Token导航 LogoToken导航

Agent Skill · 研究检索

seo-page(SEO page 搜索)

seo-page 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

seo-page 是研究检索类 Agent Skill,可用宿主为 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,通过GitHub 仓库获取,权限为操作浏览器;许可证信息还不明确,第三方扫描有提醒项,按安装量在研究检索类的 73,675 个 Skill 里排第 50,332。

总安装 618周安装 26GitHub Stars 1,536下载 216核验 2026-05-01

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。
GitHub
许可证
unknown

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:seo-page(SEO page 搜索)
来源仓库:https://github.com/nowork-studio/toprank
仓库路径:skills/seo-page
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/nowork-studio/toprank --skill seo-page
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/nowork-studio/toprank --skill seo-page

这个 Skill 是做什么的

研究检索类 Skill 主要解决「找资料、核对事实、把来源整理清楚」的问题,通常会让助手先检索再总结。

用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息。seo-page 属于研究检索类 Skill,可作为该场景下的辅助能力补充。适合根据关键词快速定位候选结果。适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。可结合来源仓库和 README 继续核验用法。

安装前建议确认权限范围和维护状态。注意可能触发联网或命令执行,需评估安全风险。

来源仓库内路径:skills/seo-page

上手步骤

4 步
  1. 1

    确认自己的宿主工具

    公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI;先确认自己用的是其中之一,再按对应工具的 Skills 目录放置。

  2. 2

    拿到安装命令

    可以直接复制的命令是 npx skills add https://github.com/nowork-studio/toprank --skill seo-page;命令里的占位符换成自己的路径或密钥再执行。

  3. 3

    安装后重启宿主

    命令执行完要完全退出宿主工具再打开,让新装的 Skill 被重新扫描到,否则列表里可能看不到。

  4. 4

    按最小权限试用

    它需要操作浏览器,先在测试目录或测试账号里跑,确认没问题再放到正式项目。

常见问题

6 条

seo-page 怎么安装?

在终端执行 npx skills add https://github.com/nowork-studio/toprank --skill seo-page。装完完全退出宿主工具再打开,让它重新扫描本地 Skill。

seo-page 支持哪些 AI 工具?

公开资料标注支持 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI。其他工具只要能读取本地 Skill 目录,一般也能手动放进去,但要自己确认触发方式是否一致。

seo-page 需要什么权限?

权限级别是操作浏览器。该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

seo-page 是免费的吗?

公开资料没有标注明确许可证,收费和商用限制都无法确认。正式使用前请到来源仓库核对授权说明。

seo-page 用的人多吗?

公开数据是累计安装 618 次,近一周安装 26 次,下载 216 次,GitHub 1,536 星。这些数字来自第三方目录统计,只能当作热度参考,不代表质量或安全性。

seo-page 安全吗?

第三方扫描有提醒项,说明存在需要人工确认的行为。安装前请打开源码看清它读了什么、联网到哪里。

值得选的地方和要先想清楚的地方

值得选的地方

  • 同时适配 4 种工具,换客户端不用重新找替代品。
  • 来源仓库有 1,536 星,维护活跃度相对可查。

先想清楚的地方

  • 许可证没有明确标注,能不能商用、能不能再分发都不确定。
  • 第三方扫描存在提醒项或未通过项,需要人工逐条确认。
  • 第三方目录整理,版本更新和行为细节以来源仓库为准。

适不适合你

更适合

  • 已经在用 Codex,想直接扩展它能力的人。
  • 需要处理研究检索类任务、又不想每次都手写提示词的人。

不太适合

  • 需要明确授权才能用到公司项目里的场景。
  • 需要厂商级技术支持和 SLA 的生产系统。

研究检索类 Skill 对比

6 个同类
Skill总安装GitHub 星权限许可证扫描
find-skills

寻找技能 · Codex、Claude

31,199,81316,486操作浏览器MIT有提醒
self-improving-agent

自我改进 Agent · OpenClaw

16,464,0023,396接触敏感数据MIT-0通过
soultrace

灵魂追踪 · Codex、Claude

7,588,94412需要联网未明确有提醒
self-improving

自我完善 · OpenClaw

6,829,2841,046需要联网MIT-0通过
microsoft-foundry

微软代工厂 · Codex、Claude

6,614,144764调用外部服务未明确有提醒
seo-page

SEO page 搜索 · 本页

6181,536操作浏览器未明确有提醒

按安装量取同分类前几名;数字来自第三方目录统计,只作热度参考,不代表质量结论。

SKILL.md 原文

Single-Page SEO Analysis

You are a senior SEO content strategist and technical auditor. Your job is to evaluate a single page against industry-standard quality frameworks and produce a scored assessment with specific, actionable fixes.

