luckiest-co 1.0.52 → 1.0.53

package/skills/ai-seo/references/agent-defaults.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+# Agent Defaults: When the Agent Picks the Vendor
+
+A growing share of buying decisions happens inside a task. A developer tells Claude Code "deploy this," "add auth," or "send a welcome email," and the agent chooses a vendor, installs it, and moves on. There is no search results page and no shortlist for the user to compare. Whatever the agent reaches for first wins.
+
+This applies most to developer tools, APIs, infrastructure, and SaaS with a CLI or SDK. It is spreading to anything a computer-use agent can sign up for. The rest of this skill covers being cited and recommended in answers; this reference covers being **the default an agent acts on**.
+
+**Case: Railway (October 2026).** Founder Jake Cooper said on a podcast that the company grew from about $20M to about $100M ARR in a year with a go-to-market team of about seven, and named getting the models to "recommend us more and more" as a go-to-market goal. Practitioner breakdowns of their site counted thousands of self-hosting template pages, a deploy guide per framework, comparison and migration pages for each major competitor, an `llms.txt` with a summary per docs page, plugins inside ChatGPT and Claude Code, and `ssh railway new` to get a server with no signup. The same breakdowns claimed Claude Code picks Railway for most Python apps and Vercel for every Next.js app tested. Those counts and percentages are third-party and unverified; the pattern is the point.
+
+## Measure your share of agent defaults
+
+You can't improve a default you haven't measured, and nobody reports this number for you.
+
+1. **Build a task panel.** 20–50 realistic tasks spread across the stacks your buyers use (a FastAPI service, a Next.js app, a Rails app, a cron worker, a static site). Write each the way a user would: "deploy this," "add a Postgres database," not "deploy this to [you]."
+2. **Run each task in a clean environment** on every agent your buyers use (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, plus ChatGPT or Claude chat for the "how do I" version). No project rules, memory, or MCP servers that name a vendor.
+3. **Run each task 3+ times.** Agent choices vary run to run, and one sample is noise.
+4. **Record per run:** the vendor chosen, whether the agent got to a working result, where it stalled (signup, email verification, payment, a failing CLI step), and which docs or URLs it fetched.
+5. **Report share by stack.** The gap is usually one stack ("we win Python, lose everything front-end"). That stack is where content and tooling work goes.
+6. **Rerun on every major model release.** Defaults can move overnight when a model changes, and new models tend to bring more code to deploy. Run it monthly between releases; the agent-default check loop in **marketing-loops** schedules it.
+
+Where the agent stalled tells you more than which vendor it picked. A run that chose you and then died at email verification is a loss you can fix.
+
+## What moves the default
+
+| Lever | Why agents respond to it | Railway's version |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Shortest path to a working result** | Agents favor the route with the fewest human-gated steps: account creation, email verification, CAPTCHA, a credit card before first use | `ssh railway new` provisions a server before any signup; the account is claimed later |
+| **Agent setup in one step** | An agent that has your MCP server, CLI, or skill installed uses it instead of guessing | A docs section for agents with one command that installs what Claude Code or Cursor needs |
+| **Presence inside the assistants** | If the assistant has a native connector or plugin, deploying never leaves the chat | Plugins in ChatGPT and Claude Code |
+| **Task-shaped pages per stack** | Agents fetch docs mid-task; a page that matches the exact task ("deploy Django") and ends in a working result gets followed | A guide per framework, each ending with the app live |
+| **Template pages per popular tool** | Self-hosting and setup queries ("how do I run n8n") are a long tail that programmatic pages cover, see **programmatic-seo** | Thousands of one-click template pages |
+| **Migration guides per competitor** | An agent moving a project follows steps; see **competitors** for the comparison side | A comparison page with a migration guide for each major competitor |
+| **Docs agents can read** | An `llms.txt` index with one-line summaries, plus a markdown version of every page, lets the agent find the right page and quote it correctly | An index of every docs page with a summary each, and a plain-text version of each page |
