CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

programmatic-seo

How to design and run a programmatic SEO program that produces durable traffic instead of penalty-bait. Data source identification, template design, schema patterns, quality control at scale, internal linking architecture, crawl budget management, AEO/GEO for programmatic pages, refresh discipline, and the make-or-break question of whether pSEO is the right answer for your program at all. Triggers on programmatic SEO, pSEO, scaled content, page generation, template SEO, location pages, comparison pages, directory site, listing site, scaled landing pages, programmatic content. Also triggers when a content set is not ranking, has been hit by an algorithm update, or when a team is considering pSEO as a growth lever.

Quality

85%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A strong, well-structured overview for an instruction-only strategy skill: concrete thresholds throughout, a coherent design sequence with explicit go/no-go gates, and exemplary progressive disclosure to ten real reference files. The main weakness is redundancy — the 12-consideration framework and the closing restate the section content, inflating the token budget without adding new guidance.

Suggestions

Trim or merge "The framework: 12 considerations" with the closing section — both restate the per-section criteria; a single checklist with the final go/no-go gate would cut ~40 lines of duplicated content.

Remove the repeated "reputation problem" framing (intro and "When pSEO is the right answer" section) — state it once and reference it.

Inline one small executable artifact (e.g., a minimal record-schema example or the sample-audit checklist) to lift actionability from decision-ready to directly usable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and opinionated with no basic-concept padding, but it restates itself: "The reputation problem is not the technique" appears in both the intro and the "When pSEO is the right answer" section, and "The framework: 12 considerations" plus the closing largely restate all preceding sections. The framework and closing could be trimmed or merged to tighten the overview.

3 / 5

Actionability

Instruction-only guidance that is highly concrete: "Random sample 50 to 200 pages per audit cycle," "more than 5% of sampled pages fail… halt new generation," "roughly 0.5 to 1.0 FTE," "5 to 15 internal links per page," "Pages generated 2+ years ago… 24-month checkpoint." It stops short of executable artifacts (example schema, template snippet, audit checklist), delegating those to reference files, so it is decision-ready rather than copy-paste ready.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The sections form a coherent design sequence (fit decision → data source → template → schema → QC → linking → crawl budget → AEO → refresh → failures) and end with an explicit validation gate ("If no to any of them, fix the gap before any pages generate") plus in-program feedback loops (5% failure threshold halts generation). The checkpoints are distributed across sections rather than consolidated into one ordered procedure with error-recovery loops, keeping it below the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Clear overview with each section ending in a well-signaled "Detail in [`references/…`]" pointer, plus a consolidated Reference files section with one-line descriptions; all 10 referenced files exist and contain real, one-level-deep content (verified on disk). A direct match to the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

95%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

An excellent description: comprehensive concrete capabilities, explicit what-and-when with trigger phrases, and a well-differentiated niche. The only flaw is a single second-person slip ("your program"), which costs one specificity point under the rubric's voice rule.

Suggestions

Rewrite the phrase "whether pSEO is the right answer for your program at all" in third person (e.g., "for a given program") to satisfy the voice rule and recover the specificity point.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete capability areas — "Data source identification, template design, schema patterns, quality control at scale, internal linking architecture, crawl budget management, AEO/GEO for programmatic pages, refresh discipline" — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. However, the second-person phrasing "whether pSEO is the right answer for your program at all" violates the third-person voice rule, applying the rubric's 1-point penalty; without it this would be a 5.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("How to design and run a programmatic SEO program that produces durable traffic instead of penalty-bait" with enumerated components) and when ("Triggers on…"; "Also triggers when a content set is not ranking… or when a team is considering pSEO as a growth lever"), with concrete trigger phrases — a direct match to the 5 anchor.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"Triggers on programmatic SEO, pSEO, scaled content, page generation, template SEO, location pages, comparison pages, directory site, listing site, scaled landing pages, programmatic content" plus situational triggers ("when a content set is not ranking, has been hit by an algorithm update") gives comprehensive natural-term coverage with synonyms (programmatic SEO / pSEO / programmatic content). No common variation is missing.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (programmatic SEO at scale) with unambiguous triggers like "location pages," "comparison pages," "directory site," "scaled landing pages" that would not naturally route to adjacent content skills; minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

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

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

rampstackco/claude-skills

Path

skills/programmatic-seo/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.