Approach and advantage
The audit turns scattered observations into categories and priorities. Teams can separate changes to copy and metadata from work that needs a developer, while retaining the page evidence behind each proposed fix.
Use this ecommerce SEO content audit Skill to review page HTML, URL inventories or crawl exports. It organizes metadata problems, content gaps, internal links and available technical findings into a prioritized repair list, helping store teams decide which product or category pages need attention and what to change.
Ecommerce SEO Content Auditor compares supplied page evidence with the page's purpose and target search need. It groups issues so that a missing description, a weak product explanation and an indexing concern do not become one undifferentiated list.
The output is an editorial and repair backlog tied to the pages under review. Bring crawl and performance measurements from other tools where needed; this Skill does not fetch ranking data or crawl the store by itself.
The audit turns scattered observations into categories and priorities. Teams can separate changes to copy and metadata from work that needs a developer, while retaining the page evidence behind each proposed fix.
Use it when refreshing a catalog, checking a group of category pages or reviewing a crawl export. Recommendations should answer the page's actual search task; fixed word counts or keyword-density targets are not a useful substitute.
Page HTML or crawl report, URL inventory, keyword intent, and separately measured performance data.
A model chat is enough to draft from these instructions. Real system access or file changes need separately configured tools.
It is not a crawler or ranking-data service. The source’s FID reference and fixed word-count rules are dated heuristics; verify current metrics and page intent.
Use these instructions in a chat, or ask Codex / Claude Code to save them as a personal Skill for repeated tasks.
Set up a personal reusable instruction template for Ecommerce SEO Content Auditor in the app I am using.
1. Read the “Collected instruction template” section at https://ecomagenttools.com/skills/seo-content-auditor. Use only that complete instruction text, not the page’s reviews, FAQ or installation explanation. If you cannot retrieve the complete text, ask me to paste it; do not guess it or download a same-named third-party package.
2. Show which assumptions, placeholders and access requirements I need to supply. Preserve the collected task instructions. This is a locally adapted template, not an original-author package.
3. If you are Codex or Claude Code with local file access, create a personal Skill named seo-content-auditor-local under ~/.agents/skills/seo-content-auditor-local/SKILL.md for Codex or ~/.claude/skills/seo-content-auditor-local/SKILL.md for Claude Code. Add valid name and description frontmatter if absent; keep the collected instructions in the body and identify the local adaptation. Do not overwrite an existing Skill. If you are in a chat-only app, use these instructions in the current conversation instead and do not claim a local installation.
4. Return the saved path or current-chat setup result and a starter request for this task. List any required tools or data that remain unconfigured. Do not claim account/API access or a completed business workflow just because the template was saved.Network-collected; no confirmed author source. The collected text was reviewed, but it has not been linked to a verified original publication. This does not establish that no official package exists; the examples here use only the collected text.
You are an ecommerce SEO audit agent. When given store data or a crawl report, you will:
1. TECHNICAL SEO AUDIT:
- Missing or duplicate meta titles/descriptions
- H1 tag issues (missing, multiple, empty)
- Broken internal links
- Canonical tag issues
- Robots.txt and sitemap optimization
- Schema markup completeness
- Page speed issues (LCP, FID, CLS)
2. CONTENT QUALITY AUDIT:
- Thin content pages (< 300 words)
- Duplicate content detection
- Keyword cannibalization
- Missing alt text on images
- Internal linking opportunities
3. PRIORITIZED FIX LIST:
- 🔴 Critical: indexing blockers, 404s, broken canonicals
- 🟡 Important: missing titles, H1 issues, thin content
- 🟢 Optimize: internal links, schema enhancements, speed tweaks
4. FOR EACH ISSUE:
- Current state (what's wrong)
- Recommended fix (exact change)
- SEO impact estimate (traffic potential)
- Implementation difficulty (minutes/hours)
5. COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS (when competitor URL provided):
- Keywords they rank for that you don't
- Content types they have that you're missing
- Schema types they implement that you don'tStarter prompts for the main use cases—copy and use them directly.
List missing or duplicate metadata, broken links, and canonical conflicts with page evidence. Use for: Audit metadata and links. Prepare: Page HTML or crawl report, URL inventory, keyword intent, and separately measured performance data.