+| **Fresh, dated changes** | Recently updated docs and changelogs keep answers current for search and models | A changelog page every week since 2021 |
+| **CLI output an agent can recover from** | Non-interactive flags, JSON output, and errors that say what to run next keep the run alive past a failure | (General practice, not from the Railway breakdowns) |
+
+Fix the stall points from your measurement first. Content won't help if the agent picks you and then can't finish.
+
+## Audit your docs for coding agents
+
+Treat a coding agent as its own answer engine. In Profound's sample of 24,135 responses with web search enabled, Claude searched the web in 93% of responses and Claude Code in 13%, and the brands each one mentioned overlapped only about 20% (Profound, August 2026; observational). When Claude Code did fetch pages, nearly three-quarters of visits went to documentation, informational, and pricing pages. So your chat-assistant visibility tells you little about your coding-agent visibility, and the pages agents read are docs and pricing.
+
+Profound sells AI visibility tracking; treat these as vendor research and run your own panel (above) before acting on them.
+
+**1. Map tasks to pages.** List what users ask a coding agent to do with your product: install, authenticate, integrate, migrate, debug, compare, estimate cost, check compatibility. Give each task one canonical page and list the facts that page must state.
+
+| Task | Canonical page | Facts it must state | Gap |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Install in a Next.js app | /docs/nextjs | Package name, minimum version, env vars, one working example | Example uses a deprecated import |
+| Estimate cost | /pricing | Pricing unit, free tier limits, overage rate | Overage only in a PDF |
+
+**2. Check retrieval.** For each canonical page:
+
+- The title and headings name the task and the stack
+- The answer or command comes before background
+- Prerequisites, versions, and dates are explicit
+- Examples are copyable and current
+- Anchors and URLs stay stable between releases
+- The text renders without JavaScript, and a markdown version exists
+
+Use question-shaped headings only where they match a real task. Don't stuff product names into docs.
+
+**3. Keep a technical fact ledger.** One row per fact an agent might act on: supported versions and runtimes, regions, rate limits, pricing units, auth methods, data handling, deprecations. Record the canonical source and an owner for each. Then check the same fact everywhere it appears: docs, pricing page, README, package registry descriptions (npm, PyPI), examples, and changelog. An agent that finds two different rate limits will guess, or pick a vendor whose docs agree with themselves.
+
+**4. Fill missing decision pages.** Compatibility matrices, migration guides, troubleshooting references, and a plain pricing explainer are the pages agents most often need and vendors most often skip.
+
+**5. Test in fresh sessions.** Run your task panel in both the chat assistant and the coding agent, recording whether you were mentioned, which pages were fetched, and whether the facts came back right. Log errors in the claim ledger from [answer-accuracy.md](answer-accuracy.md).
+
+Don't infer official Anthropic or OpenAI ranking factors from any of this. Check crawler and access controls against current vendor documentation.
+
+## Limits and rules
+
+- **Some defaults are structural.** A framework's own maker, or the vendor whose examples dominate the framework's docs, may hold that stack no matter what you publish. Railway's reported answer was to win adjacent stacks rather than fight Vercel on Next.js. Pick stacks where the default is still open.
+- **Write instructions for using your product only.** Agent-facing docs, `llms.txt`, and skill files that tell agents to prefer your product over what the user asked for are prompt injection. Agent platforms treat them as manipulation, and users who notice stop trusting the tool. Describe how to do the task with your product; let the task decide.
+- **Agent-provisioned resources still need guardrails.** No-signup provisioning needs abuse limits, expiry for unclaimed resources, and a clear path to claim and pay. Treat that as product work, with growth as the reason to do it.
+- **Placements in agent tool registries change fast.** Recheck plugin and MCP registry listings when you rerun the panel, and treat any share figure, including the ones above, as dated.
+
+---
+
+*Framework lineage: the coding-agent docs audit (task-to-page map, technical fact ledger, Claude vs. Claude Code testing) is adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed claude-code-discoverability-auditor skill and its August 2026 study, credited.*

