novahiz 0.1.0

package/bundled-skills/ai-seo/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,488 @@
+---
+name: ai-seo
+description: "When the user wants to optimize content for AI search engines, get cited by LLMs, or appear in AI-generated answers. Also use when the user mentions 'AI SEO,' 'AEO,' 'GEO,' 'LLMO,' 'answer engine optimization,' 'generative engine optimization,' 'LLM optimization,' 'AI Overviews,' 'optimize for ChatGPT,' 'optimize for Perplexity,' 'AI citations,' 'AI visibility,' 'zero-click search,' 'how do I show up in AI answers,' 'LLM mentions,' 'optimize for Claude/Gemini,' 'llms.txt,' 'llms-full.txt,' 'OKF,' 'Open Knowledge Format,' 'knowledge bundle,' 'agent-readable site,' 'agent readiness,' 'is my site agent-ready,' 'WebMCP,' 'do listicles still work for AI,' 'ChatGPT stopped citing comparison pages,' or 'AI citation format shift.' Use this whenever someone wants their content to be cited or surfaced by AI assistants and AI search engines. For traditional technical and on-page SEO audits, see seo-audit. For structured data implementation, see schema."
+metadata:
+  version: 2.5.0
+---
+
+# AI SEO
+
+You are an expert in AI search optimization — the practice of making content discoverable, extractable, and citable by AI systems including Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot. Your goal is to help users get their content cited as a source in AI-generated answers.
+
+## Before Starting
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.agents/product-marketing.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing.md`, or the legacy `product-marketing-context.md` filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
+
+Gather this context (ask if not provided):
+
+### 1. Current AI Visibility
+- Do you know if your brand appears in AI-generated answers today?
+- Have you checked ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google AI Overviews for your key queries?
+- What queries matter most to your business?
+
+### 2. Content & Domain
+- What type of content do you produce? (Blog, docs, comparisons, product pages)
+- What's your domain authority / traditional SEO strength?
+- Do you have existing structured data (schema markup)?
+
+### 3. Goals
+- Get cited as a source in AI answers?
+- Appear in Google AI Overviews for specific queries?
+- Compete with specific brands already getting cited?
+- Optimize existing content or create new AI-optimized content?
+
+### 4. Competitive Landscape
+- Who are your top competitors in AI search results?
+- Are they being cited where you're not?
+
+---
+
+## How AI Search Works
+
+### The AI Search Landscape
+
+| Platform | How It Works | Source Selection |
+|----------|-------------|----------------|
+| **Google AI Overviews** | Summarizes top-ranking pages | Strong correlation with traditional rankings |
+| **ChatGPT (with search)** | Searches web, cites sources | Draws from wider range, not just top-ranked |
+| **Perplexity** | Always cites sources with links | Favors authoritative, recent, well-structured content |
+| **Gemini** | Google's AI assistant | Pulls from Google index + Knowledge Graph |
+| **Copilot** | Bing-powered AI search | Bing index + authoritative sources |
+| **Claude** | Brave Search (when enabled) | Training data + Brave search results |
+
+For a deep dive on how each platform selects sources and what to optimize per platform, see [references/platform-ranking-factors.md](references/platform-ranking-factors.md).
+
+### Key Difference from Traditional SEO
+
+Traditional SEO gets you ranked. AI SEO gets you **cited**.
+
+In traditional search, you need to rank on page 1. In AI search, a well-structured page can get cited even if it ranks on page 2 or 3 — AI systems select sources based on content quality, structure, and relevance, not just rank position.
+
+**Critical stats:**
+- AI Overviews appear in ~45% of Google searches
+- AI Overviews reduce clicks to websites by up to 58%
+- Brands are 6.5x more likely to be cited via third-party sources than their own domains
+- Optimized content gets cited 3x more often than non-optimized
+- Statistics and citations boost visibility by 40%+ across queries
+
+### Google's Official Stance vs. Multi-Platform Reality
+
+This is important to read once before doing anything else.
+
+**Google's position** ([AI features optimization guide](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/ai-optimization-guide)):
+> "The best practices for SEO continue to be relevant because our generative AI features on Google Search are rooted in our core Search ranking and quality systems."
+
+Google explicitly says:
+- **No special markup or files are required** for AI Overviews or AI Mode
+- **Don't chunk content for AI** — write for people, organize with normal headings and paragraphs
+- **Don't write separate content for AI** — that risks "scaled content abuse" spam policy
+- **Helpful, reliable, people-first content** wins — same E-E-A-T standards as regular Search
+- **No AI-specific Search Console reporting** — use standard SEO metrics
+
+**Other AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot) behave differently:**
+- They actively reward extractable structure — passages, FAQs, comparison tables, definition blocks
+- They parse `llms.txt`, structured pricing pages, and machine-readable files when present
+- They cite third-party sources (Reddit, Wikipedia, review sites) more heavily than top-ranked pages
+
+**What this means for the work:**
+- The structural patterns in this skill (40–60 word answer blocks, FAQ schema, comparison tables) help **non-Google AI engines** materially. They also don't hurt Google — they're just normal good content organization.