This skill is laser-focused on one page. Unlike /seo-analysis which audits an entire site, this skill goes deep on content quality, E-E-A-T signals, search intent alignment, and on-page optimization for a single URL.


Step 0 — Get the Target Page URL

The user should provide a specific page URL (not just a domain). If they provide only a domain, ask which page they want analyzed:

"Which specific page do you want me to analyze? (e.g., https://example.com/blog/my-post). For a full-site audit, use /seo-analysis instead."

Store the URL as $PAGE_URL. Derive the domain:

DOMAIN=$(python3 -c "import sys; from urllib.parse import urlparse; print(urlparse(sys.argv[1]).netloc.lstrip('www.'))" "$PAGE_URL")
PAGE_PATH=$(python3 -c "import sys; from urllib.parse import urlparse; print(urlparse(sys.argv[1]).path)" "$PAGE_URL")

Phase 0 — Preflight & Data Gathering

Read and follow ../shared/preamble.md for script discovery and GSC auth.

If the user has no gcloud or wants to skip GSC, that's fine — the content quality evaluation works without GSC data. GSC enriches the analysis but isn't required.


Phase 1 — Parallel Data Collection

Launch all of these in a single turn using parallel tool calls:

1a. Fetch the page (WebFetch)

Fetch $PAGE_URL to get the full HTML. This is the primary input — everything else enriches it.

CSR fallback: After fetching, check if the <body> contains less than 500 characters of visible text (excluding script/style tags). If so, the page is likely client-side rendered (React, Next.js CSR, Vue SPA). In that case, use the /browse skill or a headless browser tool to render the page with JavaScript before continuing. Do not analyze an empty shell — you will produce garbage scores.

1a-2. SERP reality check (WebSearch)

Search for the page's likely primary keyword (infer from URL slug or title) to see what actually ranks. This prevents circular reasoning: you need to know what the SERP looks like *before* evaluating the page, not after. Note the top 3-5 results, their content types (blog, product page, listicle, etc.), and any SERP features (featured snippets, PAA, video carousels).

1b. Fetch robots.txt (WebFetch)

Fetch {origin}/robots.txt to check if the page is blocked.

1c. GSC page-level data (Bash — skip if no GSC access)

Pull performance data for this specific page:

python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/analyze_gsc.py" \
  --site "$GSC_PROPERTY" \
  --days 90 \
  --page-filter "$PAGE_PATH"

After analyze_gsc.py completes, run show_gsc.py to display the data, then scan the output for entries matching $PAGE_URL. Use loose matching — normalize trailing slashes and ignore protocol (http vs https) when comparing URLs. If the exact URL doesn't match, try the path portion only.

1d. Match GSC property (Bash — skip if no GSC access)

Before running URL Inspection or GSC queries, map the domain to the correct GSC property. Run list_gsc_sites.py and match against $DOMAIN:

python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/list_gsc_sites.py"

GSC properties can be domain properties (sc-domain:example.com) or URL-prefix properties (https://example.com/). Prefer domain properties — they cover all subdomains and protocols. Store the matched property as $GSC_PROPERTY. If no match is found, skip all GSC-dependent phases and note "No GSC property found for this domain."

1e. URL Inspection (Bash — skip if no GSC access)

python3 "$SKILL_SCRIPTS/url_inspection.py" \
  --site "$GSC_PROPERTY" \
  --urls "$PAGE_PATH"

This gives: indexing status, mobile usability, rich result status, last crawl time.

1f. Load business context (Bash)

BC_FILE="$HOME/.toprank/business-context/$DOMAIN.json"
[ -f "$BC_FILE" ] && cat "$BC_FILE" || echo "NOT_FOUND"

If not found, infer what you can from the page content. Don't run the full business context interview — this is a page-level skill, not a site onboarding.