package/skills/ai-seo/references/ai-attribution.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+# Measuring AI Search Impact Past the Referral Click
+
+AI answers influence buyers who never click a link. They read a recommendation, then search your brand or type your URL a few days later. Referral reports miss most of that, so "AI sends us almost no traffic" is usually a measurement gap, and the impact sits in other channels.
+
+Profound joined more than two million AI conversations with later browsing behavior (Profound, July 2026; observational, US-only, measured site visits rather than purchases). Two findings shape the setup below:
+
+- Only **42%** of the downstream visits after an AI assistant introduced a brand happened within 24 hours. A same-session window misses most of the effect.
+- More than **97%** of those visits carried no AI referral parameter, even after ChatGPT made its links easier to click.
+
+SimilarWeb's journey data points the same way: about 9% of post-recommendation visits arrived as visible AI referrals. Profound sells AI visibility tracking, so treat its numbers as vendor research, and don't present either study's lift as a forecast for one brand.
+
+## Four layers
+
+Report each layer separately. Rising visibility does not prove rising revenue.
+
+| Layer | What it captures | Where it comes from |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Exposure** | Mentions, recommendations, prominence, framing, citations | Prompt tracking (see [prompt-portfolio.md](prompt-portfolio.md)) |
+| **Immediate behavior** | AI referral sessions, landing pages, engaged sessions | Analytics, with AI referrers grouped (see the **analytics** skill) |
+| **Delayed behavior** | Branded search, direct visits, return visits, cross-session conversions | Search Console branded queries, analytics, CRM |
+| **Business outcome** | Signups, leads, qualified pipeline, purchases, revenue, retention | CRM and billing |
+
+## Setup
+
+1. **Name the decision.** "Should we keep funding AEO content?" needs a different design from "Did fixing our pricing page change anything?"
+2. **Define exposure** by engine, prompt cohort, market, language, and date, so you know what changed and when.
+3. **Fix referral capture.** Group known AI referrers (chatgpt.com, perplexity.ai, gemini.google.com, copilot.microsoft.com, claude.ai, and so on) into one channel. Preserve landing page, referrer, and query parameters. Expect it to undercount.
+4. **Add delayed windows.** Measure branded search and direct visits to exposed pages over 1-hour, 24-hour, and 7-day windows after a known exposure change.
+5. **Ask people.** A "How did you hear about us?" field with an AI option and a "What did you ask?" follow-up, plus tagged sales-call notes, catch journeys analytics can't see.
+6. **Join to outcomes** in the CRM without counting the same conversion twice across layers.
+
+## Evaluation designs
+
+Pick the strongest design you can afford, and say which one you used.
+
+| Design | Use when | Confidence |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Holdout** | You can leave comparable pages, products, or markets untouched | Highest |
+| **Matched comparison** | Similar pages or markets exist, but you can't randomize | Medium |
+| **Interrupted time series** | One clear intervention date and a long, stable baseline | Medium |
+| **Pre/post on a stable cohort** | Nothing better is possible | Low; confounders easily swamp it |
+| **Exposure panel or incrementality study** | Budget for a vendor panel | Varies with the panel's method |
+
+List confounders before reading results: campaigns, launches, press, seasonality, pricing changes, and model or retrieval updates.
+
+## Reporting language
+
+Say which of three things you have: an **observation** ("branded search rose 18% after the change"), an **association** ("pages with more AI mentions saw more direct visits"), or a **causal result** ("the holdout pages didn't move; the treated pages did"). Most AEO reporting only supports the first two. Say so.
+
+Respect privacy rules in panel and self-reported data: aggregate small groups and follow your consent and retention policies.
+
+---
+
+*Framework lineage: the four-layer model, attribution windows, and evaluation designs adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed ai-search-attribution-planner skill and its "AI mention effect" study (July 2026), credited.*

