geo-content-research

Researches what prompts people ask AI engines (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude) about a product category and produces a prompts.csv artifact — a prioritized, strictly-schema'd list of the queries where the brand should be cited. Feeds the monitor workflow.

Quality

55%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./geo-content-research/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The core deliverable (emit prompts.csv) is exceptionally actionable with a precise contract and validation checklist, but the body is bloated by ~274 lines of out-of-scope legacy content the skill itself disclaims, plus concepts Claude already knows. No bundle files exist and a referenced schema file is missing, leaving a monolithic structure.

Suggestions

Delete Phases 4–6 (Content Blueprint, Content Generation, Authority Infiltration) — they are explicitly stated to belong to separate skills and contradict the skill's own scope.

Remove the JSON-LD/schema.org reference blocks and the flywheel narrative, which restate knowledge Claude already has.

Move the CSV column contract and allowed-value tables into a prompts.csv.schema.md reference file and link to it, fixing the dangling reference and shrinking the body.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Roughly 274 lines (Phases 4–6) are explicitly disclaimed as out of scope by both the description and the body's own scope note, yet remain fully written out, and the skill explains concepts Claude already knows (JSON-LD, schema.org types, the flywheel narrative), making it verbose and padded.	1 / 3
Actionability	The in-scope task is copy-paste ready: an exact CSV header, a column-contract table with allowed enum values, a complete example row, specific search patterns ('site:reddit.com [category] recommendation'), and a pre-emit verification checklist.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Phases 1–3 are sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint and checklist, but the presentation of six phases while the scope note says 'Phases 1–3 only' — and the verification section's 'after all phases are complete' framing — creates genuine sequencing confusion.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Clear phase-based section structure exists, but a large block of content that should be split out (the legacy page types, content zones, JSON-LD templates) is inline, and the referenced prompts.csv.schema.md file is not present in any bundle directory.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

60%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific about the deliverable and domain but lacks an explicit 'when to use' trigger and the primary domain term 'GEO', which weakens trigger quality, completeness, and distinctiveness. It names concrete actions well but stops just short of being fully self-activating.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user needs to find the queries people ask AI chatbots about a product category for GEO content planning.'

Include the domain term 'GEO' (Generative Engine Optimization) so it matches the vocabulary users and sibling skills use.

Name the sibling skills it is distinct from (geo-content-planning, write-seo-geo-content) to reduce trigger overlap.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names multiple concrete actions — 'Researches what prompts people ask AI engines', 'produces a prompts.csv artifact — a prioritized, strictly-schema'd list', 'Feeds the monitor workflow' — and specifies the artifact's shape, matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers 'what' (research prompts, produce prompts.csv) but has no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; the 'Feeds the monitor workflow' line describes a relationship, not when to invoke it, capping completeness at 2 per the guidelines.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Contains some relevant natural phrasing ('prompts people ask AI engines', 'ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude') but omits the key domain term 'GEO' used throughout the body and misses common variations like 'AI search' or 'chatbot queries'.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The concrete prompts.csv deliverable gives it a niche, but the description omits 'GEO' and lacks an explicit trigger, leaving it somewhat overlapping with the sibling skills (geo-content-planning, write-seo-geo-content) named in the body.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
skill_md_line_count	SKILL.md is long (585 lines); consider splitting into references/ and linking	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: onvoyage-ai/gtm-engineer-skills
Path: geo-content-research/SKILL.md
Commit: 3777930

Reviewed: about 18 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.