Suede Visibility Grader

Use this skill when a website, GitHub Pages site, launch page, creator page, docs surface, or campaign page needs a blunt grade for visibility and action. The goal is not generic SEO advice. The goal is to answer one question:

Can the right person or agent find this page, understand it, trust it, cite it,
and take the intended next action?

Routing

Send to suede-seo-audit for: Core Web Vitals, crawl errors, structured data validation, keyword gap analysis, backlink profile, redirect chains, or page speed.

Send here when: you want a promotion readiness verdict, a ship gate, or a blunt grade on whether a specific page earns the attention it's about to receive.

Source Truth

Inspect before grading. Do not grade from memory or description alone.

• live URL, status code, redirects, canonical, robots, sitemap, and title;
• rendered desktop and mobile page when practical;
• visible H1, section headings, body copy, proof links, and CTAs;
• Open Graph, Twitter card, schema/JSON-LD, image alt text, and internal links;
• GitHub repo or docs source when the page is a public GitHub Pages surface.

Do not grade from memory alone. If the live URL is unavailable, grade the source files and mark live checks as unverified.

Grade Lanes

Score each lane A-F, then give one overall grade:

• Findability: status, canonical, robots, sitemap, title, description,

durable keywords, and duplicate URL risk.

• First-screen clarity: does the first viewport answer three questions without scrolling — who this is for, what changes for them, and what to do now? Grade on the rendered first viewport, not the document structure.
• CTA pull: primary action, secondary proof action, button text, link

targets, and whether the visitor has a reason to click now.

• Proof and trust: screenshots, commands, docs, manifests, live routes,

source files, receipts, authorship, and claim boundaries.

• AI readability (AI EO): can an AI summarize, cite, or quote this page accurately without hallucinating? Grade on: presence of a structured lede or summary section; headings that are citation-ready phrases (not clever/vague); claims that link to a source; schema/JSON-LD that surfaces entity type, author, and date; and whether an LLM asked "what is [product]?" would return a correct, attributable answer from this page.

AI readability sub-rubric (each item is worth one grade step):

• Structured lede: first 100 words answer "what is this, who is it for, what does it do" without jargon.
• Citation-ready headings: headings read as answer fragments an LLM would quote directly. "Getting started" = F. "How to install X in 3 commands" = A.
• Sourceable claims: every quantitative or comparative claim links to a source or shows primary evidence.
• Entity schema: JSON-LD or OpenGraph declares entity type, author/organization, and published date.
• Internal link density: at least one link to a more-detailed resource per major section.
• AI test: if an LLM were asked "what is [product/page topic]?" right now, would this page produce a correct, non-hallucinated answer? If no, cap AI readability at C.
• Design signal: grades on seven axes — each is pass/fail, grade is the worst three:

1. Hierarchy: H1 > H2 > body weight is visually obvious at a glance.
2. First-viewport composition: one clear focal point, not three competing CTAs or a hero image unrelated to the product.
3. Spacing rhythm: consistent padding/margin system. No collapsed margins or random gutters.
4. Typography: one or two font families. Body copy readable at 16px equivalent. Line length under 80ch.
5. Asset quality: images are sharp, not stretched, not stock-obvious, not AI-slop.
6. Contrast: primary CTA passes WCAG AA. Body text passes WCAG AA.
7. AI-slop pattern risk: the page does not read as generated filler (vague value props, stock faces, generic icons, paragraph-length sentences with no specificity). If two or more slop signals are present, cap Design signal at C.

Grade meaning — assign on evidence, not impression:

• A: every lane is strong. Ship. Post this as a reference for the next build.
• B: one or two lanes are weak. Fix those; everything else is solid.
• C: the page works but bleeds attention or trust somewhere in the first scroll. Not ready for paid promotion.
• D: visible but embarrassing under scrutiny. A focused rewrite of one surface fixes it.
• F: assign when any of these are true: primary CTA is broken, a public claim is false, the page doesn't render, or robots/canonical actively blocks it.

Grade caps — non-negotiable:

• No live inspection → Overall cap: C.
• Broken primary CTA → Overall cap: D.
• False or unsupported public claim → Overall cap: D. (If the claim is central to the product promise, F.)
• Design signal D or F → Ship gate is hold, regardless of other lanes.
• Mobile not inspected → A is blocked. State the caveat explicitly in Verification.

