiness.md), **comprehension** (AI describes you inaccurately or vaguely), or **trust** (understood but not selected - see citations-vs-recommendations.md).
+
+---
+
+*Sources, all labeled and dated: Peec AI pre/post-5.6 citation data via Tomek Rudzki and Lily Ray (Aug 2026); LinkedIn's AEO guide numbers via Chris Long (Sep 2026, platform-reported); fan-out extraction method as publicly circulated (Aug 2026); measurement-rigor framing credited to Initial Commit's AEO audit skill (Josh Pigford, Aug 2026). All snapshots of a volatile system - verify against your own monitoring.*

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-ai-seo/references/linkedin-ai-citations.md

@@ -0,0 +1,131 @@
+# LinkedIn Content That Gets Cited by AI
+
+LinkedIn is one of the most-cited domains for professional and B2B queries. But which LinkedIn surface gets cited depends heavily on the engine, and the mix moved sharply during 2026. Treat every number here as a dated snapshot and check your own prompts.
+
+## Contents
+- Which Surface, Which Engine
+- Who Can Crawl What
+- What Makes LinkedIn Content Citable
+- Durability
+- Risks
+- Checklist
+- Sources
+
+---
+
+## Which Surface, Which Engine
+
+| Engine | What it cites from LinkedIn (2026) |
+|---|---|
+| **ChatGPT** | Shifted from Pulse articles to feed posts. Ahrefs data shows ChatGPT citations of `/pulse/` down ~86% and `/posts/` up ~74% between May and Oct 2026, with a ~36% overall LinkedIn drop in the mid-August retrieval change that also hit Reddit |
+| **Perplexity** | Largest raw count of LinkedIn citations in OtterlyAI's sample and our Ahrefs pull, with company pages the biggest share in Ahrefs. (Semrush, measuring the share of answers that cite LinkedIn at all, found it lower on Perplexity than on ChatGPT or AI Mode, so the ranking depends on the measure) |
+| **Copilot** | Cites LinkedIn heavily and increasingly (citations more than doubled May → Oct 2026, ~6.5× its Reddit citations). Pulse and posts both appear |
+| **Google AI Overviews / AI Mode** | Posts and Pulse both cited, plus company pages |
+| **Gemini** | Almost never cites LinkedIn (~0 in three separate datasets). Don't count on LinkedIn for Gemini visibility |
+| **Claude** | Its search crawler is allowed on articles, posts, profiles, and company pages; little published citation data |
+
+**What this means:**
+- Publish both: feed posts for ChatGPT, long-form articles for Perplexity, Copilot, and Google's AI features.
+- Maintain the company page as well as people's profiles. Perplexity cites company pages most; ChatGPT and AI Mode mostly cite individual members.
+- Skip collaborative articles (`/advice/`). They're effectively uncited now.
+
+**Our Ahrefs snapshot** (citations of linkedin.com URLs in Ahrefs' AI-responses data, pulled 2026-10-02; the prompt pool changes over time, so treat as directional):
+
+| Path | ChatGPT, May 1 | ChatGPT, now | Perplexity | AI Overviews | AI Mode | Copilot | Gemini |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| All linkedin.com | 239K | 185K | 787K | 352K | 292K | 154K (65K in May) | ~0.7K |
+| `/pulse/` articles | 22.7K | 3.3K | 84K | 43K | 51K | 23K | ~0 |
+| `/posts/` | 17.7K | 30.8K | 133K | 62K | 55K | 18K | 0 |
+| `/company/` | - | - | 474K | 51K | 41K | 15K | - |
+| `/in/` profiles | - | - | 103K | 12K | 13K | 15K | - |
+
+---
+
+## Who Can Crawl What
+
+LinkedIn's robots.txt (checked 2026-10-02):
+
+| Crawler | Articles, posts, profiles, company pages |
+|---|---|
+| Googlebot, Bingbot | Allowed |
+| OAI-SearchBot (ChatGPT search), Claude-SearchBot | Allowed |
+| GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-User, PerplexityBot, Perplexity-User, Google-Extended, CCBot | Blocked |
+
+So ChatGPT and Claude can cite LinkedIn from their search indexes, but their live "go read this page" agents can't fetch it. Perplexity cites LinkedIn most despite both of its bots being blocked, presumably through another index.
