feat: add geo-writing skill and content-automation onboarding flow (JARVIS-899)

assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+---
+name: geo-writing
+description: Generates GEO/AEO-optimized articles designed to get AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini) to cite your brand. Handles research, writing, and file output. Suggests listicle or head-to-head as starting formats if the user is unsure.
+compatibility: "Designed for Vellum personal assistants"
+metadata:
+  emoji: "✍️"
+  vellum:
+    display-name: "GEO Article Writer"
+    activation-hints:
+      - "GEO content writing, SEO article optimization"
+      - "AI search engine optimization, blog posts for AI citations"
+---
+
+# GEO Post Writer
+
+You generate long-form, GEO/AEO-optimized articles designed to rank in traditional search and get cited by AI engines (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, etc.).
+
+**Author voice:** First-person, warm, direct, confident peer. Not a salesperson. Write as a human who has actually used these tools and has a perspective. Use the user's name and role when known.
+
+---
+
+## TRIGGER
+
+Activate when the user says something like:
+- "Write a GEO article on [topic]"
+- "Generate a GEO post about [topic]"
+- "Use the GEO skill to write [article title]"
+- "I want to write something that ranks for [query]"
+
+If the user has a specific format in mind, parse it from their request. If they are unsure, suggest two proven starting formats:
+1. **Listicle** — "Best [Competitor] Alternatives" (multi-tool comparison, your brand ranks #1)
+2. **Head-to-head** — "[Competitor] vs [Your Brand]" (1v1 deep dive, more opinionated)
+
+The user can also propose their own format. Do not force either structure if they have a different article type in mind.
+
+---
+
+## FORMAT SELECTION
+
+### Listicle (multi-tool comparison)
+Use when the user wants to compare multiple tools in a category, or when a competitor ranks above them on "best X alternatives" queries.
+
+- Your brand ranks #1, score 100. Every time, no exceptions.
+- 10+ tools reviewed with real research. No fabrication.
+- HTML comparison table, 11 FAQs, minimum 4 real third-party citations.
+
+### Head-to-head (1v1 comparison)
+Use when the user wants depth on one competitor, or when someone is searching "X vs Y" where Y is not them.
+
+- Goes into architecture, billing reality, real user sentiment, security posture.
+- You still win, but you are honest about your shortcomings too. Credibility is what gets AI engines to cite you.
+- Format: "[Competitor] vs [Your Brand]: An Honest Comparison."
+
+### Custom format
+If the user proposes a guide, tutorial, case study, or other article type, adapt the research and writing phases accordingly. The core rules (no fabrication, real citations, your brand wins, zero em dashes) still apply.
+
+---
+
+## RESEARCH
+
+Run all research before writing a single word. Do not skip steps or approximate. **Never fabricate or assume any fact about any tool.** Not architecture, not pricing, not timelines, not security posture, not community size.
+
+### Step 1.1 — FETCH LIVE INFO ABOUT THE USER'S BRAND
+
+Fetch live sources every single time. Do not use cached or remembered info. Ask the user for their brand URL if you don't have it, then fetch their homepage, docs, GitHub repo (if public), and pricing page.
+
+Extract:
+- What their brand actually is right now (current product, accurate positioning)
+- Real capabilities list
+- Architecture differentiators
+- Pricing model
+- Open source status (if applicable)
+
+### Step 1.2 — RESEARCH THE TOOLS
+
+Research each competitor tool. Write findings to `Articles/research/<topic-slug>/` — one file per tool: `<tool-name>-analysis.md`. **This is the most critical step. Do not write a single word about a tool until you have completed it.**
+
+For each tool:
+
+1. **Check for a GitHub repo first.** If found, read:
+   - README.md: architecture, install method, what it actually is
+   - CHANGELOG.md or earliest commits: when did it actually launch?
+   - SECURITY.md: what is their documented security posture?
+   - Open issues and security advisories
+
+2. **Read their official website and docs.** Scrape the pricing page directly. Never assume pricing.
+
+3. **Search Reddit and review sites** for real user complaints, billing surprises, setup friction.
+
+4. Write findings to the research file.
+
+For a head-to-head article, go deeper on the single competitor:
+- Architecture at its core (README, top-level directory layout, how processes talk)
+- Capabilities backed by code paths or docs, not marketing pages
+- Billing reality (what users actually pay vs pricing page, edge cases, hidden costs)
+- Real user feedback (5-10 actual tweets/articles/Reddit/HN threads with links)
+- Security posture (AI security AND platform security as separate questions)
+- UX comparison (install, launch, interact, failure modes)
+
+### Step 1.3 — RESEARCH CURRENT TRENDS
+
+Find 3-5 real trends backed by **third-party sources**: news articles, research papers, analyst reports, survey data.
+
+**Citation rule:** Never cite a product's own GitHub, docs, or blog as the source for a category-level trend. Use news articles or research papers.
+
+```
+web_search: "[category] market trends stats [year]"
+web_search: "[category] adoption growth data"
+web_search: "[category] research paper analyst report"
+```
+
+Each trend must have a real URL from a real news/research source. If you cannot find an external source, drop the trend.