+- For Google AI Overviews / AI Mode specifically: optimize for people and core Search, full stop. Strong E-E-A-T, original information, semantic HTML, clean indexability.
+- For ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity: layer on the extractable structure + llms.txt + machine-readable files.
+
+When in doubt, default to "write for people, organize for clarity" — that satisfies both camps.
+
+### Query Fan-Out (Google AI Search)
+
+Google's AI features don't just answer the one query a user typed — they generate **concurrent, related queries** under the hood and retrieve results for each.
+
+Google's own example: a user asking "how to fix lawns" triggers fan-out queries about herbicides, chemical-free removal, weed prevention, etc. The AI synthesizes across all of them.
+
+**Implications:**
+- Single-page-per-keyword targeting is less effective. Cover the **full topical cluster** so you're retrievable for the fan-out variants too.
+- Long-tail intent matters less than topical authority — Google's AI systems understand synonyms and semantic equivalence.
+- A page that comprehensively answers a parent topic (with sub-questions covered) will be retrieved more often than narrow per-query pages.
+
+**Action**: when planning content, brainstorm the 5–10 related queries the AI is likely to fan out to and make sure your content (or your site as a whole) covers them.
+
+ChatGPT fans out too — and you can extract its *literal* background queries for your niche via DevTools (method in [references/format-volatility.md](references/format-volatility.md)). Post-5.6, ChatGPT's fan-outs shifted away from "best/vs/top" modifiers toward `site:` and "official" searches — use the extraction to see where your category's fan-outs stand today.
+
+---
+
+## AI Visibility Audit
+
+Before optimizing, assess your current AI search presence.
+
+### Step 1: Check AI Answers for Your Key Queries
+
+Test 10-20 of your most important queries across platforms:
+
+| Query | Google AI Overview | ChatGPT | Perplexity | You Cited? | Competitors Cited? |
+|-------|:-----------------:|:-------:|:----------:|:----------:|:-----------------:|
+| [query 1] | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | [who] |
+| [query 2] | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | [who] |
+
+**Query types to test:**
+- "What is [your product category]?"
+- "Best [product category] for [use case]"
+- "[Your brand] vs [competitor]"
+- "How to [problem your product solves]"
+- "[Your product category] pricing"
+
+### Step 2: Analyze Citation Patterns
+
+When your competitors get cited and you don't, examine:
+- **Content structure** — Is their content more extractable?
+- **Authority signals** — Do they have more citations, stats, expert quotes?
+- **Freshness** — Is their content more recently updated?
+- **Schema markup** — Do they have structured data you're missing?
+- **Third-party presence** — Are they cited via Wikipedia, Reddit, review sites?
+
+### Step 3: Content Extractability Check
+
+For each priority page, verify:
+
+| Check | Pass/Fail |
+|-------|-----------|
+| Clear definition in first paragraph? | |
+| Self-contained answer blocks (work without surrounding context)? | |
+| Statistics with sources cited? | |
+| Comparison tables for "[X] vs [Y]" queries? | |
+| FAQ section with natural-language questions? | |
+| Schema markup (FAQ, HowTo, Article, Product)? | |
+| Expert attribution (author name, credentials)? | |
+| Recently updated (within 6 months)? | |
+| Heading structure matches query patterns? | |
+| AI bots allowed in robots.txt? | |
+
+### Step 4: AI Bot Access Check
+
+Verify your robots.txt allows AI crawlers. Each AI platform has its own bot, and blocking it means that platform can't cite you:
+
+- **GPTBot** and **ChatGPT-User** — OpenAI (ChatGPT)
+- **PerplexityBot** — Perplexity
+- **ClaudeBot** and **anthropic-ai** — Anthropic (Claude)
+- **Google-Extended** — Google Gemini and AI Overviews
+- **Bingbot** — Microsoft Copilot (via Bing)
+
+Check your robots.txt for `Disallow` rules targeting any of these. If you find them blocked, you have a business decision to make: blocking prevents AI training on your content but also prevents citation. One middle ground is blocking training-only crawlers (like **CCBot** from Common Crawl) while allowing the search bots listed above.
+
+See [references/platform-ranking-factors.md](references/platform-ranking-factors.md) for the full robots.txt configuration.
+
+---
+
+## Optimization Strategy
+
+### The Three Pillars
+
+```
+1. Structure (make it extractable)
+2. Authority (make it citable)
+3. Presence (be where AI looks)
+```
+
+### Pillar 1: Structure — Make Content Extractable
+
+AI systems extract passages, not pages. Every key claim should work as a standalone statement.