+
+**Check your own articles for `noindex`.** LinkedIn appears to noindex some Pulse articles, reportedly from low-follower or low-engagement accounts, and only for crawlers, so the logged-in author never sees it (one small test, n=3). Check both the robots meta tag and the `X-Robots-Tag` header on the final response, for each crawler you care about:
+
+```bash
+URL=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/your-article-slug
+for UA in Googlebot bingbot OAI-SearchBot; do
+  echo "== $UA"
+  curl -sIL -A "$UA" "$URL" | grep -iE '^(HTTP/|x-robots-tag)'
+  curl -sL -A "$UA" "$URL" | grep -ioE '<meta[^>]+name="(robots|googlebot|bingbot)"[^>]*>'
+done
+```
+
+A `noindex` in either place for a crawler means that engine's index likely won't carry the article. An absent tag isn't proof it's indexed; confirm with a `site:` search.
+
+---
+
+## What Makes LinkedIn Content Citable
+
+**Supported by independent data:**
+- **Engagement barely matters.** Likes and comments show almost no correlation with citation. The median cited post has 15-25 reactions; 100 reactions get cited about as often as 10,000.
+- **Follower count matters little.** Authors under 500 followers get cited, and about half of citations come from authors under 10K.
+- **Original over reshared.** About 95% of cited posts are original.
+- **Teach something.** Most cited posts share knowledge or advice.
+- **Consistency.** About 75% of cited post authors posted 5+ times in the prior four weeks.
+- **Length.** Cited articles are mostly 500-2,000 words; cited posts mostly 50-300 words.
+- **Recent.** About half of cited content is under three months old.
+
+**Vendor causal model (Scrunch, ~4K posts, treat as directional):** technical detail (+77%), named entities like tools, companies, and people (+33%), and a niche topic (+18%) raised citation. Unicode bold or italic text (−58%) and "link in comments" (−31%) lowered the post's own citations. The study is about ChatGPT, and it also found link-in-comments can help the linked page get cited, so it's a trade-off if your goal is citations for your own site.
+
+**Platform-reported (LinkedIn's guide, Mar 2026):** articles of 800-1,200 words, posts of 200-300 words, post 2-3 times a week. The guide also suggests 3,000+ followers and 10+ comments help, which the independent data above doesn't support.
+
+**Mechanics:**
+- A post's first words become its URL slug, so front-load the target phrase.
+- Structure articles like blog content: clear headings, a direct answer early, specific numbers and names.
+
+---
+
+## Durability
+
+- Citations can be durable for specific, low-competition prompts. One B2B writer's six Pulse articles were cited in 54-86% of 28 tracked runs over ~20 weeks for a niche prompt (Kaleigh Moore, Sep 2026, anecdote).
+- At the platform level they're volatile. One fixed-prompt study measured LinkedIn's share of AI answers falling ~65% from Feb to Jul 2026, while others measured it rising on Perplexity over the same months. Track by engine, and don't put all your third-party effort into LinkedIn (see the volatility section in [agent-readiness.md](agent-readiness.md)).
+
+---
+
+## Risks
+
+- **No canonical control.** LinkedIn sets its own canonical on articles, so a full republish of your blog post competes with your own page. Publish on your site first, then post an adapted version (rewrite a meaningful share of it) or a summary that links back.
+- **You don't own it.** LinkedIn decides indexing, can noindex articles, and changes formats. By default, US members' content can be used to train LinkedIn and Microsoft models.
+- **Gemini blind spot.** Visibility built on LinkedIn won't carry to Gemini.