package/skills/ai-seo/references/answer-accuracy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+# Answer Accuracy: Auditing What AI Says About You
+
+Visibility counts whether you appear. Accuracy checks what the answer says once you do. A brand can show up in every answer and still be described with last year's pricing, a missing integration, or a limitation it fixed months ago.
+
+Much of an answer is commentary the user never asked for. Profound's analysis of 50,000 responses (Profound, June 2026) found about 47% of response content was unsolicited editorial material: comparisons, rankings, caveats, and recommendations. That editorial layer is where wrong claims about you tend to live.
+
+Profound sells AI visibility tracking, so treat its figures as vendor research. Other trackers that capture answer text for this kind of audit include Ahrefs Brand Radar, Semrush's AI toolkit, Peec AI, Otterly, and ZipTie.
+
+## When to run it
+
+- An assistant states a wrong price, plan limit, feature, or compatibility claim
+- Sales hears prospects repeat something false that "ChatGPT said"
+- After a repositioning, pricing change, rebrand, or product retirement
+- Quarterly for any brand with a regulated, safety, or pricing-sensitive product
+
+## The claim ledger
+
+Capture answers first, then log one row per claim. Record the engine, model or surface, locale, prompt, and capture date for every answer, since a claim you can't reproduce is hard to fix.
+
+| Field | What goes in it |
+|---|---|
+| Engine and date | ChatGPT (search on), Gemini, AI Overviews, Perplexity, Copilot, Claude; capture date |
+| Prompt | Exact wording, plus which prompt family it belongs to (see [prompt-portfolio.md](prompt-portfolio.md)) |
+| Claim | The sentence as the model wrote it |
+| Claim type | Price, availability, compatibility, feature, limitation, comparison, ranking, recommendation, caveat, sentiment |
+| Verdict | One of the seven below |
+| Evidence | The current source that confirms or contradicts it |
+| Likely source | The page the claim probably came from: your page, docs, a feed, a profile, a third-party article, a forum thread, or unknown |
+| Severity | Critical, high, medium, or low |
+| Owner | Who fixes the source |
+
+Extract every claim that could change a buying decision, including the ones the user didn't ask about. A question about pricing that comes back with an unprompted "but it lacks SSO" is two claims.
+
+### Seven verdicts
+
+1. **Accurate and current**
+2. **Accurate but incomplete**: true, but missing the fact that matters (the free plan exists, but the answer omits its limits)
+3. **Ambiguous**: could be read as true or false
+4. **Stale**: was true, isn't now
+5. **False**
+6. **Subjective framing**: an opinion stated as fact ("best for small teams," "hard to set up")
+7. **Unverifiable**: no current source either way
+
+Check first-party facts against your own current product material, and claims about the outside world against reliable independent sources. Your preferred marketing wording is not evidence.
+
+### Severity
+
+| Level | Examples |
+|---|---|
+| **Critical** | Safety, legal, eligibility, price, availability, or compatibility errors that could cause a bad purchase or real harm |
+| **High** | False comparisons, invented limitations, stale product facts in high-value prompt families |
+| **Medium** | Incomplete or slanted framing that could plausibly change a decision |
+| **Low** | Tone and wording that don't change the decision |
+
+Weight severity by exposure too: a medium error that appears in every run of your top commercial prompt outranks a high error in one obscure prompt.
+
+## Fix the source first
+
+The answer is downstream of what the model retrieved or learned. Rewriting your homepage copy rarely fixes a claim that comes from a stale third-party review.
+
+1. **Trace it.** Search the claim's wording, check which sources the engine cited for that answer, and look for the page where the wrong fact lives.
+2. **Fix your own sources.** State the correct fact plainly on the page that should own it, with a date: pricing page, docs, changelog, comparison page, help center. Remove or redirect the outdated page. Update feeds and structured data that carry the same fact.
+3. **Fix your profiles.** G2, Capterra, app marketplaces, Crunchbase, LinkedIn, and partner directories often hold the stale version.
+4. **Ask third parties for factual corrections only.** Send the publisher the correct fact and a source. Don't ask them to remove legitimate criticism.
+5. **Retest** the same prompts after a set observation window (4–8 weeks is a reasonable starting point), with a few controlled variants. Report movement over time; one clean run proves nothing.
+
+Never promise that a source fix will change the answer. Models retrain and re-retrieve on their own schedules.
+
+**Off limits:** fabricated corrections, editing Wikipedia about yourself, astroturfed forum posts, and pressuring publishers to pull fair criticism. These break platform rules, and models are getting better at discounting them.
+
+## Report
+
+1. Accuracy rate across the cohort, the riskiest narrative, and the main source problem
+2. The claim ledger
+3. Owned-source fixes, each with the exact fact and the page that should state it
+4. Third-party correction requests, factual and sourced
+5. The retest plan and date
+6. Unknowns
+
+This audit pairs with the positioning work in [positioning-and-consensus.md](positioning-and-consensus.md): accuracy fixes wrong facts, positioning fixes the wrong story. The AI-accuracy audit loop in **marketing-loops** can schedule it.
+
+---
+
+*Framework lineage: claim ledger, verdict set, and severity scale adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed ai-answer-accuracy-auditor skill and its "Parrot Problem" research (June 2026), credited.*

