菜单
Use when auditing production SEO — metadata, canonical/OG, sitemap, robots, structured data, and Core Web Vitals signals. Creates GitHub issues labelled type:seo-recommendation with owning squad. Do NOT implement fixes — hand to engineering squads.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Web development practice setup interview — detects or creates .agency/target.json binding, reads instance profile from `/agency-hub:setup`, interviews tech stack, deployment platform, connectors, and persona preference (six engineering personas vs merged), writes practice profile. Use on first install after `/agency-hub:setup`, when the user says "set up web development" or "bind target repo", or to redo engineering defaults only.
Use when the user wants to run a Ralph loop: an autonomous, self-referential delivery loop that drives a whole epic through implement, code review, fix, UX review, validate, commit, and merge request, one task per iteration, until a completion promise is emitted (ralph setup, ralph start), or to inspect or stop a running loop (ralph status, ralph cancel). Also supports simple ad-hoc loops that repeat a single prompt until done. Do NOT use to implement a single task once (implement), review a diff (code-review), or sign off an epic (validate) — the loop orchestrates those skills.
Use when the user wants a UX/design review of implemented UI — frontend components, pages, or flows — against the design source of truth (Figma via MCP, mockups, tokens, or style guide, whatever the repo provides), covering design fidelity, accessibility (WCAG 2.2 AA), interaction states, responsiveness, and design-system conformity; or to address UX review findings (ux-design-review fix, optionally scoped to an action tier). Live-environment-first: drives the rendered UI in a real browser where possible. Works with any framework or design tooling. Do NOT use for code correctness/security review (code-review), to review a design.md document (design), or to implement features (implement).
Use when the user is the reviewer of a merge request or pull request and wants it reviewed and the verdict published to the provider — inline comments on the right lines, threads resolved or replied to, and an approve / request-changes / comment decision. Handles first reviews and re-review rounds after the author pushes. Works with any codebase and any git provider — GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket — using MCP tools where available, provider CLIs otherwise. Do NOT use to review your own working diff before opening an MR (code-review), to open or babysit an MR (merge-request), or to implement changes (implement).
Use when the user wants to open a merge request or pull request for the current branch (merge-request create — the default — with a generated title, description, labels, and reviewer suggestions), or to babysit an open MR/PR to a merge-ready state (merge-request babysit) by watching CI, review comments, and merge conflicts. Works with any codebase and any git provider — GitHub, GitLab, or Bitbucket — using MCP tools where available, provider CLIs otherwise, and plain git as a last resort. Do NOT use to review code or an MR as its reviewer (code-review, merge-request-review) or to implement changes (implement).
Use when the user wants a code review of a branch, PR, or diff against its acceptance criteria and declared scope (whatever form they take in this repo), or to address review feedback without changing behaviour (code-review fix, optionally scoped to a blocking or warning action tier). Works with any language, delivery process, or issue tracker. Do NOT use to implement code, sign off completion of a larger body of work, or review rendered UI/UX (design fidelity, accessibility — use ux-design-review).
| name | technical-seo-audit |
| description | Use when auditing production SEO — metadata, canonical/OG, sitemap, robots, structured data, and Core Web Vitals signals. Creates GitHub issues labelled type:seo-recommendation with owning squad. Do NOT implement fixes — hand to engineering squads. |
| license | MIT |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Glob","Grep","Shell"] |
| argument-hint | [--url base-url] [--focus metadata|sitemap|structured-data|cwv] |
| metadata | {"version":"0.1.0","owner":"search-optimisation","review_cadence":"quarterly","work_shape":"monitor-and-report","output_class":"tracking-update"} |
Audit the production site and file prioritized recommendations as GitHub issues.
keyword-research)Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/search-optimisation-conventions.md.
--url override| Failure mode | Mitigation |
|---|---|
| Blast radius | Issues only — implementation handed to engineering squads |
| DoD bypass | Each issue includes evidence and recommended fix |
| Brand safety | N/A — technical findings only |
Follow prompts/run.prompt.md.
Check via playwright connector and repo files:
| Area | Repo / live |
|---|---|
| Title, meta description, canonical | Live pages |
| Open Graph / Twitter cards | Live pages |
robots.txt, sitemap.xml | Public static paths + live |
| JSON-LD structured data | Live content pages |
| Core Web Vitals | Live (lab signals via playwright) |
GitHub issues per finding:
[SEO] {short description}type:seo-recommendation, owning squad label per conventions