+
+---
+
+## Checklist
+
+- [ ] Feed posts and long-form articles both in the mix, matched to the engines you care about
+- [ ] Company page complete and consistent with your About page (see [positioning-and-consensus.md](positioning-and-consensus.md))
+- [ ] Target phrase in a post's first words
+- [ ] Original, specific, technical content with named entities; no Unicode bold; decide deliberately where the link goes (in-post helps the post, in-comments may help the destination)
+- [ ] Articles checked for crawler `noindex`
+- [ ] Blog posts published on your own site first; LinkedIn version adapted, not duplicated
+- [ ] Citations tracked per engine, re-checked monthly
+
+---
+
+## Sources
+
+All dated; most are vendor studies running their own trackers, so none is fully neutral.
+
+- Profound, LinkedIn as most-cited domain for professional queries (Mar 2026): https://www.tryprofound.com/blog/linkedin-is-the-most-cited-domain-for-professional-queries-in-ai-search
+- Semrush, LinkedIn AI visibility study, 325K prompts (Mar 2026): https://www.semrush.com/blog/linkedin-ai-visibility-study/
+- OtterlyAI, LinkedIn AI search citations study, 1.31M citations (Jun 2026): https://otterly.ai/blog/linkedin-ai-search-citations-study/
+- Cloro, LinkedIn articles vs posts (Aug-Sep 2026): https://cloro.dev/blog/linkedin-articles-vs-posts/
+- Goodie, social media AI citations study (Sep 2026): https://higoodie.com/blog/social-media-ai-citations-study-2026/
+- Scrunch, LinkedIn posts and ChatGPT citations (May 2026): https://scrunch.com/blog/linkedin-posts-robots-cant-resist-what-data-says-about-chatgpt-citations
+- Mid-August 2026 ChatGPT source shift (Promptwatch, Petra Labs): https://somethinginc.com/blog/chatgpt-citation-sources-docs-replaced-reddit/
+- Ahrefs AI responses data by URL path, pulled 2026-10-02 (directional; the prompt pool changes over time)
+- LinkedIn robots.txt, fetched 2026-10-02; LinkedIn's AEO guide (Mar 2026)

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-ai-seo/references/okf.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Open Knowledge Format (OKF)
+
+Google's v0.1 markdown spec for representing site content as an agent-readable bundle. Introduced on the [Google Cloud blog](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/how-the-open-knowledge-format-can-improve-data-sharing) on 2026-06-12 and shipped inside Knowledge Catalog.
+
+## What it is
+
+OKF is a directory of cross-linked markdown files. Each file has:
+
+- A YAML frontmatter block (`type` required; `title`, `description`, `resource`, `tags`, `timestamp` recommended)
+- A standard markdown body
+- Standard markdown links to other files in the bundle (which the spec treats as concept relationships)
+
+An optional `index.md` lists the files for progressive disclosure. The bundle can be distributed as a git repo (recommended), a tarball/zip, or a subdirectory of a larger repo.
+
+The [full spec](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/knowledge-catalog/blob/HEAD/okf/SPEC.md) fits on one page. The repo lives under `GoogleCloudPlatform` (the "not an official Google product" disclaimer is Google's standard open-source boilerplate, not a denial - it appears on most of Google's open-source repos including their main AI samples repo).
+
+### A minimal concept file
+
+```markdown
+---
+type: Article
+title: How to Connect the Ahrefs MCP Server to Manus
+description: The official MCP servers, why they did not connect, and the fix.
+resource: https://yoursite.com/blog/ahrefs-mcp-manus/
+tags: [mcp, ahrefs]
+---
+
+# How to Connect the Ahrefs MCP Server to Manus
+
+The body of the post, as clean markdown.
+```
+
+Add an `index.md` that lists all files so an agent can see the bundle's shape before opening each file, and that is the entire format.
+
+## Honest framing
+
+**Google built OKF for data teams sharing catalog metadata** - BigQuery tables, API endpoints, metrics, playbooks. Most of the spec's examples are data-team artifacts, not blog posts. Google's blog post framing: "improve data sharing" and "standardized documentation" for collaboration across teams.