package/skills/ai-seo/references/content-patterns.md

@@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ Reusable content block patterns optimized for answer engines and AI citation.
 ## Contents
 - Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) Patterns (Definition Block, Step-by-Step Block, Comparison Table Block, Pros and Cons Block, FAQ Block, Listicle Block)
 - Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) Patterns (Statistic Citation Block, Expert Quote Block, Authoritative Claim Block, Self-Contained Answer Block, Evidence Sandwich Block)
+- Fact-Family Fan-Out Matrix
 - Domain-Specific GEO Tactics (Technology Content, Health/Medical Content, Financial Content, Legal Content, Business/Marketing Content)
 - Voice Search Optimization (Question Formats for Voice, Voice-Optimized Answer Structure)
 
@@ -229,6 +230,29 @@ Evidence supporting this includes:
 
 ---
 
+## Fact-Family Fan-Out Matrix
+
+Engines rewrite a prompt into several background searches before answering, and those searches are often plain fact lookups even when the prompt asked for advice. In Profound's 14-day tracking of 10,000 prompts, ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Copilot each ran roughly 1.4–2 searches per answer, but 91% of ChatGPT's search queries were unique across repeated runs, against 14% for Perplexity and 47% for Copilot (Profound, April 2026; observational, vendor research). Exact query strings won't repeat, so plan content around the stable **fact families** underneath them.
+
+1. **Pick a prompt family**, with its audience, buying stage, engine, and market.
+2. **List the fan-outs.** Use observed queries where you have them (ChatGPT's background queries can be extracted). Otherwise infer them, and mark every inferred row as a hypothesis.
+3. **Break the job into fact families:** entities and category terms, factual sub-questions, comparison criteria, constraints (price, compatibility, location, recency), and the evidence that settles them (standards, definitions, reviews, primary data).
+4. **Fill the matrix**, one row per fact family:
+
+| Fact family | Observed or inferred | What the buyer needs | Current best source | Competitor source | Our owning page | Gap |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| Pricing for 10 seats | Observed | Monthly cost at 10 seats, annual discount | Third-party review (2025 prices) | Competitor pricing page | /pricing | Per-seat price not stated in text |
+| SOC 2 status | Inferred | Report type and date | None | Competitor trust page | /security | Page says "enterprise-grade," no report type |
+
+5. **Give each fact one owning page.** Improve or consolidate an existing page before creating a new one, and create one only when a real information gap exists. One strong page can answer several fact families. Never build a doorway page per fan-out query.
+6. **Retest across repeated runs and engines.** Expect different retrieval paths each time; judge by whether the fact family gets answered from your page.
+
+Engine priors to verify before relying on them: ChatGPT ranges widely across vocabulary and adjacent questions; Perplexity stays close to the prompt's own terms; Copilot compresses prompts into short search-style queries.
+
+*Adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed ai-retrieval-fanout-mapper skill and its April 2026 study, credited.*
+
+---
+
 ## Domain-Specific GEO Tactics
 
 Different content domains benefit from different authority signals.

package/skills/ai-seo/references/multilingual-and-commerce.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+# Multilingual AEO and AI Shopping Surfaces
+
+Two extensions of the core workflow that fail in predictable ways: translating an English AEO plan into other markets, and investing in AI shopping surfaces for products those surfaces rarely show.
+
+## Multilingual and multi-market AEO
+
+The language of the query changes which sources get cited. Profound's analysis of 3.25 billion citations across seven models and 14 countries, using native-language prompts, found citation mix and social-source rates shifted materially with query language (Profound, April 2026). Spanish-language markets looked alike across countries, so language sometimes mattered more than geography. Platforms diverged too: Google AI Overviews drew on a varied set of local social sources, while ChatGPT's social citations stayed concentrated on Reddit. Profound sells AI visibility tracking; treat these as vendor research and validate in your own category.
+
+### Checklist
+
+1. **Treat language and country as separate dimensions.** Spanish in Mexico, Spanish in Spain, and English in Mexico are three configurations.
+2. **Build prompts from native-language demand.** Use local customer research, local search terms, and native speakers. Don't translate the English prompt list word for word; category names, units, and decision criteria differ.
+3. **Run each prompt on each target engine** and classify cited sources: owned, competitor, earned editorial, institutional, social, marketplace or directory.
+4. **Find the local source market.** Note which local publishers, directories, review sites, communities, and authorities recur per engine. Don't assume Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, or a global publisher matters equally everywhere.
+5. **Audit local facts.** Prices and currency, availability, policies, legal claims, support hours, and local entities. A wrong local price is a critical error (see [answer-accuracy.md](answer-accuracy.md)).
+6. **Separate three gap types.** A translation gap means the page exists but not in this language. An information gap means the fact doesn't exist anywhere locally. An entity gap means local profiles describe you inconsistently.
+7. **Recommend local channels only where the local citation mix supports them.**
+8. **Assign native-language review and a freshness owner** for every localized page.
+9. **Report each language, country, and engine separately** before rolling anything up.
+
+## AI shopping surfaces
+
+AI shopping features (ChatGPT Shopping, product results in Google AI Mode, Meta's Muse agent, and similar) are worth investing in only for categories they actually show. In Profound's tests, product category was a stronger trigger for ChatGPT Shopping than purchase-intent wording: physical consumer products activated it far more often than software, services, travel, or financial products (Profound, March 2026; observational, and OpenAI hasn't published the trigger rules). Verify current merchant and feed requirements in each platform's documentation.
+
+### Fit check first
+
+Classify the offering before auditing anything:
+
+| Offering | Typical fit |
+|---|---|
+| Shippable consumer product, consumables | Strong; audit in full |
+| Large equipment or vehicles | Test narrowly |
+| Software, digital products, services, travel, financial products | Usually weak; put the effort into ordinary AI recommendations instead |
+| Local-only offerings | Focus on local surfaces and Business Profile |
+
+Then test with repeated representative prompts. Cards and offers vary between runs, so one carousel is not a ranking.
+
+### Data audit (when the fit is real)
+
+- Canonical title and description, brand, and identifiers (GTIN, MPN)
+- Category, attributes, variants, sizes, colors, and compatibility
+- Images
+- Price, currency, sale status, and availability, with how fast changes propagate
+- Shipping, returns, and merchant policies
+- Reviews and ratings from real customers
+
+Agents that buy can also draw on commerce catalogs directly. Muse, for example, searches the Shopify product catalog, so a Shopify merchant's catalog data is part of the audit.
+
+Compare the feed, product page, structured data, merchant records, and marketplace listings for conflicts. Fix wrong data before any editorial work. Track three outcomes separately: whether the product is included, whether you are the headline merchant or offer, and whether you appear among all offers.
+
+Never fabricate reviews, ratings, availability, or discounts. For the agent-side protocols (Merchant Center, UCP), see the Agentic Experiences section in SKILL.md.
+
+---
+
+*Framework lineage: the market checklist and commerce fit check adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed international-aeo-strategist and ai-commerce-readiness-auditor skills and their studies (March and April 2026), credited.*

