Add test coverage checklist, report template, and stack matrix for ecommerce project
- Created a test coverage checklist to ensure comprehensive testing of backend and frontend components. - Added a test report template to standardize reporting on test execution results and gaps. - Introduced a test stack matrix to guide the selection of testing tools and frameworks for backend and frontend. - Established a skill for repairing failing tests, including a failure triage checklist and a test repair template. - Documented recommended MCP stack for ecommerce development with FastAPI and React/Next.js. - Developed a detailed README outlining the project structure, agent capabilities, and recommended workflows. - Compiled a comprehensive workflow guide detailing step-by-step commands for project setup, testing, and SEO implementation.
This commit is contained in:
ВяткинАртём
@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
name: ecommerce-seo-review
|
||||
description: 'Review implemented ecommerce SEO and produce a structured findings report. Use for auditing metadata, schema, canonicals, sitemaps, robots rules, internal linking, indexation, Core Web Vitals risks, and content-template SEO after changes are shipped.'
|
||||
argument-hint: 'Describe whether to review the whole site or specific page types such as categories, products, metadata, or technical SEO'
|
||||
---
|
||||
# Ecommerce SEO Review
|
||||
|
||||
## When to use
|
||||
- After applying SEO changes in code.
|
||||
- After launching a new ecommerce site or a major SEO release.
|
||||
- When you need a structured list of SEO gaps, risks, regressions, and missed opportunities.
|
||||
|
||||
## Goal
|
||||
- Audit the current project state against .ai/SEO-PLAN.md, .ai/STORE-BRIEF.md, and the live codebase.
|
||||
- Produce .ai/SEO-REVIEW.md with prioritized findings, risks, and next actions.
|
||||
- Focus on practical issues that affect crawling, indexation, relevance, page quality, internal linking, and performance.
|
||||
|
||||
## Preconditions
|
||||
- Prefer having .ai/SEO-PLAN.md when the project has already gone through the SEO strategy step.
|
||||
- If .ai/SEO-PLAN.md is missing, review the current site from code and documented assumptions instead of blocking.
|
||||
|
||||
## Required workflow
|
||||
1. Read .ai/SEO-PLAN.md first when it exists.
|
||||
2. Read .ai/STORE-BRIEF.md and AGENTS.md if they exist.
|
||||
3. Audit the codebase against [SEO review checklist](./assets/seo-review-checklist.md).
|
||||
4. Score issues using [severity rubric](./assets/severity-rubric.md).
|
||||
5. Write or update .ai/SEO-REVIEW.md using [SEO review template](./assets/seo-review-template.md).
|
||||
6. Group findings into critical, high, medium, and low priority.
|
||||
7. Separate confirmed issues from assumptions or areas that require runtime validation.
|
||||
8. End with a remediation plan ordered by business impact and engineering cost.
|
||||
|
||||
## Review coverage
|
||||
- Metadata systems and missing or duplicate titles and descriptions.
|
||||
- Canonical logic, noindex logic, and index-bloat risks.
|
||||
- Sitemap and robots policy.
|
||||
- Schema markup accuracy and visible-content alignment.
|
||||
- Category, product, brand, collection, and editorial template SEO.
|
||||
- Internal linking and breadcrumbs.
|
||||
- Search, filter, sort, pagination, cart, account, and utility route handling.
|
||||
- Performance and Core Web Vitals risks visible from the codebase.
|
||||
- Content depth and thin-page risks where they are inferable from templates and data flow.
|
||||
|
||||
## Constraints
|
||||
- Do not claim runtime behavior that cannot be confirmed from code.
|
||||
- Clearly mark assumptions, unknowns, and items that need browser or production validation.
|
||||
- Prefer actionable findings over generic SEO advice.
|
||||
|
||||
## Outputs
|
||||
- .ai/SEO-REVIEW.md.
|
||||
- A prioritized findings list.
|
||||
- A short remediation plan with quick wins and structural fixes.
|
||||
|
||||
## References
|
||||
- [SEO review checklist](./assets/seo-review-checklist.md)
|
||||
- [severity rubric](./assets/severity-rubric.md)
|
||||
- [SEO review template](./assets/seo-review-template.md)
|
||||
+40
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
|
||||
# SEO Review Checklist
|
||||
|
||||
## Metadata
|
||||
- Titles are unique on strategic page types.
|
||||
- Meta descriptions are present where useful and not duplicated at scale.
