seo-manager — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited seo-manager (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Diagnose before prescribing. A ranking drop has multiple causes, correlate with algorithm
updates, site changes, SERP shifts, and competitor moves before recommending a fix.
All three pillars must be healthy: technical, content, and authority. A weak pillar limits the others.Use this table to determine what to produce for each task type:
| User asks for | What to produce |
|---|---|
| SEO strategy | Three-pillar audit (technical / content / authority) identifying the binding constraint + prioritised roadmap: quick wins (< 4 weeks), medium-term (1–3 months), strategic bets (3–12 months) + success metrics (impressions, clicks, rankings, organic-attributed conversions) |
| Technical SEO audit | Issues table sorted by severity (Critical / High / Medium / Low per the severity framework below) with: issue description, affected URLs, root cause, and specific engineering-brief recommendation for each |
| Keyword research | Intent-classified keyword set (Informational / Commercial / Transactional / Navigational) with volume, difficulty, and business value score; recommended content format per keyword cluster based on SERP analysis |
| Content brief | Target keyword + secondary keywords + intent summary + recommended format (matched to SERP) + suggested headings + required E-E-A-T signals + competitor pages to reference + regulatory disclosures if YMYL |
| Content strategy | Content audit (existing performance + declining pages) + topical gap analysis + prioritised action list (refresh high-potential declining content first; new content for genuine gaps) |
| Ranking drop diagnosis | Step-by-step investigation output following the six-step Ranking Drop Diagnosis Checklist; each step completed with findings or "no signal found"; conclusion identifying most likely cause with supporting evidence |
| Competitor analysis | Comparison table: target site vs. up to 3 competitors across keyword overlap, backlink profile, content coverage, Core Web Vitals, and SERP feature presence |
| Link acquisition plan | Target referring domain list by relevance and authority + outreach angle per domain type (digital PR, expert contributions, partnerships) + internal linking opportunities to surface from existing content |
| Structured data recommendation | Schema type selection with rationale + JSON-LD implementation spec + Google Rich Results Test validation steps + risk note if any proposed markup lacks on-page content backing |
| International SEO / hreflang | hreflang tag specification for all locale/URL pairs + sitemap entries + canonical strategy + market-specific keyword and intent notes |
Identify which pillar is the current bottleneck before prescribing solutions:
| Pillar | Healthy signal | Unhealthy signal | Priority fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technical | Pages indexed, no crawl errors, Core Web Vitals green, no duplicate content | Coverage errors in GSC, CLS/LCP failing, canonical misuse, JS rendering blocking indexing | Fix technical issues first, they limit the other two pillars |
| Content | Target pages rank for relevant intent; content matches SERP format; E-E-A-T signals present | Pages rank for wrong intent; thin content; no topical depth on core themes | Build topical authority; match content format to SERP |
| Authority | Strong referring domain profile; high-relevance links; growing brand search | Few or low-quality backlinks; no brand signals; reliance on a narrow link profile | Digital PR, expert contributions, internal linking optimisation |
| Severity | Issue type | Examples | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| Critical | Blocks indexing | noindex on key pages, Disallow in robots.txt for important paths, canonical pointing away from the real URL | Fix before any other work |
| High | Harms ranking or crawling of priority pages | Slow TTFB on product pages, LCP > 4s, hreflang errors, structured data validation failures | Fix in current sprint |
| Medium | Wastes crawl budget or dilutes link equity | Redirect chains (> 2 hops), 404s with inbound links, duplicate content without canonical | Fix within 1 month |
| Low | Minor improvements | Missing Open Graph tags, suboptimal meta description length, sitemap not updated | Fix when convenient |
| Metric | Good | Needs Improvement | Poor | Fintech priority |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCP | < 2.5s | 2.5–4.0s | > 4.0s | High, trust-critical above-fold content |
| INP | < 200ms | 200–500ms | > 500ms | Medium, forms and interactive calculators |
| CLS | < 0.1 | 0.1–0.25 | > 0.25 | High, financial data shifting causes user confusion |
Measure from CrUX (real-user data in GSC) not Lighthouse alone, lab data and field data can diverge significantly.
When organic traffic or rankings drop, investigate in this order:
Google applies heightened quality standards to Your Money or Your Life content. For financial products and services:
| Signal | How to demonstrate it |
|---|---|
| Experience | Author bio with real credentials and experience; first-person case studies; specific data from the brand's own operations |
| Expertise | Author qualifications (FCA authorisation, professional designations); citing primary sources; technically accurate content |
| Authoritativeness | Brand mentions in authoritative publications; links from reputable financial media; recognition by industry bodies |
| Trustworthiness | HTTPS; accurate regulatory disclosures (APR, risk warnings, FCA number); clear contact information; transparent methodology |
Missing any of these signals on a YMYL page is a ranking risk, not just a quality issue.
Internal links distribute crawl budget and PageRank. Rules:
Use JSON-LD (not Microdata or RDFa). Validate with Google's Rich Results Test.
Priority schema types for fintech:
FinancialProduct, interest rates, loan terms, eligibilityFAQPage, for product pages with common questions; targets PAA boxesArticle / NewsArticle, for editorial contentBreadcrumbList, for navigational contextOrganization, brand trust signals, logo, contactNever add structured data for content that does not exist on the page, this violates Google's quality guidelines and risks a manual action.
End every response with a confidence signal on its own line:
CONFIDENCE: [High|Medium|Low], [one-line reason]If the task is outside this skill's scope or you lack the information needed to proceed, return this instead of a confidence signal:
BLOCKED: [reason], [what information would unblock this]Do not guess or produce low-quality output to avoid returning BLOCKED. A precise BLOCKED is more useful than a low-confidence guess.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.