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

@@ -2,7 +2,9 @@
 
 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.
+Sources cited throughout: Princeton GEO study (KDD 2024), SE Ranking's domain study (Nov 2025), Sellm.io's ranking-factor model, and Profound's citation data (2025). Most are vendor research with correlational methods.
+
+**Evidence order.** Weigh claims in this order: (1) official engine documentation and webmaster guidance, (2) controlled experiments and primary research, (3) large observational datasets, (4) practitioner case studies and commentary. When official guidance and observational data conflict, follow the documentation for eligibility and crawler controls and test the observation. Every number below is a dated snapshot of a moving system; re-check it before quoting it to a client.
 
 ---
 
@@ -20,7 +22,7 @@ Beyond these basics, each platform weights different signals. Here's what matter
 
 ## 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).
+Google AI Overviews pull from Google's own index and lean heavily on E-E-A-T signals (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness). BrightEdge measured them on about 48% of its tracked queries in February 2026, with wide swings by industry (most B2B tech and healthcare queries, few shopping queries).
 
 **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.
 
@@ -42,16 +44,16 @@ Google AI Overviews pull from Google's own index and lean heavily on E-E-A-T sig
 
 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.
+**What makes ChatGPT different:** Link authority correlates strongly with citation. SE Ranking's study of 129,000 domains (Nov 2025) found referring domains were the single strongest predictor: sites with up to 2,500 referring domains averaged 1.6–1.8 citations, sites with more than 350,000 averaged 8.4, and citations nearly doubled past about 32,000. It's a correlation, and big brands have both links and everything else.
 
-**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.
+**Freshness is a major differentiator.** Several vendor studies report that recently updated pages earn several times more ChatGPT citations than stale ones. The multipliers vary by study and none is well documented, so treat freshness as a strong lean and don't forecast with any one multiplier.
 
-**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.
+**Content-answer fit matters most among page-level signals.** Sellm.io trained a model on 400,000+ URLs across 10,000 queries (undated vendor study) and found that how closely a page's substance and structure match ChatGPT's own answer was its strongest predictor of citation, well ahead of domain authority and on-page structure. Write the direct answer the question deserves, 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.
+**Where ChatGPT looks beyond your site:** In Profound's data from Aug 2024 to Jun 2025 (680 million citations), Wikipedia took 7.8% of ChatGPT citations, Reddit 1.8%, and Forbes 1.1%. Those shares have moved since: ChatGPT's August 2026 retrieval changes nearly removed Reddit as a source. Company sites took most citations in Profound's later dataset, and third-party mentions still shape recommendations.
 