+
+Pointing OKF at a marketing site is a **clever repurposing** popularized by [Suganthan Mohanadasan](https://suganthan.com/blog/open-knowledge-format/). It's a legitimate use case for the format but not Google's primary one. Frame it accurately when explaining it to founders or marketing teams.
+
+## What it does for AI search today
+
+Nothing immediate. Nothing crawls the web for OKF bundles yet - the spec is weeks old, no AI engine has announced integration, and Knowledge Catalog ingests bundles only for paying enterprise customers' data teams.
+
+Treat OKF as **protocol-layer registration** - the same shape of bet as early `schema.org` adoption was a decade ago. Schema took the better part of ten years to pay off; people who shipped it early are still glad they did.
+
+A secondary benefit that pays off today regardless: **generating the bundle is itself an internal-linking audit**. Suganthan's tool draws every page as a node and every internal link as an edge, so islands and orphans become obvious at a glance.
+
+## Where OKF fits in the agent-readable stack
+
+| Layer | Purpose |
+|---|---|
+| `sitemap.xml` | Tells a crawler which URLs exist |
+| `robots.txt` (with AI bot rules) | Permits or blocks AI crawlers |
+| `llms.txt` | Points an agent at the handful of pages you most want read |
+| `/stacks-marketing-pricing.md` | Structured pricing for agent-buyer comparisons |
+| **`/okf/` bundle** | Hands over the content itself as cross-linked concepts |
+| Schema markup | Per-page structured data (Article, FAQPage, Product, etc.) |
+
+These stack rather than compete. `llms.txt` is a signpost, OKF is the library.
+
+## How to ship one
+
+Three options, ordered by how much effort they take:
+
+### 1. Suganthan's free web tool (recommended for most sites)
+
+[suganthan.com/okf-generator](https://suganthan.com/okf-generator/) - paste a URL or sitemap, crawls up to 100 pages, returns a downloadable bundle. Also draws the resulting page graph so you can spot disconnected pages before publishing.
+
+### 2. WordPress plugin (pending wp.org approval)
+
+Suganthan's plugin (free, GPL, awaiting wp.org approval at time of writing) installs in a minute, serves the bundle at `/okf/`, and rebuilds on every publish or edit so it stays in sync. Direct download link is in [his blog post](https://suganthan.com/blog/open-knowledge-format/). Requires WordPress 6.0+ and PHP 7.4+. Read-only - never edits posts or settings.
+
+### 3. By hand
+
+Only practical for a handful of pages. Each post becomes a markdown file with frontmatter that you cross-link manually. Miserable for a whole site.
+
+## Hosting & discovery
+
+Serve the bundle at `yoursite.com/okf/`, starting with `yoursite.com/okf/index.md`:
+
+- **Static hosts / Cloudflare**: drag and drop
+- **WordPress**: Suganthan's plugin handles the serving
+- **Static sites with custom paths**: upload the directory to `/okf/`
+- **Closed platforms (Wix, Squarespace, most page-builders)**: you usually can't serve files at custom paths - skip OKF entirely
+
+After it's serving, add a line to `llms.txt` pointing to the bundle so agents that read `llms.txt` (today) can discover the bundle (later).
+
+## When to skip
+
+- Site is <10 pages - overhead exceeds payoff
+- Site is on a closed platform that won't allow custom paths
+- You're not maintaining `llms.txt`, schema markup, or other machine-readable files (OKF compounds with those; alone it does nothing)
+- You can't budget the 30 minutes a quarter to refresh the bundle as content changes
+
+## What to watch
+
+OKF is v0.1, weeks old. Worth tracking, not worth obsessing over:
+
+- Whether Google announces OKF support in AI Overviews / Knowledge Graph (currently no signal)
+- Whether non-Google engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude) announce OKF reading
+- Whether the spec moves to v1.0 (breaking changes are possible at <1.0)
+- Whether Knowledge Catalog adds public ingestion endpoints
+- Adoption signals - search GitHub for `okf/index.md` to see who's shipping bundles

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-ai-seo/references/platform-ranking-factors.md

@@ -0,0 +1,167 @@
+# How Each AI Platform Picks Sources
+
+Each AI search platform has its own search index, ranking logic, and content preferences. This guide covers what matters for getting cited on each one.