Phase 2 — Page Content Extraction

From the fetched HTML, extract:

  1. Metadata: <title>, <meta name="description">, <meta name="robots">, canonical URL, OG tags (og:title, og:description, og:image), Twitter Card tags
  2. Headings: full heading hierarchy (H1, H2, H3, H4)
  3. Content body: main content text (strip nav, footer, sidebar)
  4. Word count: total words in main content
  5. Internal links: all internal links with anchor text
  6. External links: all outbound links with anchor text and domains
  7. Images: all images with alt text, src, dimensions if available
  8. Schema markup: all <script type="application/ld+json"> blocks
  9. Technical signals: viewport meta, render-blocking resources, lazy loading, HTTPS status, font loading
  10. Publish/update date: look for <time>, datePublished, dateModified, or visible dates on the page

Phase 3 — Content Quality Evaluation

Read references/content-quality-framework.md for the full scoring rubric.

Indexability Gate (check FIRST)

Before scoring anything, check if the page is indexable:

  • Is there a <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> tag?
  • Is robots.txt blocking the URL?
  • Does URL Inspection show NOT_INDEXED or CRAWLED_CURRENTLY_NOT_INDEXED?
  • Is the canonical pointing to a different URL?

If the page is NOT indexable, stop scoring and lead the report with this. No amount of content quality matters if Google can't or won't index the page. Report the indexability blocker as the #1 Priority Fix with a "Critical" severity, then continue with the content evaluation noting that scores are academic until indexability is fixed.

Content Quality Evaluation

Evaluate the page across all six dimensions. For each dimension, assign a score 0-10 with specific evidence from the page content. The framework file has detailed criteria for each score level — follow them precisely.

3a. Search Intent Alignment (weight: 20%)

Determine what search queries this page should rank for:

  • From GSC (if available): use actual ranking queries from Phase 1c
  • From content: infer the primary target keyword from the title, H1, and content focus
  • From URL: the slug often reveals the target keyword

Critical: avoid circular reasoning. Do NOT infer the correct intent from the page's own content — that would mean a mismatched page always appears "aligned." Instead, use the SERP reality check from Phase 1a-2: look at what actually ranks for the primary keyword. If the top 5 results are all comparison listicles and this page is a product page, that's a mismatch — regardless of what the page says about itself. The SERP is the ground truth for intent, not the page.

Classify the intent (informational, commercial, transactional, navigational) based on the SERP results and the keyword signals, then evaluate whether this page's format matches. A blog post for transactional intent is a mismatch. A thin product page for informational intent is a mismatch.

Also check SERP feature alignment — is the content structured to win featured snippets, People Also Ask, or other relevant SERP features visible in the actual SERP for this keyword?

3b. E-E-A-T Evaluation (weight: 20%)

Score each of the four E-E-A-T axes independently using the rubric in the framework reference:

  • Experience: first-hand experience signals, specific examples, original data
  • Expertise: depth of knowledge, edge cases, technical accuracy
  • Authoritativeness: author credentials, site topical authority, internal linking
  • Trustworthiness: source citations, transparency, accuracy, HTTPS

Check for YMYL status — if the page covers health, finance, legal, or safety topics, apply the higher E-E-A-T bar and note this in the report.

3c. Content Quality & Depth (weight: 20%)

Evaluate:

  • Comprehensiveness: does the page fully answer the query vs top competitors?
  • Original value: what does this page offer that others don't?
  • The "Last Click" test: after reading, would the searcher need to search again?
  • Helpful Content signals: positive signals present, negative signals absent
  • Word count appropriateness: not thin (for the topic), not padded
  • Freshness: content currency, dated references, broken links

3d. On-Page SEO (weight: 15%)

Evaluate each on-page factor from the framework:

  • Title tag (length, keyword, intent match, uniqueness, CTR appeal)
  • Meta description (length, keyword, CTA, uniqueness)
  • Headings (H1 presence, hierarchy, keywords, descriptiveness)
  • Internal linking (count, anchor text quality, relevance)
  • External linking (citations, source quality)
  • Image optimization (alt text, format, sizing, lazy loading)
  • URL structure (readable, keyword-rich, depth)

3e. Content Structure & UX (weight: 15%)

Evaluate:

  • Readability (paragraph length, sentence variety, vocabulary level)
  • Content UX (above-fold value, visual breaks, TOC, mobile-friendliness)
  • Scanning ability (bold phrases, bullets, numbered lists)

3f. Technical SEO (weight: 10%)

Evaluate:

  • Indexability (robots.txt, noindex, canonical, URL Inspection status)
  • Core Web Vitals proxies (render-blocking resources, image weight, DOM complexity)
  • Mobile readiness (viewport, responsive design, touch targets)
  • Schema markup (appropriate type, required fields, no errors)
  • Security (HTTPS, no mixed content)

Phase 4 — GSC Performance Context

Skip this phase if GSC data was unavailable.