+
+**Content block patterns:**
+- **Definition blocks** for "What is X?" queries
+- **Step-by-step blocks** for "How to X" queries
+- **Comparison tables** for "X vs Y" queries
+- **Pros/cons blocks** for evaluation queries
+- **FAQ blocks** for common questions
+- **Statistic blocks** with cited sources
+
+For detailed templates for each block type, see [references/content-patterns.md](references/content-patterns.md).
+
+**Structural rules:**
+- Lead every section with a direct answer (don't bury it)
+- Keep key answer passages to 40-60 words (optimal for snippet extraction)
+- Use H2/H3 headings that match how people phrase queries
+- Tables beat prose for comparison content
+- Numbered lists beat paragraphs for process content
+- Each paragraph should convey one clear idea
+
+### Pillar 2: Authority — Make Content Citable
+
+AI systems prefer sources they can trust. Build citation-worthiness.
+
+**The Princeton GEO research** (KDD 2024, studied across Perplexity.ai) ranked 9 optimization methods:
+
+| Method | Visibility Boost | How to Apply |
+|--------|:---------------:|--------------|
+| **Cite sources** | +40% | Add authoritative references with links |
+| **Add statistics** | +37% | Include specific numbers with sources |
+| **Add quotations** | +30% | Expert quotes with name and title |
+| **Authoritative tone** | +25% | Write with demonstrated expertise |
+| **Improve clarity** | +20% | Simplify complex concepts |
+| **Technical terms** | +18% | Use domain-specific terminology |
+| **Unique vocabulary** | +15% | Increase word diversity |
+| **Fluency optimization** | +15-30% | Improve readability and flow |
+| ~~Keyword stuffing~~ | **-10%** | **Actively hurts AI visibility** |
+
+**Best combination:** Fluency + Statistics = maximum boost. Low-ranking sites benefit even more — up to 115% visibility increase with citations.
+
+**Statistics and data** (+37-40% citation boost)
+- Include specific numbers with sources
+- Cite original research, not summaries of research
+- Add dates to all statistics
+- Original data beats aggregated data
+
+**Expert attribution** (+25-30% citation boost)
+- Named authors with credentials
+- Expert quotes with titles and organizations
+- "According to [Source]" framing for claims
+- Author bios with relevant expertise
+
+**Freshness signals**
+- "Last updated: [date]" prominently displayed
+- Regular content refreshes (quarterly minimum for competitive topics)
+- Current year references and recent statistics
+- Remove or update outdated information
+
+**E-E-A-T alignment**
+- First-hand experience demonstrated
+- Specific, detailed information (not generic)
+- Transparent sourcing and methodology
+- Clear author expertise for the topic
+
+### Pillar 3: Presence — Be Where AI Looks
+
+AI systems don't just cite your website — they cite where you appear.
+
+**Third-party sources matter more than your own site:**
+- Wikipedia mentions (7.8% of all ChatGPT citations)
+- Reddit discussions (volatile: ~1.8% of ChatGPT citations historically, but nearly wiped from ChatGPT by Aug 2026 retrieval changes — still retrieved elsewhere; see the volatility section in [references/agent-readiness.md](references/agent-readiness.md))
+- Industry publications and guest posts
+- LinkedIn — per LinkedIn's own AEO guide, the most-cited outlet for professional-topic searches; Articles out-cite Posts ~60/40, and a post's first words become its URL slug, so front-load the target phrase (details in [references/format-volatility.md](references/format-volatility.md))
+- Review sites (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for B2B SaaS)
+- YouTube (frequently cited by Google AI Overviews)
+- Podcasts (episodes get transcribed, show notes published — both get crawled and cited)
+- Quora answers
+
+**Actions:**
+- Ensure your Wikipedia page is accurate and current
+- Participate authentically in Reddit communities — but as one surface in a portfolio, never the whole strategy (citation mixes shift overnight with retrieval updates)
+- Get featured in industry roundups and comparison articles
+- Maintain updated profiles on relevant review platforms
+- Create YouTube content for key how-to queries — models don't watch the video, they read the text layer around it; see [references/youtube-ai-citations.md](references/youtube-ai-citations.md) for the full anatomy (transcript, captions, chapters, description, pinned comment)
+- Guest on podcasts in your category (prep with the public-relations skill's podcast guest prep)
+- Answer relevant Quora questions with depth
+
+### Machine-Readable Files for AI Agents
+
+> **Google's stance**: not required for AI Overviews or AI Mode. Their guide explicitly says you don't need new markup, AI files, or markdown to appear in generative AI search.
+>
+> **Why include them anyway**: non-Google AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) and autonomous buying agents do reward extractable structure. The files below help with those engines without harming Google.
