ВяткинАртём
2817cf8dc6
- 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.
56 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
56 lines
2.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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) |