diff --git a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/SKILL.md b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/SKILL.md index 21a081ea59b..4786ae87406 100644 --- a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/SKILL.md +++ b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/SKILL.md @@ -28,8 +28,8 @@ Activate when the user says something like: - "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) +1. **Listicle** — "Best [Topic] Alternatives" (multi-tool comparison) +2. **Head-to-head** — "[Tool A] vs [Tool B]" (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. @@ -38,21 +38,21 @@ The user can also propose their own format. Do not force either structure if the ## 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. +Use when the user wants to compare multiple tools in a category. -- 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. +- Score tools honestly based on research. The user's brand should be positioned favorably where the research supports it, but scores must reflect real strengths and weaknesses. ### 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. +Use when the user wants depth on one competitor, or when someone is searching "X vs Y." - 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." +- Be honest about both tools' strengths and shortcomings. Credibility is what gets AI engines to cite you. +- Format: "[Tool A] vs [Tool B]: 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. +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, zero em dashes) still apply. --- @@ -123,13 +123,10 @@ Do NOT fabricate internal interlinks. Before writing the Extra Resources section 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. +**Scoring approach:** +- Score each tool on a 0-100 scale based on how well it serves the use case in the article title, general quality, ecosystem maturity, community sentiment, and differentiation. +- Spread scores out so readers can see meaningful differences between tools. +- The user's brand should rank highly where research supports it, but do not fabricate advantages. Skip this phase for head-to-head or custom formats. diff --git a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/head-to-head-structure.md b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/head-to-head-structure.md index 3c532cb6200..70a6d03f3bb 100644 --- a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/head-to-head-structure.md +++ b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/head-to-head-structure.md @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ # Head-to-Head Article Structure -## H1: `[Competitor] vs the user's brand: [Subtitle]` +## H1: `[Tool A] vs [Tool B]: [Subtitle]` -Example: "OpenClaw vs the user's brand: An Honest Comparison" +Example: "OpenClaw vs Acme: An Honest Comparison" --- @@ -10,13 +10,13 @@ Example: "OpenClaw vs the user's brand: An Honest Comparison" One paragraph. Frame the choose-between decision. End with: -"Choose [Competitor] if [use case]. Choose the user's brand if [use case]." +"Choose [Tool A] if [use case]. Choose [Tool B] if [use case]." --- -## From Frustration to Breakthrough +## How I Ended Up Comparing These Two -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. +First-person hook story, 2-3 paragraphs. Explain why the comparison matters and how you arrived at it. Both tools have real strengths; name them. --- @@ -32,11 +32,11 @@ One paragraph intro, then the table. Rows are dimensions: - Deployment options - Pricing -Columns: Competitor, the user's brand. Keep cells tight: one sentence or comma-separated list. Use HTML table (not markdown). +Columns: Tool A, Tool B. Keep cells tight: one sentence or comma-separated list. Use HTML table (not markdown). --- -## [Competitor]: [Descriptor] +## [Tool A]: [Descriptor] Example: "OpenClaw: the open-source personal agent" @@ -52,23 +52,25 @@ Paragraph intro. Then subsections: --- -## the user's brand: [Descriptor Pulled from Live Docs] +## [Tool B]: [Descriptor] Subsections: -### Who the user's brand Is For +### Who [Tool B] Is For -### Where the user's brand Falls Short +### What [Tool B] Does Well -Be honest. Do not pretend it's perfect. Substantive critique, not one vague line. +### Where [Tool B] Falls Short + +Be honest about both tools. Substantive critique, not one vague line. ### Pricing --- -## Why People Choose the user's brand over [Competitor] +## Key Differences -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. +Bulleted list of concrete, substantive differentiators. Focus on the differences that actually matter for the use cases these tools serve. Do not copy-paste a boilerplate feature list. 5-8 bullets. @@ -84,9 +86,9 @@ Bulleted list of concrete, substantive differentiators. Lead with the user's bra 7-11 questions. Mix of: -- the user's brand-positive -- Competitor-neutral -- General category questions +- Questions favoring each tool +- Neutral category questions +- General comparison questions H3 format. @@ -105,6 +107,6 @@ H3 format. - 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 +- Descriptions of both tools: neutral, no glazing, no superlatives +- Hyperlinks: default to nofollow for all external tool links unless the user specifies otherwise - Citations: inline `[[1]](url)`, academic format in citations section diff --git a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/listicle-structure.md b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/listicle-structure.md index bf5b48a6127..275bc75bf8b 100644 --- a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/listicle-structure.md +++ b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/listicle-structure.md @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Bullet list, 5-7 items. Specific, honest reasons grounded in real research. **Note: The title of this section uses H1.