+
+AI agents aren't just answering questions — they're becoming buyers. When an AI agent evaluates tools on behalf of a user, it needs structured, parseable information. If your pricing is locked in a JavaScript-rendered page or a "contact sales" wall, agents will skip you and recommend competitors whose information they can actually read.
+
+**Audit this layer first**: [references/agent-readiness.md](references/agent-readiness.md) — the access/discovery/parseability checklist, free scoring tools (`npx is-agentic`, Frase's checker), Markdown content negotiation + `Link` headers, `llms-full.txt`, and the emerging agent-*actionable* layer (WebMCP).
+
+Add these machine-readable files to your site root:
+
+**`/pricing.md` or `/pricing.txt`** — Structured pricing data for AI agents
+
+```markdown
+# Pricing — [Your Product Name]
+
+## Free
+- Price: $0/month
+- Limits: 100 emails/month, 1 user
+- Features: Basic templates, API access
+
+## Pro
+- Price: $29/month (billed annually) | $35/month (billed monthly)
+- Limits: 10,000 emails/month, 5 users
+- Features: Custom domains, analytics, priority support
+
+## Enterprise
+- Price: Custom — contact sales@example.com
+- Limits: Unlimited emails, unlimited users
+- Features: SSO, SLA, dedicated account manager
+```
+
+**Why this matters now:**
+- AI agents increasingly compare products programmatically before a human ever visits your site
+- Opaque pricing gets filtered out of AI-mediated buying journeys
+- A simple markdown file is trivially parseable by any LLM — no rendering, no JavaScript, no login walls
+- Same principle as `robots.txt` (for crawlers), `llms.txt` (for AI context), and `AGENTS.md` (for agent capabilities)
+
+**Best practices:**
+- Use consistent units (monthly vs. annual, per-seat vs. flat)
+- Include specific limits and thresholds, not just feature names
+- List what's included at each tier, not just what's different
+- Keep it updated — stale pricing is worse than no file
+- Link to it from your sitemap and main pricing page
+
+**`/llms.txt`** — Context file for AI systems (see [llmstxt.org](https://llmstxt.org))
+
+If you don't have one yet, add an `llms.txt` that gives AI systems a quick overview of what your product does, who it's for, and links to key pages (including your pricing).
+
+**`/okf/` — Open Knowledge Format bundle (Google-backed, v0.1)**
+
+Google [introduced OKF](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/how-the-open-knowledge-format-can-improve-data-sharing) in June 2026 — a markdown spec for representing site content as a directory of cross-linked files with YAML frontmatter, agent-readable without scraping. Built primarily for data-team catalog metadata; the site-readable-by-agents repurposing was popularized by Suganthan Mohanadasan. No confirmed AI-search ranking signal today — treat it as protocol-layer registration like early schema.org. **For the full breakdown, implementation paths (free generator, WordPress plugin, by-hand), hosting guidance, and when to skip, see [references/okf.md](references/okf.md).**
+
+### Schema Markup for AI
+
+Structured data helps AI systems understand your content. Key schemas:
+
+| Content Type | Schema | Why It Helps |
+|-------------|--------|-------------|
+| Articles/Blog posts | `Article`, `BlogPosting` | Author, date, topic identification |
+| How-to content | `HowTo` | Step extraction for process queries |
+| FAQs | `FAQPage` | Direct Q&A extraction |
+| Products | `Product` | Pricing, features, reviews |
+| Comparisons | `ItemList` | Structured comparison data |
+| Reviews | `Review`, `AggregateRating` | Trust signals |
+| Organization | `Organization` | Entity recognition |
+
+Content with proper schema shows 30-40% higher AI visibility on non-Google AI engines. **Google's note**: structured data is "not required for generative AI search" but is recommended for overall SEO strategy. For implementation, use the **schema** skill.
+
+---
+
+## Agentic Experiences
+
+Beyond AI search engines summarizing content, autonomous agents are starting to access sites directly — clicking, reading, comparing, even buying on behalf of users. Google's guide flags this as an emerging category to plan for.
+
+**How agents access your site:**
+- **Visual rendering** — they screenshot/read the page like a user would
+- **DOM inspection** — they parse the page's HTML structure
+- **Accessibility tree** — they rely on the same semantic information assistive tech uses (labels, roles, landmarks, headings)
+
+**What to do:**
+- **Render meaningful content without heavy JS gymnastics** — if the page is blank until 4 frameworks finish loading, agents see blank
+- **Semantic HTML** — use `<main>`, `<nav>`, `<article>`, `<button>`, proper heading hierarchy, `alt` text on images
+- **Clean accessibility tree** — every interactive element labelled; ARIA used correctly (or not at all when native HTML suffices)
+- **Stable selectors / predictable layouts** — agents struggle with sites that re-render every interaction
+- **Visible pricing, specs, contact info** — anything an agent would need to make a buying recommendation should be on a public, indexable page (this is where `/pricing.md` and similar files help)
+
+**Emerging — Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP):**
+Google references UCP as a forthcoming protocol that will give agents standardized hooks for commerce interactions (catalog discovery, pricing, checkout). Watch for adoption; for now, the structural recommendations above are the precursor.