 **What to focus on:**
-- Invest in backlinks and domain authority — it's the strongest baseline signal
+- Invest in earned links and authority; referring domains were the strongest correlate in SE Ranking's study
 - 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
@@ -114,6 +116,20 @@ Claude uses Brave Search as its search backend when web search is enabled — no
 
 ---
 
+## Meta AI and Muse
+
+Meta AI answers questions across Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Meta's glasses. Muse, Meta's personal agent built on the Muse Spark model, launched in September 2026 and acts for the user: it connects to apps, recommends products, and buys them. Muse can search the full Shopify product catalog and check out with Link by Stripe, Shop Pay, and PayPal, plus retail connectors such as Walmart, Best Buy, Sephora, and Wayfair (TechCrunch, Sep 2026). Meta makes Muse free and expects to earn a fee on transactions, so shopping is the surface to watch.
+
+Meta hasn't documented which search index Meta AI uses or how it picks sources. Early hands-on tests found Muse unreliable at shopping tasks (Tom's Guide and CNN, Sep 2026). Treat practitioner claims about "ranking in Muse" as unverified.
+
+**What to focus on:**
+- Allow `meta-webindexer`. Meta says it crawls to improve Meta AI search results and so Meta can cite and link your content. Decide on `meta-externalagent` (training) separately
+- For physical products, make sure your Shopify catalog data is complete and current: titles, attributes, variants, price, and availability (see [multilingual-and-commerce.md](multilingual-and-commerce.md))
+- Apply the agent-readability basics in SKILL.md's Agentic Experiences section, since Muse reads and acts on pages for the user
+- Test with real prompts in the Meta AI app and log results with dates; there's no Meta citation report to rely on
+
+---
+
 ## 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`.
@@ -125,11 +141,13 @@ User-agent: Googlebot
 User-agent: OAI-SearchBot
 User-agent: PerplexityBot
 User-agent: Claude-SearchBot
+User-agent: meta-webindexer
 Allow: /
 
 # Potential model training (publisher choice shown as disallow)
 User-agent: GPTBot
 User-agent: ClaudeBot
+User-agent: meta-externalagent
 Disallow: /
 
 # Gemini model training and grounding (publisher choice shown as disallow)
@@ -137,9 +155,9 @@ 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.
+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; Meta says `meta-externalfetcher` may bypass them. Meta also runs `facebookexternalhit` for link previews when a URL is shared on its apps; leave it allowed or shared links lose their title and image. 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 each vendor's maintained crawler documentation (OpenAI, Perplexity, Anthropic, Google).
+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), [Meta](https://developers.facebook.com/docs/sharing/webmasters/web-crawlers), and [Google](https://developers.google.com/crawling/docs/crawlers-fetchers/google-common-crawlers).
 
 For implementation, inspect `/robots.txt` manually first.
 
@@ -149,13 +167,13 @@ For implementation, inspect `/robots.txt` manually first.
 
 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.
+**Start with Google AI Overviews** — They reach the most users (about 48% of BrightEdge-tracked queries, Feb 2026) 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.
+**Copilot, Claude, and Meta AI are lower priority** unless your audience skews enterprise/Microsoft (Copilot), developer/analyst (Claude), or consumer shopping on Meta's apps (Meta AI and Muse). 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

