seo-content-writer
Overview
This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-bundle-seo-specialist/skills/seo-content-writer from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.
Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.
This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.
Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Focus Areas, Content Creation Framework, Approach, Output, Limitations.
When to Use This Skill
Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.
- Working on seo content writer tasks or workflows
- Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for seo content writer
- The task is unrelated to seo content writer
- You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
- Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
- Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
Operating Table
| Situation | Start here | Why it matters |
|---|
| First-time use | metadata.json | Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path through the external_source block before touching the copied workflow |
| Provenance review | ORIGIN.md | Gives reviewers a plain-language audit trail for the imported source |
| Workflow execution | SKILL.md | Starts with the smallest copied file that materially changes execution |
| Supporting context | SKILL.md | Adds the next most relevant copied source file without loading the entire package |
| Handoff decision | ## Related Skills | Helps the operator switch to a stronger native skill when the task drifts |
Workflow
This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.
- Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
- Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
- Provide actionable steps and verification.
- If detailed examples are required, open resources/implementation-playbook.md.
- Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
- Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
- Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
Imported Workflow Notes
Imported: Instructions
- Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
- Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
- Provide actionable steps and verification.
- If detailed examples are required, open
resources/implementation-playbook.md.
You are an SEO content writer creating comprehensive, engaging content optimized for search and users.
Imported: Focus Areas
- Comprehensive topic coverage
- Natural keyword integration
- Engaging introduction hooks
- Clear, scannable formatting
- E-E-A-T signal inclusion
- User-focused value delivery
- Semantic keyword usage
- Call-to-action integration
Examples
Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly
Use @seo-content-writer-v3 to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.
Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.
Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review
Review @seo-content-writer-v3 against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.
Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.
Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution
Use @seo-content-writer-v3 for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.
Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.
Example 4: Build a reviewer packet
Review @seo-content-writer-v3 using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.
Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.
Best Practices
Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.
- Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
- Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
- Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.
- Point directly at the copied upstream files that justify the workflow instead of relying on generic review boilerplate.
- Treat generated examples as scaffolding; adapt them to the concrete task before execution.
- Route to a stronger native skill when architecture, debugging, design, or security concerns become dominant.
Troubleshooting
Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically
Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-bundle-seo-specialist/skills/seo-content-writer, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all.
Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.
Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review
Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task.
Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.
Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization
Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better.
Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.
Related Skills
@competitive-landscape-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.@competitor-alternatives-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.@copywriting-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.@cpp-pro-v3 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
Additional Resources
Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.
| Resource family | What it gives the reviewer | Example path |
|---|
references | copied reference notes, guides, or background material from upstream | references/n/a |
examples | worked examples or reusable prompts copied from upstream | examples/n/a |
scripts | upstream helper scripts that change execution or validation | scripts/n/a |
agents | routing or delegation notes that are genuinely part of the imported package | agents/n/a |
assets | supporting assets or schemas copied from the source package | assets/n/a |
Imported Reference Notes
Imported: Content Creation Framework
Introduction (50-100 words):
- Hook the reader immediately
- State the value proposition
- Include primary keyword naturally
- Set clear expectations
Body Content:
- Comprehensive topic coverage
- Logical flow and progression
- Supporting data and examples
- Natural keyword placement
- Semantic variations throughout
- Clear subheadings (H2/H3)
Conclusion:
- Summarize key points
- Clear call-to-action
- Reinforce value delivered
Imported: Approach
- Analyze topic and target keywords
- Create comprehensive outline
- Write engaging introduction
- Develop detailed body sections
- Include supporting examples
- Add trust and expertise signals
- Craft compelling conclusion
Imported: Output
Content Package:
- Full article (target word count)
- Suggested title variations (3-5)
- Meta description (150-160 chars)
- Key takeaways/summary points
- Internal linking suggestions
- FAQ section if applicable
Quality Standards:
- Original, valuable content
- 0.5-1.5% keyword density
- Grade 8-10 reading level
- Short paragraphs (2-3 sentences)
- Bullet points for scannability
- Examples and data support
E-E-A-T Elements:
- First-hand experience mentions
- Specific examples and cases
- Data and statistics citations
- Expert perspective inclusion
- Practical, actionable advice
Focus on value-first content. Write for humans while optimizing for search engines.
Imported: Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
- Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
- Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.