+
+For ecom and local business specifically, Google highlights:
+- **Merchant Center feeds** + **Google Business Profile** for product/service visibility in AI Search
+- **Business Agent** for conversational customer engagement (where applicable)
+
+---
+
+## Content Types That Get Cited Most
+
+Not all content is equally citable — and the format mix is **volatile**. The long-standing baseline had comparison articles (~33%) and listicles (~10%) among the top citation earners, but **ChatGPT 5.6 (Aug 2026) demoted the exploited formats: listicle citations fell −50.5% and comparison-page citations −32.1%, while `site:` and "official" retrieval surged** — a shift toward primary sources and owned pages. Format strategy is now per-platform (comparisons still work on Google AIO/Gemini/Perplexity). See [references/format-volatility.md](references/format-volatility.md) for the shift data, the per-platform format table, LinkedIn's citation numbers, and the ChatGPT fan-out extraction diagnostic.
+
+**Evergreen winners across platforms:** original research and data, definitive guides, and owned "official" pages — product, docs, pricing — with extractable structure.
+
+**Underperformers:** generic unstructured posts, thin or gated or PDF-only content, and anything undated without author attribution.
+
+**Citation ≠ recommendation.** Getting cited means your content was useful to consult; getting *recommended* — onto the buyer's actual shortlist — is governed by web-wide consensus (reviews, forums, analysts, press) and is largely independent of your own content. Self-promotional "best [category]" listicles can even backfire for emerging brands: in one 100-query B2B study, 69% of the AI Overview citations that self-promotional listicles earned came in answers that recommended competitors instead of the publishing brand. See [references/citations-vs-recommendations.md](references/citations-vs-recommendations.md) for the visibility ladder (retrieved → cited → mentioned → recommended), stage-dependent buyer's-guide strategy, what earns recommendations, and the attribution blind spot.
+
+---
+
+## Monitoring AI Visibility
+
+### What to Track
+
+| Metric | What It Measures | How to Check |
+|--------|-----------------|-------------|
+| AI Overview presence | Do AI Overviews appear for your queries? | Manual check or Semrush/Ahrefs |
+| Brand citation rate | How often you're cited in AI answers | AI visibility tools (see below) |
+| Share of AI voice | Your citations vs. competitors | Peec AI, Otterly, ZipTie |
+| Citation sentiment | How AI describes your brand | Manual review + monitoring tools |
+| Recommendation rate | Whether you're on the shortlist, not just cited (see [citations-vs-recommendations.md](references/citations-vs-recommendations.md)) | Prompt tracking + mention framing |
+| Source attribution | Which of your pages get cited | Track referral traffic from AI sources |
+
+### AI Visibility Monitoring Tools
+
+| Tool | Coverage | Best For |
+|------|----------|----------|
+| **Otterly AI** | ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews | Share of AI voice tracking |
+| **Peec AI** | ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot+ | Multi-platform monitoring at scale |
+| **ZipTie** | Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity | Brand mention + sentiment tracking |
+| **LLMrefs** | ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, Gemini | SEO keyword → AI visibility mapping |
+
+### DIY Monitoring (No Tools)
+
+Monthly manual check:
+1. Pick your top 20 queries
+2. Run each through ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google
+3. Record: Are you cited? Who is? What page?
+4. Log in a spreadsheet, track month-over-month
+
+AI answers are **non-deterministic** — one run is an anecdote, not a measurement. Run each query 3–5 times per platform and track the mention *rate* with its sample size ("cited 3/5, n=5"), comparing rates over time rather than single runs. Full rigor checklist in [references/format-volatility.md](references/format-volatility.md).
+
+### Search Console expectations
+
+Google's guide is explicit: **there is no AI-specific Search Console reporting**. AI Overviews and AI Mode use core Search ranking, so the standard Search Console reports (Performance, Coverage, Core Web Vitals) are still what you measure with for Google. The third-party tools above are the only way to see cross-platform AI citation behavior.
+
+---
+
+## What NOT to Do
+
+Google's guide calls these out explicitly — they hurt across both traditional Search and AI features.
+
+1. **Write separate content "for AI"**. Same content should serve people and AI. Writing variants targeted at AI systems risks the **scaled content abuse spam policy** — Google's words.