Use the collected instructions above. Task: List missing or duplicate metadata, broken links, and canonical conflicts with page evidence.. Inputs: [INPUT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Check missing information first. Produce a reviewable result with evidence, assumptions, and next steps. It is not a crawler or ranking-data service. The source’s FID reference and fixed word-count rules are dated heuristics; verify current metrics and page intent.[INPUT][CONSTRAINTS]Compare page intent and supplied content; flag unsupported claims and missing useful information. Use for: Review content gaps. Prepare: Page HTML or crawl report, URL inventory, keyword intent, and separately measured performance data.
Use the collected instructions above. Task: Compare page intent and supplied content; flag unsupported claims and missing useful information.. Inputs: [INPUT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Check missing information first. Produce a reviewable result with evidence, assumptions, and next steps. It is not a crawler or ranking-data service. The source’s FID reference and fixed word-count rules are dated heuristics; verify current metrics and page intent.[INPUT][CONSTRAINTS]Produce a fix table with affected URLs, evidence, suggested edits, and verification steps. Use for: Prioritize repair work. Prepare: Page HTML or crawl report, URL inventory, keyword intent, and separately measured performance data.
Use the collected instructions above. Task: Produce a fix table with affected URLs, evidence, suggested edits, and verification steps.. Inputs: [INPUT]. Constraints: [CONSTRAINTS]. Check missing information first. Produce a reviewable result with evidence, assumptions, and next steps. It is not a crawler or ranking-data service. The source’s FID reference and fixed word-count rules are dated heuristics; verify current metrics and page intent.[INPUT][CONSTRAINTS]Inspect the live EcomAgentTools homepage for operators searching for ecommerce AI tools: positioning, useful paths and observable SEO issues.
Case input files: business-inputs.zip
Use the seo-content-auditor Skill.
Audit https://ecomagenttools.com/ for the search intent 'ecommerce AI tools'. We serve ecommerce operators comparing tools and Skills. Inspect the live title, description, headings, copy and internal links. Give prioritized edits with exact replacement copy and evidence from the page. No Search Console or analytics export is supplied, so keep ranking and traffic claims out of the findings.
The attached business materials are:
- inputs/business-brief.json
Deliver a complete result.md report that the operations team can read, plus any finished files needed for this task. Keep supporting calculations and evidence with the deliverables. Write the report in English; use the requested target language for customer-facing copy. The business datasets are fictional examples unless the brief explicitly names a live public website.The primary file produced by this prompt is shown below in its original language.
Prioritize a clearer comparison entry point, followed by consistent English and Chinese claims and more descriptive internal links. The homepage already serves the requested topic with workflow categories, resource directories and practical FAQs. It needs to help an operator choose a resource type before asking them to interpret lists and scores.
This report uses the supplied synthetic business brief and direct inspection of the live public English homepage and Chinese homepage. Recommendations are editorial judgments about relevance and decision clarity. No ranking, traffic or business-outcome estimates are made.
| Priority | Edit | Expected benefit | Implementation estimate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Important — 1 | Revise the title, description and hero; add the resource-type comparison below | Makes the comparison purpose and Skills offering explicit | 1–2 hours |
| Important — 2 | Align Chinese headings and claims with the actual resource mix | Avoids implying every resource is an autonomous agent or can automatically replenish stock | 45–90 minutes |
| Important — 3 | Explain list order and score interpretation beside the lists | Helps operators distinguish discovery order from suitability | 30–60 minutes |
| Optimize — 4 | Replace generic directory links and add contextual comparison-guide links | Gives visitors a clearer next step | 30–60 minutes |
| Optimize — 5 | Remove outcome promises from category summaries | Describes work supported without implying guaranteed commercial results | 45–60 minutes |
Estimates are implementation effort, not measured results. No critical homepage indexing defect was established. All checked internal destinations and both crawl-control files returned HTTP 200.
Current evidence. The English title is “AI Tools for Ecommerce by Workflow | EcomAgentTools”; the description is “Find ecommerce AI tools for support, content, marketing and operations. Start with your workflow, then explore the resources that fit your next task.” The H1 is “Find AI Tools for Ecommerce by Workflow”. The opening paragraphs introduce prompts, skills and SaaS, but do not define how their operating requirements differ. The resource section supplies names, categories and numerical scores, rather than a side-by-side choice of resource types. These are relevant foundations; this is an intent refinement, not a missing-keyword or missing-H1 defect.
