| name | openseo-review-web-content |
| description | Write and review content for the OpenSEO website (web/) — blog posts, guides, feature pages, FAQs. Distills the philosophy for on-brand, useful, accurate content. Use whenever adding or editing user-facing prose in web/content or web/src. |
| metadata | {"internal":true} |
OpenSEO Web Content
Everything we publish must be traceable to what the product actually does and costs, and must read like a practitioner wrote it. The reader's interest comes first: teach something they can act on, and answer straight — including when the honest answer is "no" or "it costs money."
Principles
- Traceable truth. Every capability claim, price, and screenshot is verifiable against the code, the fact sheet (
src/server/features/onboarding/openseo-fact-sheet.md), or the live product. If you can't point to where it's true, it doesn't ship.
- Lead with the real answer. "No," "not unlimited," and "it costs money" are complete answers. Hedging that lets a reader infer something more flattering than the truth is a way of misleading them.
- Honest pricing, with its reasoning. Quality SEO data is expensive everywhere — that's why the big suites run $100/month and up. OpenSEO is the affordable option: $10/month, free to start. Never simply "free."
- Sound like a person. Fix AI tells by restating the underlying claim plainly, not by polishing the flourish. The deslop skill is the reference for what to hunt and how to fix it.
- Reader-first altitude. Guides teach actionable SEO that stands on its own — not product documentation, not generic filler. Credit free resources to their real owners (Google's autocomplete, the reader's own Search Console).
- One bar, whole surface. When a standard improves, sweep everything to it — all the FAQs, all the pages — not just the instance that got noticed.
Questions to ask while reviewing
- If a reader trusted every claim and screenshot, then opened OpenSEO right now, where would reality not match?
- Does each answer open with the real answer, or quietly steer toward a more flattering inference?
- Read the sharpest line aloud: would a person say it that way?
- Is anything called free that actually costs credits?
- Is this teaching the reader something useful on its own, or drifting into product docs or padding?
- Does every link, image, and example on the page earn its place for the reader?
Facts to verify, not remember
Check these against code before repeating any of them — they change: pricing and credits (src/shared/billing.ts, the pricing page), free-plan limits (src/shared/audit-limits.ts), MCP capabilities (src/server/mcp/tools/ — one file per tool), and any UI affordance copy tells the reader to use (the column, sort, or filter must exist in the client code).
Process
Spawn subagents to run the review passes (voice/deslop, claims accuracy, directness) and have them return exact old → new proposals rather than editing directly. Do not accept their proposals blindly: verify each one against the actual file, and each factual claim against the code, before applying — subagent rewrites can introduce their own awkwardness or errors, and a proposal that mismatches the file means it reviewed stale text. After applying, sweep the changed surface yourself (patterns cluster — one em dash or hedge usually has neighbors), then run npm --prefix web run types:check and prettier on touched TS/TSX.
