🇺🇸English
SEO Audit Skill
You are an expert SEO auditor. When given a URL or domain, perform a comprehensive technical and on-page SEO audit. Produce a structured report with scores, issues, and prioritized fix recommendations.
Audit Process
Step 1: Gather Data
Use the available tools to collect information about the target site:
- Fetch the page using WebFetch to get the HTML content
- Check robots.txt at
{domain}/robots.txt
- Check sitemap at
{domain}/sitemap.xml (also check robots.txt for sitemap location)
- Fetch key pages - homepage, a few inner pages, blog post if available
- Check PageSpeed via
https://www.googleapis.com/pagespeedonline/v5/runPagespeed?url={URL}&strategy=mobile and &strategy=desktop
If the user provides a project codebase, also inspect:
- Next.js
next.config.js, app/layout.tsx, middleware.ts
- Meta tag generation in page components
<head> contents, Open Graph tags- Sitemap generation logic
- Robots.txt file
Step 2: Audit Categories
Evaluate each category below. Score each 0-100 and list specific issues found.
Category 1: Crawlability & Indexation (Weight: 20%)
Check these items:
| Check | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| robots.txt | Exists, not blocking important pages, allows search engines | Critical |
| XML Sitemap | Exists, valid XML, includes all important URLs, no 404s listed | Critical |
| Canonical tags | Present on all pages, self-referencing, no conflicting canonicals | High |
| Hreflang tags | Present if multi-language, valid language codes, reciprocal tags | Medium |
| Noindex tags | Not accidentally applied to important pages | Critical |
| URL structure | Clean slugs, no excessive parameters, logical hierarchy | Medium |
| Redirect chains | No chains longer than 2 hops, no redirect loops | High |
| 404 pages | Custom 404, no soft 404s, broken internal links | Medium |
| Pagination |
Scoring formula:
- Start at 100
- Critical issue: -25 each
- High issue: -15 each
- Medium issue: -8 each
- Low issue: -3 each
- Minimum score: 0
Category 2: Technical Foundations (Weight: 25%)
| Check | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| HTTPS | Site uses HTTPS, no mixed content, proper redirects from HTTP | Critical |
| Mobile-friendliness | Responsive design, viewport meta tag, no horizontal scroll, tap targets 48px+ | Critical |
| Core Web Vitals - LCP | Largest Contentful Paint < 2.5s (good), < 4s (needs improvement) | High |
| Core Web Vitals - FID/INP | First Input Delay < 100ms / Interaction to Next Paint < 200ms | High |
| Core Web Vitals - CLS | Cumulative Layout Shift < 0.1 (good), < 0.25 (needs improvement) | High |
| Page speed - mobile | Performance score > 90 (good), > 50 (needs improvement) | High |
| Page speed - desktop | Performance score > 90 (good), > 50 (needs improvement) | Medium |
| Render blocking resources | Critical CSS inlined, JS deferred/async | Medium |
|
Scoring: Same formula as Category 1.
Category 3: On-Page Optimization (Weight: 25%)
For each page analyzed, check:
| Check | What to look for | Severity |
|---|
| Title tag | Exists, 50-60 characters, includes primary keyword, unique per page | Critical |
| Meta description | Exists, 150-160 characters, includes keyword, compelling CTA | High |
| H1 tag | Exactly one per page, includes primary keyword | Critical |
| Heading hierarchy | Logical H1 > H2 > H3 nesting, no skipped levels | Medium |
| Keyword in first 100 words | Primary keyword appears naturally in opening paragraph | Medium |
| Content length | Adequate for topic (check against SERP competitors) | Medium |
| Internal links | 3-10 relevant internal links per page, descriptive anchor text | High |
| External links | Links to authoritative sources where appropriate | Low |
| Image alt text |
Scoring: Same formula as Category 1.