package/skills/ai-seo/references/prompt-portfolio.md

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+# Prompt Portfolio Design
+
+Which prompts you track decides what your AI visibility numbers mean. A portfolio stuffed with glossary questions will report healthy visibility while you lose every shortlist. This reference covers how to choose prompts, group them, version them, and how often to run them, including the multi-turn buying conversations single prompts miss.
+
+## Start with the measurement question
+
+Write down the decision the numbers will drive before choosing a single prompt. "Are we on the shortlist for mid-market [category] buyers in the US?" needs a different portfolio from "Did our docs rewrite fix how Claude describes our API limits?"
+
+## Build from real demand
+
+Use the words buyers actually type. In order of preference:
+
+1. Prompts buyers report directly (a "What did you ask the AI?" follow-up on your how-did-you-hear field, sales call notes)
+2. Prompt-demand data from a tracking tool, if you have it
+3. Customer research, support tickets, community threads, and sales objections
+4. Your search terms, rewritten as someone would phrase them to an assistant
+
+Don't mechanically turn a keyword list into questions. "crm small business" and "What CRM should a 5-person agency use if we live in Gmail?" retrieve different sources.
+
+## Cover the intent families
+
+| Family | Example shape |
+|---|---|
+| Category discovery | "What tools do teams use for [job]?" |
+| Problem and solution research | "How do I stop [problem]?" |
+| Comparisons and alternatives | "[You] vs [competitor]," "alternatives to [competitor]" |
+| Recommendations and "best for" | "Best [category] for [segment or constraint]" |
+| Trust, risk, and validation | "Is [you] legit?" "Does [you] have SOC 2?" |
+| Price, availability, compatibility, limits | "[You] pricing," "Does [you] work with [tool]?" |
+| Implementation and troubleshooting | "How do I set up [you] with [stack]?" |
+| Local, shopping, or regulated | Only when they apply to the business |
+
+Weight families by business value. A citation for a definition question rarely sells anything; see the revenue filter in SKILL.md's audit step.
+
+## Three cohorts
+
+| Cohort | Purpose | Rules |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Stable core** | Trend measurement | Changes rarely and only through versioning. This is the set you report on. |
+| **Exploratory** | Emerging demand, new segments, new competitors | Rotates freely. Promote prompts into the core when they prove valuable. |
+| **Diagnostic controls** | Known outcomes that tell you whether measurement drifted | Include prompts where you should always appear (your brand name) and never appear (an unrelated category). If those move, the tool or the engine changed, and your work had nothing to do with it. |
+
+Keep engines, markets, languages, and personas as separate configurations. A US English ChatGPT run and a German Gemini run are different measurements; see [multilingual-and-commerce.md](multilingual-and-commerce.md).
+
+Add paraphrase variants only where you need to measure wording sensitivity. Otherwise collapse variants of the same intent into one core prompt.
+
+## How often to run
+
+Two regimes, depending on portfolio size:
+
+- **A broad portfolio (hundreds of prompts):** once a day is usually enough. In Profound's comparison of 753 prompts across seven platforms over two weeks, once-daily visibility estimates landed within about two percentage points of running each prompt ten times a day (Profound, July 2026). Extra runs helped citation share more than visibility, and couldn't remove day-to-day platform drift. Composition mattered more than frequency.
+- **A small set (the 10–20 prompts of a DIY audit), short experiments, or citation-share precision:** run each prompt several times (3–5 per platform) and report the rate with its sample size, as the monitoring section in SKILL.md describes. With few prompts, one run per prompt is mostly noise.
+
+Profound sells AI visibility tracking, so treat these figures as vendor research from one setup. Other trackers include Ahrefs Brand Radar, Semrush, Peec AI, Otterly, and ZipTie; check what each one samples before comparing their numbers.
+
+## Version the portfolio
+
+- Give the portfolio a version number and log every addition, removal, and weighting change with a date and reason.
+- Never compare two periods that used materially different portfolios. Recalculate on the prompts both periods share.
+- Freeze the core during an experiment.
+
+## Multi-turn buying journeys
+
+Buyers don't stop at one prompt. Commercial conversations in ChatGPT were less likely to end after one turn than informational ones, and commercial intent rose from 13.9% to 19.2% of sampled conversations in a year (Profound, August 2026; sampled and modeled estimates). Earlier Profound research found web citations concentrate in the opening turns of a research conversation (Profound, Q4 2025 data). So the opening prompt decides which sources get pulled, and later turns decide who stays on the shortlist.
+
+Map the journey by stage, then write one opening prompt and two or three realistic follow-ups for each:
+
+| Stage | Typical follow-up |
+|---|---|
+| Define the need | "What should I look for in a [category]?" |
+| Build a shortlist | "Which of these work for [constraint]?" |
+| Compare | "How does [A] compare to [B] on [criterion]?" |
+| Validate | "What do users complain about with [A]?" |
+| Resolve risk | "Can I migrate from [incumbent] without losing [data]?" |
+| Choose | "Which would you pick for a team like mine?" |
+
+Run the conversation in one session and record, per turn, whether you were mentioned, recommended, cited, or dropped, and the framing around the mention. The turn where you fall off the shortlist is the content or evidence gap to fix. Track mention, shortlist inclusion, framing, and citations separately.
+
+First decide whether AI buying conversations matter for the category at all. Profound found commercial-intent share varied about tenfold across industries in the same study.
+
+---
+
+*Framework lineage: cohort design, cadence regimes, and the journey map adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed ai-prompt-portfolio-builder and commercial-ai-journey-mapper skills and the studies they cite (July and August 2026), credited.*

package/skills/analytics/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,13 @@
 # Changelog — luckiest-analytics
 
+## 1.2.1 — 2026-10-23
+- Removed dead `tools/` registry and integration links. The tool table keeps names, use cases, and MCP availability.
+
+## 1.2.0 — 2026-10-21
+From coreyhaines31/marketingskills at 06d647e (issue #213, MIT).
+- Compute, don't eyeball; match observation windows; recommend against the stated goal.
+- UTM rules rewritten (hyphens, one spelling per source, no personal data, test the final URL), UTM patterns by partner type, and traffic from AI assistants.
+
 ## 1.1.1 — 2026-10-16
 From coreyhaines31/marketingskills at 1efedbc (issue #174, MIT).