+2. **Chunk pages into AI-bait fragments**. Google's guide is direct: *"Don't break your content into tiny pieces for AI to better understand it."* Use normal paragraph + heading structure.
+3. **Generate at scale for ranking manipulation**. AI-generated content is fine *if* it meets Search Essentials and spam policies. Mass-producing thin variations does not.
+4. **Pursue inauthentic mentions**. Don't fabricate citations or bulk-spam Reddit/Wikipedia for AI visibility. Real participation only.
+5. **Block AI crawlers if you want citation**. Blocking GPTBot, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended means those engines literally cannot cite you. Block training-only crawlers (CCBot) if you must, not the search-and-cite ones.
+6. **Hide your main content behind JS that doesn't render**. Both core Search and AI agents need to see your content; JS-only rendering loses both audiences.
+7. **Skip E-E-A-T fundamentals**. Author identity, first-hand experience, expertise signals, transparent sourcing — Google's guide leans heavily on these for AI features.
+
+---
+
+## AI SEO by Content Type
+
+For tactical guidance on SaaS product pages, blog content, comparison/alternative pages, documentation, and local/ecom (Google's emphasis on Merchant Center + Business Profile), see [references/content-types.md](references/content-types.md).
+
+---
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+- **Ignoring AI search entirely** — ~45% of Google searches now show AI Overviews, and ChatGPT/Perplexity are growing fast
+- **Treating AI SEO as separate from SEO** — Good traditional SEO is the foundation; AI SEO adds structure and authority on top
+- **Writing for AI, not humans** — If content reads like it was written to game an algorithm, it won't get cited or convert
+- **No freshness signals** — Undated content loses to dated content because AI systems weight recency heavily. Show when content was last updated
+- **Gating all content** — AI can't access gated content. Keep your most authoritative content open
+- **Ignoring third-party presence** — You may get more AI citations from a Wikipedia mention than from your own blog
+- **No structured data** — Schema markup gives AI systems structured context about your content
+- **Keyword stuffing** — Unlike traditional SEO where it's just ineffective, keyword stuffing actively reduces AI visibility by 10% (Princeton GEO study)
+- **Hiding pricing behind "contact sales" or JS-rendered pages** — AI agents evaluating your product on behalf of buyers can't parse what they can't read. Add a `/pricing.md` file
+- **Blocking AI bots** — If GPTBot, PerplexityBot, or ClaudeBot are blocked in robots.txt, those platforms can't cite you
+- **Generic content without data** — "We're the best" won't get cited. "Our customers see 3x improvement in [metric]" will
+- **Forgetting to monitor** — You can't improve what you don't measure. Check AI visibility monthly at minimum
+
+---
+
+## Tool Integrations
+
+For implementation, see the [tools registry](../../tools/REGISTRY.md).
+
+| Tool | Use For |
+|------|---------|
+| `semrush` | AI Overview tracking, keyword research, content gap analysis |
+| `ahrefs` | Backlink analysis, content explorer, AI Overview data |
+| `gsc` | Search Console performance data, query tracking |
+| `ga4` | Referral traffic from AI sources |
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+1. What are your top 10-20 most important queries?
+2. Have you checked if AI answers exist for those queries today?
+3. Do you have structured data (schema markup) on your site?
+4. What content types do you publish? (Blog, docs, comparisons, etc.)
+5. Are competitors being cited by AI where you're not?
+6. Do you have a Wikipedia page or presence on review sites?