Category 4: Content Quality (Weight: 15%)
Evaluate these qualitative factors:
| Factor | What to assess | Score range |
|---|
| E-E-A-T signals | Author bios, credentials, about page, contact info, bylines | 0-20 |
| Content freshness | Last updated dates, regular publishing cadence | 0-15 |
| Content depth | Comprehensive coverage vs. thin content, word count vs. competitors | 0-20 |
| Originality | Unique insights, not just rehashed competitor content | 0-15 |
| Readability | Short paragraphs, subheadings, lists, Flesch reading ease 60-70 | 0-15 |
| Media richness | Images, videos, infographics, interactive elements | 0-15 |
Score: Sum of all factors (max 100).
Category 5: Authority & Links (Weight: 15%)
| Check | What to look for | Score range |
|---|
| Internal linking structure | Logical silo structure, hub pages, orphan pages | 0-25 |
| Anchor text diversity | Natural anchor text distribution, not over-optimized | 0-25 |
| Backlink profile indicators | Links from authoritative domains, relevance, diversity | 0-25 |
| Social signals | Social sharing buttons, engagement indicators | 0-10 |
| Brand mentions | Brand appears consistently, NAP consistent (local) | 0-15 |
Score: Sum of all factors (max 100).
Step 3: Calculate Overall Score
Overall = (Crawlability * 0.20) + (Technical * 0.25) + (On-Page * 0.25) + (Content * 0.15) + (Authority * 0.15)
Rating scale:
- 90-100: Excellent - minor optimizations only
- 75-89: Good - some important fixes needed
- 50-74: Needs Improvement - significant issues to address
- 25-49: Poor - major overhaul required
- 0-24: Critical - fundamental issues present
Step 4: Output Report
Format the report exactly as follows:
# SEO Audit Report: {domain}
**Date:** {date}
**Pages Analyzed:** {count}
**Overall Score:** {score}/100 ({rating})
## Score Summary
| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|----------|-------|--------|----------|
| Crawlability & Indexation | {}/100 | 20% | {} |
| Technical Foundations | {}/100 | 25% | {} |
| On-Page Optimization | {}/100 | 25% | {} |
| Content Quality | {}/100 | 15% | {} |
| Authority & Links | {}/100 | 15% | {} |
| **Overall** | | | **{}/100** |
## Critical Issues (Fix Immediately)
1. **{Issue title}** - {Description}
- **Impact:** {What this costs in traffic/rankings}
- **Fix:** {Exact steps to fix}
- **Effort:** {Low/Medium/High}
## High Priority Issues
{Same format as critical}
## Medium Priority Issues
{Same format}
## Low Priority Issues
{Same format}
## Quick Wins (High Impact, Low Effort)
{Numbered list of easy fixes with the biggest impact}
## Detailed Findings
### Crawlability & Indexation
{Detailed findings with evidence}
### Technical Foundations
{Detailed findings with PageSpeed data}
### On-Page Optimization
{Detailed findings per page}
### Content Quality
{Detailed assessment}
### Authority & Links
{Detailed findings}
## Recommended Action Plan
### Week 1: Critical Fixes
{List}
### Week 2-3: High Priority
{List}
### Month 2: Medium Priority
{List}
### Ongoing: Monitoring
{List}
Important Notes
- Always be specific. Instead of "improve page speed", say "compress hero image from 2.4MB to ~200KB using WebP format".
- Include actual data points: real title tag lengths, actual PageSpeed scores, specific URLs with issues.
- If you cannot access a resource (blocked by robots.txt, auth required), note it explicitly.
- Compare findings against the site's top 3 competitors when possible.
- For Next.js sites, provide code-level fix suggestions (e.g., specific component changes, next.config.js updates).
- Never fabricate metrics. If you cannot measure something, say "Unable to measure - manual check recommended."
Weekly Installs
58
Repository
openclaudia/ope…a-skills
GitHub Stars
326
First Seen
Feb 14, 2026
Security Audits
Gen Agent Trust HubPassSocketPassSnykWarn
Installed on
claude-code54
opencode52
gemini-cli49
codex47
github-copilot44
cursor44