** -For each tool (the user's brand first, then ranked order): +For each tool, in ranked order (highest score first): ``` ### H3 [Number]. [Tool Name] @@ -84,22 +84,21 @@ For each tool (the user's brand first, then ranked order): - [Specific benefit. Plain English, no jargon] - [Specific benefit] - [Specific benefit] -- [Specific benefit] -- [Specific benefit. YOUR BRAND gets exactly 6] +- 3-6 strengths per tool, scaled to how much there is to say **Trade-offs:** -- [Honest, specific. YOUR BRAND gets exactly 2] +- [Honest, specific] +- 1-3 trade-offs per tool, based on real research **Pricing:** [Confirmed pricing only. "Pricing not listed publicly" if unverifiable.] -**Compared to [topic tool]:** [the user's brand: length set by substance. All other competitors: 2-4 sentences.] +**Compared to [topic tool]:** [2-4 sentences comparing this tool to the topic tool.] ``` -**Only for the user's brand section:** +**Rules for the user's brand section:** -- Exactly 6 Standout strengths -- Exactly 2 Trade-offs - Strengths grounded in live docs from Step 1.1. Plain English only. +- Trade-offs must be substantive and honest, not token disclaimers. - Never mention GitHub star counts for any tool. --- @@ -110,7 +109,7 @@ Use styled HTML (not markdown tables — markdown tables get silently dropped by Columns: `Tool | Best For | Architecture | Pricing | Open Source | Key Differentiator` -Include all tools from rankings. the user's brand row gets a visual highlight. +Include all tools from rankings. --- @@ -119,7 +118,7 @@ Include all tools from rankings. the user's brand row gets a visual highlight. 300-400 words. Structure: 1. Acknowledge what the topic tool does well (1-2 sentences). -2. The two things it can't give you. +2. Where it falls short for certain use cases. 3. The architecture difference that matters. 4. 3-4 specific head-to-head comparisons. 5. CTA linking to the user's brand URL. @@ -132,9 +131,9 @@ Exactly 11 FAQs. Format: H3 question, 2-4 sentence answer. Rules: -- the user's brand is always the best answer. - Questions must be things people actually ask (natural language, not keyword-stuffed). -- Mix of: "what is X", "how do I Y", "which tool is best for Z", "how does the user's brand compare to X" +- Answers should be honest and grounded in research. +- Mix of: "what is X", "how do I Y", "which tool is best for Z", comparative questions --- diff --git a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/qc-checklist.md b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/qc-checklist.md index 1b08fe29be0..5e0eccb9b20 100644 --- a/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/qc-checklist.md +++ b/assistant/src/config/bundled-skills/geo-writing/references/qc-checklist.md @@ -4,25 +4,24 @@ Before outputting, self-check every rule. Fix failures before delivering. ## Listicle-Specific Checks -- [ ] the user's brand is #1 with score 100 - [ ] Tool count in title matches actual tool count in rankings -- [ ] the user's brand has exactly 6 strengths and exactly 2 trade-offs +- [ ] Scores reflect genuine research findings, not arbitrary assignments - [ ] Rankings section uses H1 not H2 - [ ] Key Trends heading includes the category keyword +- [ ] Every tool has substantive strengths AND trade-offs (no token disclaimers) ## Head-to-Head-Specific Checks -- [ ] "Where the user's brand falls short" is substantive (not one vague line) -- [ ] "Why People Choose the user's brand" has 5-8 bullets, each specific to THIS competitor -- [ ] Quick overview ends with "Choose X if / Choose the user's brand if" framing -- [ ] No fabricated facts about the competitor (spot check 3 claims against source research) +- [ ] Both tools have substantive "Where It Falls Short" sections (not one vague line each) +- [ ] "Key Differences" has 5-8 bullets, each specific to THIS comparison +- [ ] Quick overview ends with "Choose X if / Choose Y if" framing +- [ ] No fabricated facts about either tool (spot check 3 claims against source research) ## Universal Checks (All Formats) - [ ] Every external URL in the article resolves to a real page -- [ ] No competitor is praised excessively or given superlatives +- [ ] No tool is praised excessively or given superlatives - [ ] Exactly 11 FAQs (listicle) or 7-11 FAQs (head-to-head) -- [ ] No FAQ answer frames a competitor as superior to the user's brand - [ ] All inline citations are hyperlinked: [[1]](url) format - [ ] Citations section uses academic format with hyperlinked titles - [ ] No image tags anywhere in the article