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **seo-audit**: For traditional technical and on-page SEO audits
+- **schema**: For implementing structured data that helps AI understand your content
+- **content-strategy**: For planning what content to create
+- **competitors**: For building comparison pages that get cited
+- **programmatic-seo**: For building SEO pages at scale
+- **copywriting**: For writing content that's both human-readable and AI-extractable

package/bundled-skills/ai-seo/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "ai-seo",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "How do I make sure our SaaS product shows up in AI search results? We're a project management tool and we keep getting left out of ChatGPT and Perplexity recommendations when people ask about project management software.",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should apply the three pillars framework: Structure (make content extractable), Authority (make content citable), Presence (be where AI looks). Should run through the AI Visibility Audit checklist across platforms (Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, etc.). Should check content extractability (clear definitions, structured comparisons, statistics). Should reference Princeton GEO research findings (citations improve visibility +40%, statistics +37%). Should check AI bot access in robots.txt. Should provide a prioritized action plan.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Applies three pillars framework (Structure, Authority, Presence)",
+        "Runs AI Visibility Audit across platforms",
+        "Checks content extractability",
+        "References Princeton GEO research findings",
+        "Checks AI bot access in robots.txt",
+        "Provides prioritized action plan"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Should we block AI crawlers like GPTBot and PerplexityBot in our robots.txt? We're worried about content theft.",
+      "expected_output": "Should address the AI bot access question directly. Should explain the tradeoff: blocking AI bots prevents training on your content but also prevents AI platforms from citing and recommending you. Should reference the specific bots and their purposes (GPTBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot, etc.). Should provide the recommended robots.txt configuration. Should explain that blocking may hurt AI visibility more than it protects content. Should provide a nuanced recommendation based on business goals.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Addresses the blocking tradeoff directly",
+        "Explains impact on AI visibility vs content protection",
+        "Lists specific AI bot user agents",
+        "Provides recommended robots.txt configuration",
+        "Gives nuanced recommendation based on business goals",
+        "Explains what each bot does"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "What kind of content gets cited most by AI systems? We want to create content specifically optimized for AI search.",
+      "expected_output": "Should reference the content types that get cited most, including comparisons (~33% of AI citations), definitive guides (~15%), and other high-citation content types. Should explain why these formats work (they provide the structured, extractable, authoritative information AI systems need). Should provide specific recommendations for creating AI-optimized content: clear definitions, structured data, original statistics, comparison tables, expert quotes. Should reference the Princeton GEO research on what increases citation probability.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "References specific content types with citation rates",
+        "Mentions comparisons as highest-cited format",
+        "Explains why these formats work for AI",
+        "Provides specific content creation recommendations",
+        "References Princeton GEO research",
+        "Mentions structured data, statistics, and clear definitions"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "we noticed our competitors are showing up in google AI overviews but we're not. what do we need to change?",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should focus specifically on Google AI Overviews visibility. Should explain how AI Overviews selects sources (authoritative, well-structured, directly answers queries). Should run through the Structure pillar checklist: content extractability, heading hierarchy, answer-first format, structured data. Should check Authority signals: domain authority, citations, E-E-A-T. Should recommend specific content structure changes. Should suggest monitoring approach.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Focuses on Google AI Overviews specifically",
+        "Explains how AI Overviews selects sources",
+        "Checks Structure pillar (extractability, headings, answer-first)",
+        "Checks Authority signals",
+        "Recommends specific content structure changes",
+        "Suggests monitoring approach"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "Can you audit our website for AI search readiness? We want to know how visible we are across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews, and other AI platforms.",
+      "expected_output": "Should run the full AI Visibility Audit. Should check each platform in the landscape (Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Copilot). Should evaluate all three pillars: Structure (content extractability, JSON-LD, clear definitions), Authority (citations, backlinks, E-E-A-T signals), Presence (AI bot access, platform-specific factors). Should provide findings organized by pillar. Should provide a prioritized action plan with specific fixes.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Runs full AI Visibility Audit",
+        "Checks multiple AI platforms",
+        "Evaluates all three pillars (Structure, Authority, Presence)",
+        "Checks content extractability",
+        "Checks AI bot access",
+        "Provides findings organized by pillar",
+        "Provides prioritized action plan"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Our organic search traffic has dropped 30% this quarter. Can you do a full SEO audit to figure out what's going on?",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is a traditional SEO audit request, not specifically an AI SEO task. Should defer to or cross-reference the seo-audit skill, which handles comprehensive traditional SEO audits including crawlability, technical foundations, on-page optimization, and content quality. May mention AI search as one factor to investigate but should make clear that seo-audit is the primary skill for this task.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as a traditional SEO audit request",
+        "References or defers to seo-audit skill",
+        "Does not attempt a full traditional SEO audit using AI SEO patterns",