+
+Sources cited throughout: Princeton GEO study (KDD 2024), SE Ranking domain authority study, ZipTie content-answer fit analysis.
+
+---
+
+## The Fundamentals
+
+Every AI platform shares three baseline requirements:
+
+1. **Your content must be in their index** - Each platform uses a different search backend (Google, Bing, Brave, or their own). If you're not indexed, you can't be cited.
+2. **Your content must be crawlable for discovery** - Allow the relevant search-discovery path through robots.txt and your WAF; model-training controls are separate.
+3. **Your content must be extractable** - AI systems pull passages, not pages. Clear structure and self-contained paragraphs win.
+
+Beyond these basics, each platform weights different signals. Here's what matters and where.
+
+---
+
+## Google AI Overviews
+
+Google AI Overviews pull from Google's own index and lean heavily on E-E-A-T signals (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). Studies have measured them on roughly 45% of tracked keywords (BrightEdge).
+
+**What makes Google AI Overviews different:** They already have your traditional SEO signals - backlinks, page authority, topical relevance. The additional AI layer adds a preference for content with cited sources and structured data. The GEO study (Aggarwal et al., 2023) found that adding citations, quotations, and statistics raised visibility by roughly 30-40% on its own metric; individual examples in the paper show much larger jumps, but those aren't typical or additive.
+
+**AI Overviews don't just recycle the traditional Top 10.** Some studies have put the overlap between AI Overview sources and conventional organic results as low as ~15%, though figures vary widely by study, date, and query set. Pages that wouldn't crack page 1 can still get cited with clear, extractable answers. Even so, practitioners consistently find that better organic rankings mean better AI visibility, so don't treat the low-overlap stat as permission to skip SEO.
+
+**What to focus on:**
+- Schema markup gives AI Overviews structured context (Article, HowTo, Product). It's one lever among several, and Google says no special markup is required for AI features. Google limited FAQ rich results to government and health sites in 2023, so don't promise an AI lift from FAQPage schema
+- Build topical authority through content clusters with strong internal linking
+- Include named, sourced citations in your content (not just claims)
+- Author bios with real credentials matter - E-E-A-T is weighted heavily
+- Get into Google's Knowledge Graph where possible (an accurate Wikipedia entry helps)
+- Target "how to" and "what is" query patterns - these trigger AI Overviews most often
+
+**Watch for OKF.** In June 2026 Google introduced the [Open Knowledge Format](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/how-the-open-knowledge-format-can-improve-data-sharing) - a markdown spec for agent-readable site bundles. There is no confirmed signal that AI Overviews factor it in today, but the spec is published, the GitHub repo lives under `GoogleCloudPlatform`, and it ships inside Knowledge Catalog. For protocol-layer "register early" plays, it has the same shape as early schema.org adoption did a decade ago. See **Machine-Readable Files for AI Agents** in the main `SKILL.md` for how to generate and serve a bundle.
+
+---
+
+## ChatGPT
+
+ChatGPT's web search draws from a Bing-based index. It combines this with its training knowledge to generate answers, then cites the web sources it relied on.
+
+**What makes ChatGPT different:** Domain authority matters more here than on other AI platforms. An SE Ranking analysis of 129,000 domains found that authority and credibility signals account for roughly 40% of what determines citation, with content quality at about 35% and platform trust at 25%. Sites with very high referring domain counts (350K+) average 8.4 citations per response, while sites with slightly lower trust scores (91-96 vs 97-100) drop from 8.4 to 6 citations.
+
+**Freshness is a major differentiator.** Content updated within the last 30 days gets cited about 3.2x more often than older content. ChatGPT clearly favors recent information.
