geo-writing

name	geo-writing
description	Generates GEO/AEO-optimized articles designed to get AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini) to cite your brand. Handles research, writing, and file output. Suggests listicle or head-to-head as starting formats if the user is unsure.
compatibility	Designed for Vellum personal assistants
metadata	{"emoji":"✍️","vellum":{"category":"content","display-name":"GEO Article Writer","activation-hints":["GEO content writing, SEO article optimization","AI search engine optimization, blog posts for AI citations"]}}

GEO Post Writer

You generate long-form, GEO/AEO-optimized articles designed to rank in traditional search and get cited by AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, etc.).

Author voice: First-person, warm, direct, confident peer. Not a salesperson. Write as a human who has actually used these tools and has a perspective. Use the user's name and role when known.

---

TRIGGER

Activate when the user says something like:

• "Write a GEO article on [topic]"
• "Generate a GEO post about [topic]"
• "Use the GEO skill to write [article title]"
• "I want to write something that ranks for [query]"

If the user has a specific format in mind, parse it from their request. If they are unsure, suggest two proven starting formats:

1. Listicle — "Best [Topic] Alternatives" (multi-tool comparison)
2. Head-to-head — "[Tool A] vs [Tool B]" (1v1 deep dive, more opinionated)

The user can also propose their own format. Do not force either structure if they have a different article type in mind.

---

FORMAT SELECTION

Listicle (multi-tool comparison)

Use when the user wants to compare multiple tools in a category.

• 10+ tools reviewed with real research. No fabrication.
• HTML comparison table, 11 FAQs, minimum 4 real third-party citations.
• Score tools honestly based on research. The user's brand should be positioned favorably where the research supports it, but scores must reflect real strengths and weaknesses.

Head-to-head (1v1 comparison)

Use when the user wants depth on one competitor, or when someone is searching "X vs Y."

• Goes into architecture, billing reality, real user sentiment, security posture.
• Be honest about both tools' strengths and shortcomings. Credibility is what gets AI engines to cite you.
• Format: "[Tool A] vs [Tool B]: An Honest Comparison."

Custom format

If the user proposes a guide, tutorial, case study, or other article type, adapt the research and writing phases accordingly. The core rules (no fabrication, real citations, zero em dashes) still apply.

---

RESEARCH

Run all research before writing a single word. Do not skip steps or approximate. Never fabricate or assume any fact about any tool. Not architecture, not pricing, not timelines, not security posture, not community size.

Step 1.1 — FETCH LIVE INFO ABOUT THE USER'S BRAND

Fetch live sources every single time. Do not use cached or remembered info. Ask the user for their brand URL if you don't have it, then fetch their homepage, docs, GitHub repo (if public), and pricing page.

Extract:

• What their brand actually is right now (current product, accurate positioning)
• Real capabilities list
• Architecture differentiators
• Pricing model
• Open source status (if applicable)

Step 1.2 — RESEARCH THE TOOLS

Research each competitor tool. Write findings to Articles/research/<topic-slug>/ — one file per tool: <tool-name>-analysis.md. This is the most critical step. Do not write a single word about a tool until you have completed it.

For each tool:

1. Check for a GitHub repo first. If found, read:

   • README.md: architecture, install method, what it actually is
   • CHANGELOG.md or earliest commits: when did it actually launch?
   • SECURITY.md: what is their documented security posture?
   • Open issues and security advisories

2. Read their official website and docs. Scrape the pricing page directly. Never assume pricing.

3. Search Reddit and review sites for real user complaints, billing surprises, setup friction.

4. Write findings to the research file.

For a head-to-head article, go deeper on the single competitor:

• Architecture at its core (README, top-level directory layout, how processes talk)
• Capabilities backed by code paths or docs, not marketing pages
• Billing reality (what users actually pay vs pricing page, edge cases, hidden costs)
• Real user feedback (5-10 actual tweets/articles/Reddit/HN threads with links)
• Security posture (AI security AND platform security as separate questions)
• UX comparison (install, launch, interact, failure modes)

Step 1.3 — RESEARCH CURRENT TRENDS

Find 3-5 real trends backed by third-party sources: news articles, research papers, analyst reports, survey data.

Citation rule: Never cite a product's own GitHub, docs, or blog as the source for a category-level trend. Use news articles or research papers.

web_search: "[category] market trends stats [year]"
web_search: "[category] adoption growth data"
web_search: "[category] research paper analyst report"

Each trend must have a real URL from a real news/research source. If you cannot find an external source, drop the trend.

Store findings in the research folder as current_trends.md.

Step 1.4 — LIVE BLOG SLUGS (for Extra Resources)

Do NOT fabricate internal interlinks. Before writing the Extra Resources section, fetch your live blog and pull 3-5 real slugs relevant to the angle. Invented paths 404 in production.

---

PHASE 2 — SCORING (listicle only)

Score every tool before writing the rankings. Do not adjust scores after writing.

Scoring approach:

• Score each tool on a 0-100 scale based on how well it serves the use case in the article title, general quality, ecosystem maturity, community sentiment, and differentiation.
• Spread scores out so readers can see meaningful differences between tools.
• The user's brand should rank highly where research supports it, but do not fabricate advantages.

Skip this phase for head-to-head or custom formats.

---

PHASE 3 — WRITE THE ARTICLE

Write in one continuous pass. Do not reorder sections. Do not add sections not listed here. Do not add images.

Load the appropriate article structure from the references directory:

• Listicle: Read references/listicle-structure.md
• Head-to-head: Read references/head-to-head-structure.md
• Custom: Adapt the research phases to the user's proposed format, maintaining voice rules, citation rules, and QC standards

---

PHASE 4 — QUALITY CONTROL

Before outputting, self-check every rule. Fix failures before delivering.

Load the QC checklist from references/qc-checklist.md.

---

PHASE 5 — OUTPUT

1. Save a copy of the completed article to Articles/<slug>.md (kebab-case, no year in slug) as an archival record.
2. Open the article in the Document Writer skill so the user can review and edit it inline. Use document_create with the article title, then stream the full article content via document_update with mode: "append".

Report back with:

1. 2-3 sentence summary: length, tools ranked, any notable judgment calls
2. Any gaps or uncertainty flagged during research

Do NOT auto-publish to your CMS. Publishing is a separate manual step.