|
||||
- Open Graph and social metadata are present for key public pages.
|
||||
|
||||
## Crawl and indexation
|
||||
- Canonicals exist where duplication risk is real.
|
||||
- Noindex is applied to low-value routes such as cart, account, internal search, and thin utility pages when appropriate.
|
||||
- Filter, sort, and pagination behavior aligns with the SEO plan.
|
||||
- Sitemap generation excludes noindex and low-value URLs.
|
||||
- robots.txt does not accidentally block important content.
|
||||
|
||||
## Structured data
|
||||
- JSON-LD exists where intended.
|
||||
- Schema matches visible content.
|
||||
- Product, offer, breadcrumb, article, FAQ, and organization schema are used correctly.
|
||||
- There are no fake reviews, misleading offers, or invalid structured data assumptions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Page templates
|
||||
- Category and collection templates support unique SEO fields and meaningful content.
|
||||
- Product templates support strong metadata, support content, and structured data.
|
||||
- Brand and editorial pages have distinct intent and do not cannibalize key landing pages.
|
||||
|
||||
## Internal linking
|
||||
- Breadcrumbs exist where expected.
|
||||
- Important categories are linked from strong pages.
|
||||
- Product and editorial pages support relevant internal links.
|
||||
- Strategic landing pages are not orphaned.
|
||||
|
||||
## Performance-sensitive SEO
|
||||
- Key pages are not overloaded with client-only SEO logic.
|
||||
- There are obvious protections against large layout shifts and heavy above-the-fold payloads.
|
||||
- Media and fonts do not create avoidable search-quality regressions.
|
||||
|
||||
## Unknowns to flag
|
||||
- Runtime rendering behavior.
|
||||
- Search Console or analytics data not visible in code.
|
||||
- Production-only redirects, robots headers, CDN behavior, and sitemap deployment details.
|
||||
+53
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
|
||||
# SEO-REVIEW.md Template
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Review Scope
|
||||
- Reviewed area
|
||||
- Inputs used: .ai/SEO-PLAN.md, .ai/STORE-BRIEF.md, AGENTS.md, codebase files
|
||||
- Limits of the review
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Executive Summary
|
||||
- Overall SEO implementation quality
|
||||
- Biggest risks
|
||||
- Biggest missed opportunities
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Findings
|
||||
|
||||
### Critical
|
||||
- List critical findings
|
||||
|
||||
### High
|
||||
- List high-priority findings
|
||||
|
||||
### Medium
|
||||
- List medium-priority findings
|
||||
|
||||
### Low
|
||||
- List low-priority findings
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Page-Type Notes
|
||||
- Homepage
|
||||
- Categories and collections
|
||||
- Product pages
|
||||
- Brand pages
|
||||
- Editorial or support pages
|
||||
- Utility pages
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Technical SEO Notes
|
||||
- Metadata system
|
||||
- Canonicals and noindex
|
||||
- Sitemap and robots
|
||||
- Structured data
|
||||
- Internal linking
|
||||
- Performance-sensitive SEO
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Unknowns and Runtime Validation
|
||||
- Items that require browser validation
|
||||
- Items that require production or Search Console data
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Remediation Plan
|
||||
- Quick wins
|
||||
- Medium lifts
|
||||
- Structural fixes
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Suggested Next Validation Steps
|
||||
- What to test after fixes are applied
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
# Severity Rubric
|
||||
|
||||
## Critical
|
||||
- Likely to block crawling or indexation of important commercial pages.
|
||||
- Likely to create large-scale duplicate or canonical errors.
|
||||
- Likely to break structured data trust on strategic templates.
|
||||
|
||||
## High
|
||||
- Likely to materially reduce rankings, CTR, or discoverability on important page groups.
|
||||
- Affects high-value categories, product templates, or core internal-link systems.
|
||||
|
||||
## Medium
|
||||
- Noticeable quality gap or missed opportunity, but not a severe blocker.
|
||||
- Often template-level improvements, partial metadata gaps, or incomplete linking coverage.
|
||||
|
||||
## Low
|
||||
- Nice-to-have improvements, polish items, or issues with limited SEO impact.
|
||||
|
||||
## Finding format
|
||||
- Severity
|
||||
- Area
|
||||
- Affected page type or module
|
||||
- What is wrong
|
||||
- Why it matters
|
||||
- Recommended fix
|
||||
- Validation note if runtime confirmation is still needed
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user