Awesome-omni-skills seo-page

Single Page Analysis workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs > and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.

install

source · Clone the upstream repo

git clone https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skills

Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/

T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skills "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/skills/seo-page" ~/.claude/skills/diegosouzapw-awesome-omni-skills-seo-page && rm -rf "$T"

manifest: skills/seo-page/SKILL.md

Single Page Analysis

Overview

This public intake copy packages

plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/seo-page

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

metadata.json

plus

ORIGIN.md

as the provenance anchor for review.

Single Page Analysis

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: What to Analyze, Output, DataForSEO Integration (Optional), Error Handling, 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.

Use when the user provides a single URL for detailed on-page SEO review.
Use when auditing one page rather than an entire site.
Use when checking metadata, content, schema, images, and page-level technical signals together.
Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: >.
Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.

Operating Table

Situation	Start here	Why it matters
First-time use	`metadata.json`	Confirms repository, branch, commit, and imported path 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.

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.
Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: What to Analyze

On-Page SEO

Title tag: 50-60 characters, includes primary keyword, unique
Meta description: 150-160 characters, compelling, includes keyword
H1: exactly one, matches page intent, includes keyword
H2-H6: logical hierarchy (no skipped levels), descriptive
URL: short, descriptive, hyphenated, no parameters
Internal links: sufficient, relevant anchor text, no orphan pages
External links: to authoritative sources, reasonable count

Content Quality

Word count vs page type minimums (see quality-gates.md)
Readability: Flesch Reading Ease score, grade level
Keyword density: natural (1-3%), semantic variations present
E-E-A-T signals: author bio, credentials, first-hand experience markers
Content freshness: publication date, last updated date

Technical Elements

Canonical tag: present, self-referencing or correct
Meta robots: index/follow unless intentionally blocked
Open Graph: og:title, og:description, og:image, og:url
Twitter Card: twitter:card, twitter:title, twitter:description
Hreflang: if multi-language, correct implementation

Schema Markup

Detect all types (JSON-LD preferred)
Validate required properties
Identify missing opportunities
NEVER recommend HowTo (deprecated) or FAQ (restricted to gov/health)

Images

Alt text: present, descriptive, includes keywords where natural
File size: flag >200KB (warning), >500KB (critical)
Format: recommend WebP/AVIF over JPEG/PNG
Dimensions: width/height set for CLS prevention
Lazy loading: loading="lazy" on below-fold images

Core Web Vitals (reference only, not measurable from HTML alone)

Flag potential LCP issues (huge hero images, render-blocking resources)
Flag potential INP issues (heavy JS, no async/defer)
Flag potential CLS issues (missing image dimensions, injected content)

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @seo-page 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-page 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-page 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-page 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-awesome-skills-claude/skills/seo-page

, 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. Load only the files that materially change the answer, 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

```
@00-andruia-consultant-v2
```
- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
```
@10-andruia-skill-smith-v2
```
- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
```
@20-andruia-niche-intelligence-v2
```
- Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
```
@2d-games
```
- 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: Output

Page Score Card

Overall Score: XX/100

On-Page SEO:     XX/100  ████████░░
Content Quality: XX/100  ██████████
Technical:       XX/100  ███████░░░
Schema:          XX/100  █████░░░░░
Images:          XX/100  ████████░░

Issues Found

Organized by priority: Critical -> High -> Medium -> Low

Recommendations

Specific, actionable improvements with expected impact

Schema Suggestions

Ready-to-use JSON-LD code for detected opportunities

Imported: DataForSEO Integration (Optional)

If DataForSEO MCP tools are available, use

serp_organic_live_advanced

for real SERP positions and

backlinks_summary

for backlink data and spam scores.

Imported: Error Handling

Scenario	Action
URL unreachable (DNS failure, connection refused)	Report the error clearly. Do not guess page content. Suggest the user verify the URL and try again.
Page requires authentication (401/403)	Report that the page is behind authentication. Suggest the user provide the rendered HTML directly or a publicly accessible URL.
JavaScript-rendered content (empty body in HTML)	Note that key content may be rendered client-side. Analyze the available HTML and flag that results may be incomplete. Suggest using a browser-rendered snapshot if available.

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.