Surface-Type Standards

Grade each page against its surface type. Caps and expectations differ:

Landing page (marketing, campaign, product launch)

• First-screen clarity and CTA pull are the primary gates. A page that can't convert in the first viewport fails at its job.
• Proof and trust must include at least one verifiable claim (screenshot, live demo, or third-party mention). Testimonials without attribution cap Proof at C.
• A is only available if the CTA pull lane is A or B.

GitHub Pages / repo README

• Findability matters less (GitHub handles most of it). First-screen clarity and AI readability are the primary gates.
• The H1 must match or closely shadow the repo name and primary use case. A generic "Welcome to [repo]" caps First-screen clarity at C.
• Code blocks, commands, and install instructions must be copy-pasteable and accurate. One broken command caps Proof at D.
• AI readability grade is elevated: LLMs frequently cite GitHub READMEs. A missing structured summary or absent "What is this?" section caps AI readability at C.

Product page (within an existing product, not top-of-funnel)

• Proof and trust is the primary gate. The visitor already has intent; the page must close.
• Screenshots or video evidence of the product working is required for A in Proof.
• CTA pull grades are strict: vague next steps ("learn more," "explore") cap CTA pull at D.

Documentation page

• AI readability is the primary gate. Docs are the most-cited content by AI systems.
• Every section heading must work as a standalone answer phrase (not a sentence fragment).
• First-screen clarity and CTA pull are graded leniently — docs exist to inform, not convert.
• Missing anchor links, missing code examples for code-adjacent claims, or broken inline links cap Proof at D.

Grade Modes

Quick grade — triggered when asked for a fast read, first impression, or "gut check":

• Grade the first viewport only (rendered desktop).
• Score all six lanes based on what is visible without scrolling.
• Output: one paragraph + lane grades + ship gate. No top fixes list.
• Cap: Quick grades cannot assign A. Max is B.

Deep grade (default):

• Full inspection: live URL + source, desktop + mobile, all viewport states available.
• All six lanes, full top-fixes list, CTA rewrite in the P1 fix description if CTA pull is C or below.
• Ship gate is authoritative.

Output Format

Simple explanation:
Plain-language summary of the grade and the one biggest fix.

Usual breakdown:
URL or source:
Surface type:
Primary reader:
Primary action:
Live/source status:
Screenshot evidence:
Viewport sizes:
Visual states checked:
Visual states not checked:

Grades:
Findability: A-F
First-screen clarity: A-F
CTA pull: A-F
Proof and trust: A-F
AI readability: A-F
Design signal: A-F
Overall: A-F

Top fixes (max 5, ranked by impact on ship gate):
1. [P1] Lane affected | Location | Evidence (quote or describe exactly what was seen) | One-line patch
2. [P2] Lane affected | Location | Evidence | One-line patch
3. [P3] Lane affected | Location | Evidence | One-line patch

Verification:
What was checked:
What was not checked:
Ship gate: ship | ship-with-caveats | hold

Sample Report

Simple explanation:
The page is findable, but the first screen does not make the action obvious.
Fix the hero CTA and mobile proof block before promotion.

Usual breakdown:
URL or source: https://example.com
Surface type: landing page
Primary reader: creator preparing a release package
Primary action: start the release-readiness audit
Live/source status: live page inspected, source not available
Screenshot evidence: screenshots/home-desktop.png, screenshots/home-mobile.png
Viewport sizes: 1440x900, 390x844
Visual states checked: default desktop, default mobile, primary CTA hover
Visual states not checked: dark mode, logged-in state

Grades:
Findability: B
First-screen clarity: C
CTA pull: D
Proof and trust: B
AI readability: B
Design signal: C
Overall: C

Top fixes (max 5, ranked by impact on ship gate):
1. [P1] CTA pull | Hero | Primary button reads "Learn more" — visitors do not know what starts the audit | Change to "Run the release audit" and route to the verified audit path
2. [P2] First-screen clarity | First mobile viewport | Proof links start below the fold — trust arrives too late | Move one source link and one screenshot into the first mobile section
3. [P3] Design signal | Hero media | Artwork does not show a release artifact — weak product signal | Replace with a rights/provenance preview or an approved product screenshot

Verification:
What was checked: live URL, desktop viewport, mobile viewport, primary CTA hover state, Open Graph tags
What was not checked: dark mode, logged-in state, source files
Ship gate: ship-with-caveats