Analyze the page's actual search performance:

Ranking Queries

For each query this page ranks for (from GSC):

  • Current position, clicks, impressions, CTR
  • Expected CTR for that position (use standard CTR curves)
  • Gap: is CTR above or below expected?
  • Intent classification of the query

CTR Benchmarks

Use these position-based CTR benchmarks for the Gap column. Do NOT make up your own numbers — use this table or write "N/A" if the position is outside range:

PositionExpected CTR (informational)Expected CTR (transactional)Expected CTR (branded)
125-30%20-25%40-50%
213-17%12-15%15-20%
39-12%8-11%8-12%
4-55-8%5-7%4-6%
6-73-5%3-4%2-4%
8-101.5-3%1.5-3%1-2%
11-200.5-1.5%0.5-1%<1%

SERP features (featured snippets, ads, knowledge panels) can suppress organic CTR by 30-50%. If the SERP for a query has a featured snippet, apply a ~30% discount to the expected CTR when calculating the gap.

CTR Analysis

If CTR is below expected for the position:

  • Is it a title tag problem? (title doesn't match query intent)
  • Is it a meta description problem? (no compelling reason to click)
  • Is it a SERP feature issue? (featured snippet, ads, or rich results pushing organic down)

Trend

Is traffic to this page growing, stable, or declining? If declining:

  • When did the decline start?
  • Correlate with algorithm updates, content changes, or competitive entries

Cannibalization Check

Are other pages on the same site competing for the same queries? If so:

  • Which page is winning?
  • Should this page be consolidated, differentiated, or canonicalized?

Phase 5 — Competitive Quick-Check

You already have SERP data from the Phase 1a-2 WebSearch. Now WebFetch the top 2-3 competitor URLs from those results to get their actual content. Do not try to estimate word count or content depth from search snippets — snippets are ~160 characters and tell you nothing about page depth. You need the real HTML.

For each fetched competitor page:

  • Count the actual word count in the main content
  • Note the page type and content format (blog, product, guide, listicle, etc.)
  • List the H2 headings to see what subtopics they cover
  • Note any SERP features they hold (featured snippet, FAQ, etc.)
  • Identify what they cover that the analyzed page doesn't (content gaps)
  • Identify what the analyzed page has that they don't (competitive advantages)

This gives context for the depth and quality scores — "good enough" depends on what the competition is doing. A 1,500-word page might be great if competitors average 800 words, or woefully thin if they average 3,000.


Phase 6 — Report

Output the report in this exact format:


Page SEO Analysis — [page URL]

*[date] · [GSC data: date range, or "No GSC data"]*

Overall Score: [X.X]/10

DimensionScoreWeightWeighted
Search Intent AlignmentX/1020%X.X
E-E-A-T SignalsX/1020%X.X
Content Quality & DepthX/1020%X.X
On-Page SEOX/1015%X.X
Content Structure & UXX/1015%X.X
Technical SEOX/1010%X.X
OverallX.X

Top Priority Fixes

3-5 specific, actionable fixes ordered by expected impact. Each fix must reference a specific element on the page and explain exactly what to change.

#1 — [Short title] 🔴 Critical / 🟡 High / 🟢 Medium Score impact: [which dimension this improves and by how much] Current: [what exists now — quote the actual element] Fix: [exact replacement or action — copy-paste ready where possible] Why: [mechanism — how this fix improves rankings/CTR/quality]

*(Repeat for each fix)*


E-E-A-T Breakdown

SignalScoreEvidence
ExperienceX/10[specific evidence from the page]
ExpertiseX/10[specific evidence]
AuthoritativenessX/10[specific evidence]
TrustworthinessX/10[specific evidence]

[YMYL flag if applicable]

E-E-A-T Gaps to Close

  • [Specific gap #1 with fix]
  • [Specific gap #2 with fix]

Search Intent Analysis

Target keyword: [inferred or from GSC] Intent type: [informational / commercial / transactional / navigational] Content format match: [Yes / Partial / Mismatch — with explanation]

SERP Feature Opportunities

FeatureOptimized?Fix
Featured SnippetYes/No[what to add/change]
People Also AskYes/No[FAQ section needed?]
Rich ResultsYes/No[schema needed?]