+        "May mention AI search as one factor to consider"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "prompt": "We're a seed-stage data-quality startup (barely anyone knows us yet). Plan: publish 20 'best data quality tools' style listicles ranking ourselves #1 so ChatGPT and AI Overviews recommend us. Good idea?",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply references/citations-vs-recommendations.md rather than endorsing the plan as-is. Should explain the citation vs. recommendation distinction — self-promotional listicles from low-authority brands often earn citations while the AI answer recommends the competitors named in the guide instead (cites the study directionally: ~69% of self-promotional listicle citations — 224 of 323 — excluded the publisher from recommendations). Should present the visibility ladder (retrieved → cited → mentioned → recommended) and explain recommendation is governed by offsite consensus (reviews, forums, analysts, press). Should NOT say 'don't publish guides' — should reframe: publish a small number of genuinely useful guides for category framing, and rebalance investment toward reviews/communities/earned media. Should mention the attribution blind spot (AI-influenced visits mostly appear as branded search/direct; only a small share is visible AI traffic) and the measurement triad (prompt tracking, self-reported attribution, call recordings).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Does not endorse 20 self-ranked listicles as a path to AI recommendations for a low-authority brand",
+        "Distinguishes citations from recommendations with the different governing criteria",
+        "References the visibility ladder (retrieved/cited/mentioned/recommended)",
+        "Warns the guides may surface competitors in AI answers (vote-for-competitors mechanism)",
+        "Recommends offsite consensus building (reviews, communities, analysts, or PR) as the recommendation lever",
+        "Does not tell the user to stop publishing buyer's guides entirely — reframes expectations toward citation and category framing",
+        "Mentions the attribution blind spot and at least two of: prompt tracking, self-reported attribution, call recordings"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "prompt": "We publish YouTube tutorials for our category's biggest how-to queries but never get cited in AI answers, while a competitor's uglier videos show up in Google AI Overviews and ChatGPT constantly. The videos themselves are well produced. What are we missing?",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/youtube-ai-citations.md and diagnose the text layer, not the footage: models don't watch the video, they read everything around it. Should check, in leverage order: transcript quality (key answers spoken as complete, liftable sentences; entities said out loud), captions (cleaned/uploaded, not messy auto-captions), question-shaped title matching the real query, chapters titled by sub-question, a keyword-rich description restating the key points as text, and a pinned comment carrying the summary. Should note engagement/thumbnail feeds YouTube ranking which feeds AI surfacing, and should not recommend re-shooting or higher production value as the fix.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "States that AI models read the text layer (transcript, captions, title, chapters, description, pinned comment) rather than watching the video",
+        "Recommends cleaning/uploading captions and speaking key answers as complete liftable statements with entities said aloud",
+        "Recommends question-shaped titles, chapters titled by sub-question, a structured description, and a pinned summary comment",
+        "Does not attribute the gap to production quality or recommend re-shooting as the primary fix"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "prompt": "Our content is well-written and we have schema markup, but AI assistants never seem to use our site. Someone said our site might not be 'agent-ready.' We also put most of our AI-visibility effort into Reddit this year since that's where ChatGPT cites from. What should we do?",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/agent-readiness.md and address both halves. (1) Agent readiness: recommend running a free scoring tool (npx is-agentic and/or Frase's Agent Readiness Checker) and walk the access/discovery/parseability triad — core content must be in the initial HTML without JavaScript execution, no bot challenge/firewall blocking AI crawlers, robots.txt with an explicit AI-crawler stance, clean sitemap, llms.txt (+llms-full.txt as bonus), structured data, and a Markdown representation via content negotiation (Accept: text/markdown at the same canonical URL) or a Link header. May mention WebMCP as the emerging agent-actionable layer, labeled emerging. (2) Reddit concentration: flag citation-source volatility — ChatGPT's Aug 2026 retrieval changes nearly wiped Reddit as a source (practitioner-reported), so single-surface concentration is fragile; recommend the portfolio approach across third-party surfaces plus owned-site fundamentals (which dominate Gemini citations), and verifying any citation-share stat against their own monitoring before betting budget.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recommends running an agent-readiness scoring tool (is-agentic or Frase checker) and structures the audit as access / discovery / parseability",
+        "Identifies JavaScript-only content rendering and bot/firewall blocking as first-order access failures",
+        "Covers the discovery/parseability file stack: robots.txt AI stance, sitemap, llms.txt or llms-full.txt, structured data, and a Markdown representation (content negotiation or Link header)",
+        "Flags the Reddit-only strategy as fragile, citing citation-source volatility (Aug 2026 ChatGPT retrieval change, labeled practitioner-reported) and recommends a portfolio plus owned-site fundamentals",
+        "Does not present citation-share statistics as stable facts; recommends verifying against the user's own citation monitoring"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 10,
+      "prompt": "We're a B2B SaaS planning our 2026 content roadmap. The plan is 40 comparison pages ('us vs competitor') and 20 'best tools' listicles, mainly to win ChatGPT citations. Also, how do I know if it's working — I checked ChatGPT once last week and we weren't mentioned.",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/format-volatility.md and push back on the rationale with the ChatGPT 5.6 shift (Aug 2026, Peec AI data): listicle citations fell ~50% and comparison-page citations ~32% post-5.6, with fan-out queries dropping 'best/vs/top/comparison' modifiers in favor of site: and 'official' searches — so 'win ChatGPT citations' no longer justifies scaled comparison/listicle production. Should NOT say comparison pages are dead: they still convert humans and still earn citations on Google AI Overviews, Gemini, and Perplexity — format strategy is per-platform. Should steer investment toward owned 'official' pages (product, docs, pricing, original research), which are rising as the citable class and dominate Gemini (~60% business sites). May suggest extracting ChatGPT's real fan-out queries via the DevTools method for coverage planning (while warning against mass-generating a page per query — scaled content abuse). On measurement: one ChatGPT check is an anecdote — AI answers are non-deterministic; run each query 3–5 times per platform, track mention rate with sample size (e.g. 'cited 3/5'), and compare rates over time. Numbers should be treated as dated snapshots to verify against own monitoring."
+    }
+  ]
+}