+
+**The most important signal is content-answer fit** - a ZipTie analysis of 400,000 pages found that how well your content's style and structure matches ChatGPT's own response format accounts for about 55% of citation likelihood. This is far more important than domain authority (12%) or on-page structure (14%) alone. Write the way ChatGPT would answer the question, and you're more likely to be the source it cites.
+
+**Where ChatGPT looks beyond your site:** Wikipedia accounts for 7.8% of all ChatGPT citations, Reddit for 1.8%, and Forbes for 1.1%. Brand official sites are cited frequently but third-party mentions carry significant weight.
+
+**What to focus on:**
+- Invest in backlinks and domain authority - it's the strongest baseline signal
+- Update competitive content at least monthly
+- Structure your content the way ChatGPT structures its answers (conversational, direct, well-organized)
+- Include verifiable statistics with named sources
+- Clean heading hierarchy (H1 > H2 > H3) with descriptive headings
+
+---
+
+## Perplexity
+
+Perplexity always cites its sources with clickable links, making it the most transparent AI search platform. It combines its own index with Google's and runs results through multiple reranking passes - initial relevance retrieval, then traditional ranking factor scoring, then ML-based quality evaluation that can discard entire result sets if they don't meet quality thresholds.
+
+**What makes Perplexity different:** It's the most "research-oriented" AI search engine, and its citation behavior reflects that. Perplexity maintains curated lists of authoritative domains (Amazon, GitHub, major academic sites) that get inherent ranking boosts. It uses a time-decay algorithm that evaluates new content quickly, giving fresh publishers a real shot at citation.
+
+**Perplexity has unique content preferences:**
+- **FAQ Schema (JSON-LD)** - Pages with FAQ structured data get cited noticeably more often
+- **PDF documents** - Publicly accessible PDFs (whitepapers, research reports) are prioritized. If you have authoritative PDF content gated behind a form, consider making a version public.
+- **Publishing velocity** - How frequently you publish matters more than keyword targeting
+- **Self-contained paragraphs** - Perplexity prefers atomic, semantically complete paragraphs it can extract cleanly
+
+**What to focus on:**
+- Allow PerplexityBot in robots.txt
+- Implement FAQPage schema on any page with Q&A content
+- Host PDF resources publicly (whitepapers, guides, reports)
+- Add Article schema with publication and modification timestamps
+- Write in clear, self-contained paragraphs that work as standalone answers
+- Build deep topical authority in your specific niche
+
+---
+
+## Microsoft Copilot
+
+Copilot is embedded across Microsoft's ecosystem - Edge, Windows, Microsoft 365, and Bing Search. It relies entirely on Bing's index, so if Bing hasn't indexed your content, Copilot can't cite it.
+
+**What makes Copilot different:** The Microsoft ecosystem connection creates unique optimization opportunities. Copilot cites LinkedIn heavily (its LinkedIn citations more than doubled May → Oct 2026 and run about 6.5× its Reddit citations, per Ahrefs data), and GitHub content is a natural fit too. Copilot also puts more weight on page speed - sub-2-second load times are a clear threshold.
+
+**What to focus on:**
+- Submit your site to Bing Webmaster Tools (many sites only submit to Google Search Console)
+- Use IndexNow protocol for faster indexing of new and updated content
+- Optimize page speed to under 2 seconds
+- Write clear entity definitions - when your content defines a term or concept, make the definition explicit and extractable
+- Build presence on LinkedIn (articles, posts, and a complete company page; see [linkedin-ai-citations.md](linkedin-ai-citations.md)) and GitHub if relevant
+- Ensure Bingbot has full crawl access
+
+---
+
+## Claude
+
+Claude uses Brave Search as its search backend when web search is enabled - not Google, not Bing. This is a completely different index, which means your Brave Search visibility directly determines whether Claude can find and cite you.
+
+**What makes Claude different:** Claude is extremely selective about what it cites. While it processes enormous amounts of content, its citation rate is very low - it's looking for the most factually accurate, well-sourced content on a given topic. Data-rich content with specific numbers and clear attribution performs significantly better than general-purpose content.