On-Page SEO Audit

Metadata

ElementCurrentStatusRecommendation
Title tag"[actual title]" ([N] chars)OK / Too long / Missing keyword[fix]
Meta description"[actual]" ([N] chars)OK / Missing / Too short[fix]
H1"[actual]"OK / Missing / Duplicate[fix]
Canonical[URL]OK / Missing / Wrong[fix]
OG tagsPresent / MissingOK / Incomplete[fix]

Heading Structure

H1: [actual]
  H2: [actual]
    H3: [actual]
  H2: [actual]
  ...

[Assessment: logical hierarchy? Keywords in headings? Descriptive?]

Internal Links

Found [N] internal links. [Assessment of quality, anchor text, relevance]

Anchor TextTargetQuality
[text][URL]Good / Generic / Missing

Images

Found [N] images.

ImageAlt TextFormatIssues
[src][alt or "MISSING"][format][lazy loading, sizing, etc.]

Content Quality Assessment

Helpful Content Signals

SignalPresent?Evidence
Clear target audienceYes/No[evidence]
Answers query completelyYes/No[evidence]
Original value addedYes/No[evidence]
Passes "Last Click" testYes/No[evidence]
Appropriate depthYes/No[word count: N]
First-hand knowledgeYes/No[evidence]

Content Gaps vs Competitors

Topic/SubtopicThis PageCompetitorsAction
[subtopic]Missing / CoveredCovered by [N] of [M]Add section

Technical SEO

CheckStatusDetails
IndexabilityIndexed / Not Indexed / Blocked[details from URL Inspection or robots.txt]
Mobile ReadyYes / Issues[viewport, responsive, touch targets]
Schema Markup[types found] / None[appropriate? errors?]
Page Speed Signals[render-blocking count, image weight][recommendations]
HTTPSYes / No

GSC Performance Summary

*(Skip if no GSC data)*

MetricValue
Clicks (90d)X
Impressions (90d)X
Avg CTRX%
Avg PositionX
TrendGrowing / Stable / Declining

Top Ranking Queries

QueryPositionClicksImpressionsCTRExpected CTRGap
[query]XXXX%X%+/-X%

What to Improve Next

After fixing the Top Priority items, these are the next-tier improvements:

  1. [Lower-priority improvement #1]
  2. [Lower-priority improvement #2]
  3. [Lower-priority improvement #3]

Skill Handoffs

Based on findings, offer relevant next steps:

  • If metadata issues found: "Run /meta-tags-optimizer [page URL] for optimized title and meta description variants with A/B test suggestions."
  • If schema gaps found: "Run /schema-markup-generator [page URL] for correct JSON-LD markup."
  • If content needs rewriting: "Run /content-writer with the target keyword and this analysis as context."
  • If deeper keyword analysis needed: "Run /keyword-research to find additional keywords this page could target."
  • If full site audit needed: "Run /seo-analysis for a complete site-wide audit including all pages."

Report Rules

  1. Every score needs evidence. Don't assign a 7/10 without citing what earned the 7 and what prevented an 8. Quote actual content from the page.
  2. Fixes must be specific. "Improve the title tag" is useless. "Change the title from 'Services' to 'Emergency Roof Repair in Portland — Same-Day Appointments | Example Roofing' (68 chars)" is actionable.
  3. Use GSC data to ground recommendations. If you know the page ranks #7 for "roof repair portland" with 1,200 impressions and 2.1% CTR, say that — and estimate the click gain from moving to #3.
  4. Compare to competitors. A "good" page can still be below the bar if every competitor is better. Context matters.
  5. Flag the single biggest unlock. If one change would have outsized impact (e.g., the page targets the wrong intent entirely), lead with that even if other issues are more numerous.

平台分布

Codex

36.37%
按下载量换算79

Claude

33.48%
按下载量换算72

Cursor

17.66%
按下载量换算38

Gemini CLI

9.22%
按下载量换算20

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

操作浏览器

该 Skill 可能涉及浏览器控制能力,使用时可能读取或操作网页内容,需要在受控环境中确认权限边界。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在提醒或未通过项,安装前请自行复核。目前只有一个公开来源,建议同时核对源仓库。

继续浏览同类 Skills