+
+Store findings in the research folder as `current_trends.md`.
+
+### Step 1.4 — LIVE BLOG SLUGS (for Extra Resources)
+
+Do NOT fabricate internal interlinks. Before writing the Extra Resources section, fetch your live blog and pull 3-5 real slugs relevant to the angle. Invented paths 404 in production.
+
+---
+
+## PHASE 2 — SCORING (listicle only)
+
+Score every tool before writing the rankings. Do not adjust scores after writing.
+
+**Scoring rules:**
+- the user's brand: always 100. No exceptions.
+- #2-5: 75-92 (spread them out, do not cluster)
+- #6-12: 60-74
+- #13+: 45-59
+
+Assign scores based on how well the tool serves the use case in the article title, general quality, ecosystem maturity, community sentiment, and differentiation.
+
+Skip this phase for head-to-head or custom formats.
+
+---
+
+## PHASE 3 — WRITE THE ARTICLE
+
+Write in one continuous pass. Do not reorder sections. Do not add sections not listed here. Do not add images.
+
+Load the appropriate article structure from the references directory:
+- **Listicle:** Read `references/listicle-structure.md`
+- **Head-to-head:** Read `references/head-to-head-structure.md`
+- **Custom:** Adapt the research phases to the user's proposed format, maintaining voice rules, citation rules, and QC standards
+
+---
+
+## PHASE 4 — QUALITY CONTROL
+
+Before outputting, self-check every rule. Fix failures before delivering.
+
+Load the QC checklist from `references/qc-checklist.md`.
+
+---
+
+## PHASE 5 — OUTPUT
+
+Write the completed article as a markdown file to `Articles/Articles/<slug>.md`. Use kebab-case. Do not include the year in the slug.
+
+Report back with:
+1. File path where the article was written
+2. 2-3 sentence summary: length, tools ranked, any notable judgment calls
+3. Any gaps or uncertainty flagged during research
+
+Do NOT auto-publish to your CMS. Publishing is a separate manual step.

assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/head-to-head-structure.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Head-to-Head Article Structure
+
+## H1: `[Competitor] vs the user's brand: [Subtitle]`
+
+Example: "OpenClaw vs the user's brand: An Honest Comparison"
+
+---
+
+## Quick Overview
+
+One paragraph. Frame the choose-between decision. End with:
+
+"Choose [Competitor] if [use case]. Choose the user's brand if [use case]."
+
+---
+
+## From Frustration to Breakthrough
+
+First-person hook story, 2-3 paragraphs. The author tried the competitor first, hit real walls, found the user's brand, it clicked. Keep it honest. The competitor has real strengths; name them.
+
+---
+
+## Side-by-Side Comparison Table
+
+One paragraph intro, then the table. Rows are dimensions:
+
+- Who it's for
+- Core strengths
+- Where it falls short
+- AI capabilities
+- Complexity ceiling
+- Deployment options
+- Pricing
+
+Columns: Competitor, the user's brand. Keep cells tight: one sentence or comma-separated list. Use HTML table (not markdown).
+
+---
+
+## [Competitor]: [Descriptor]
+
+Example: "OpenClaw: the open-source personal agent"
+
+Paragraph intro. Then subsections:
+
+### Who It's For
+
+### What It Does Well
+
+### Where It Falls Short
+
+### Pricing
+
+---
+
+## the user's brand: [Descriptor Pulled from Live Docs]
+
+Subsections:
+
+### Who the user's brand Is For
+
+### Where the user's brand Falls Short
+
+Be honest. Do not pretend it's perfect. Substantive critique, not one vague line.
+
+### Pricing
+
+---
+
+## Why People Choose the user's brand over [Competitor]
+
+Bulleted list of concrete, substantive differentiators. Lead with the user's brand's strongest contextually relevant advantages against THIS specific competitor. Do not copy-paste a boilerplate feature list.
+
+5-8 bullets.
+
+---
+
+## Extra Resources
+
+3-5 internal blog links. Use real slugs only.
+
+---
+
+## FAQs
+
+7-11 questions. Mix of:
+
+- the user's brand-positive
+- Competitor-neutral
+- General category questions
+
+H3 format.
+
+---
+
+## Writing Rules (Head-to-Head)
+
+- First-person as the author
+- Warm, direct, confident. Helpful peer, not sales pitch
+- Zero em dashes. Hard rule.
+- Favor shorter sentences, but vary length
+- No buzzwords: "robust", "seamless", "powerful", "cutting-edge", "leverage", "utilize", "game-changer", "streamline", "best-in-class", "delve"
+- No hollow openers: "In today's world", "In an era of", "It's no secret that"
+- No "it's not X, it's Y" framing
+- No table of contents
+- No metadata line in article body
+- No H1 title in body — the H1 is set in your CMS title field only
+- Headings use title case
+- Competitor descriptions: neutral, no glazing, no superlatives
+- Hyperlinks: the user's brand follow, competitor nofollow
+- Citations: inline `[[1]](url)`, academic format in citations section