+
+**What to focus on:**
+- Verify your content appears in Brave Search results (search for your brand and key terms at search.brave.com)
+- Decide separately whether to allow `Claude-SearchBot` for search discovery, `Claude-User` for user-directed retrieval, and `ClaudeBot` for potential model training
+- Maximize factual density - specific numbers, named sources, dated statistics
+- Use clear, extractable structure with descriptive headings
+- Cite authoritative sources within your content
+- Aim to be the most factually accurate source on your topic - Claude rewards precision
+- Don't rely on self-ranked "best X" lists. In a live test (Sep 2026), Claude noted that results for a "best [category]" query were dominated by vendors ranking themselves #1 and leaned on juried awards and practitioner reputation instead
+
+---
+
+## Allowing AI Bots in robots.txt
+
+Do not copy one blanket allowlist. Choose controls by documented purpose, then check WAF and CDN rules as well as `robots.txt`.
+
+```text
+# Automatic search discovery
+User-agent: Bingbot
+User-agent: Googlebot
+User-agent: OAI-SearchBot
+User-agent: PerplexityBot
+User-agent: Claude-SearchBot
+Allow: /
+
+# Potential model training (publisher choice shown as disallow)
+User-agent: GPTBot
+User-agent: ClaudeBot
+Disallow: /
+
+# Gemini model training and grounding (publisher choice shown as disallow)
+User-agent: Google-Extended
+Disallow: /
+```
+
+User-triggered fetchers such as `ChatGPT-User`, `Claude-User`, and `Perplexity-User` are separate from automatic discovery. Vendor behavior can differ: OpenAI says `robots.txt` rules may not apply to `ChatGPT-User`, and Perplexity says `Perplexity-User` generally ignores them because these fetches are user-requested. Use `OAI-SearchBot`, not `ChatGPT-User`, to manage ChatGPT Search inclusion. `Google-Extended` is a standalone product token rather than a separate HTTP crawler; Google says it controls certain Gemini training and grounding uses and does not affect Google Search inclusion or ranking.
+
+Verify the current names and consequences in the vendors' maintained documentation: [OpenAI](https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/bots), [Perplexity](https://docs.perplexity.ai/docs/resources/perplexity-crawlers), [Anthropic](https://privacy.anthropic.com/en/articles/8896518-does-anthropic-crawl-data-from-the-web-and-how-can-site-owners-block-the-crawler), and [Google](https://developers.google.com/crawling/docs/crawlers-fetchers/google-common-crawlers).
+
+For implementation, inspect `/robots.txt` manually first. Optional helpers include each vendor's own crawler documentation and robots.txt testing tools.
+
+---
+
+## Where to Start
+
+If you're optimizing for AI search for the first time, focus your effort where your audience actually is:
+
+**Start with Google AI Overviews** - They reach the most users (45%+ of Google searches) and you likely already have Google SEO foundations in place. Add schema markup, include cited sources in your content, and strengthen E-E-A-T signals.
+
+**Then address ChatGPT** - It's the most-used standalone AI search tool for tech and business audiences. Focus on freshness (update content monthly), domain authority, and matching your content structure to how ChatGPT formats its responses.
+
+**Then expand to Perplexity** - Especially valuable if your audience includes researchers, early adopters, or tech professionals. Add FAQ schema, publish PDF resources, and write in clear, self-contained paragraphs.
+
+**Copilot and Claude are lower priority** unless your audience skews enterprise/Microsoft (Copilot) or developer/analyst (Claude). But the fundamentals - structured content, cited sources, schema markup - help across all platforms.
+
+**Actions that help everywhere:**
+1. Set an explicit, purpose-specific robots policy: allow relevant discovery crawlers while deciding training and user-triggered retrieval separately
+2. Implement schema markup (FAQPage, Article, Organization at minimum)
+3. Include statistics with named sources in your content
+4. Update content regularly - monthly for competitive topics
+5. Use clear heading structure (H1 > H2 > H3)
+6. Keep page load time under 2 seconds
+7. Add author bios with credentials