Exact English replacement. Keep one H1. Replace only the title, description, H1 and two introductory paragraphs with:
Exact Chinese equivalent. Replace the Chinese title, description, H1 and introductory paragraph with:
Finished comparison module. Insert after the hero and before the workflow grid. Use this English H2: Choose a SaaS tool, Skill or prompt.
| Resource type | When to consider it | What to check before choosing |
|---|---|---|
| SaaS tool | You want a hosted application your team can use for an ongoing workflow. Some include AI agents or automation. | Supported platforms, plan limits, data access, permitted actions, setup and total cost. |
| Skill | You want reusable instructions and resources for a compatible AI agent to perform a defined task. | Compatible agent, installation, dependencies, permissions and how outputs are reviewed. |
| Prompt | You want instructions to run a focused task in an AI application you already use. | Required inputs, model or application requirements, data handling and output accuracy. |
Module closing copy: Start with a small trial using routine tasks and exceptions. Compare output accuracy, review time and total cost before expanding use.
Use this Chinese H2: 选择 SaaS 工具、技能还是提示词.
| 资源类型 | 适合何时考虑 | 选择前核对什么 |
|---|---|---|
| SaaS 工具 | 希望团队通过托管应用持续处理某项工作流;部分应用提供 AI 智能体或自动化功能。 | 支持的平台、套餐限制、数据访问范围、可执行操作、配置要求和总成本。 |
| 技能 | 希望兼容的 AI 智能体使用可复用指令与资源,完成范围明确的任务。 | 兼容的智能体、安装方式、依赖项、权限和输出复核方式。 |
| 提示词 | 希望在已有的 AI 应用中,按照一组指令完成单项任务。 | 必需输入、模型或应用要求、数据处理方式和输出准确性。 |
Chinese module closing copy: 先用日常任务和异常情况做小范围试用,比较输出准确性、人工复核时间和总成本,再决定是否扩大使用。
Remove the existing long selection paragraph immediately after the workflow grid: its trial, permission and cost guidance is incorporated into the new module. Keep the existing practical FAQ answers, especially their plan, permission and human-handoff qualifications.
Current evidence. The Chinese workflow H2 says “按工作流浏览 AI Agent”, while its introduction and linked content include Skills, SaaS and prompts. Its supply-chain summary says “预测需求自动补货,管理采购、库存、发货退货”; the English version describes forecasting and stock management without promising automatic replenishment. The Chinese Fypro summary also includes adoption and training-volume assertions that are absent from the English summary. The homepage alone does not substantiate those assertions.
Exact changes:
| Location | English copy | Chinese copy |
|---|---|---|
| Workflow H2 | Browse Ecommerce AI Tools by Workflow | 按工作流浏览电商 AI 工具 |
| Workflow introduction | Browse eight ecommerce workflows to find relevant SaaS tools, Skills and prompts. Check each resource’s capabilities, requirements and limits before adding it to your shortlist. | 按八类电商工作流查找相关的 SaaS 工具、技能与提示词。加入候选清单前,先核对各资源的能力、使用要求和限制。 |
| Supply-chain card | Forecast demand and review stock, purchasing, shipping and returns workflows. | 预测需求,梳理库存、采购、发货与退货流程。 |
| Fypro card summary | Fypro is a platform for TikTok creators. Review its ecommerce use cases, setup requirements and limits before choosing it for your store. | Fypro 是面向 TikTok 创作者的平台。用于店铺业务前,先核对其电商应用场景、配置要求和使用限制。 |
The Fypro replacement deliberately keeps only the audience context already stated on both homepages. Verify more specific capabilities against the provider before restoring them. This audit does not endorse or reject the product.
Current evidence. Both homepages say that Skills and SaaS lists are ordered by recent Google Search clicks, with impressions breaking ties. Titles say “Popular Skills” and “Popular SaaS Tools”. Cards show values such as 81/100 and 77/100, plus difficulty levels, without an adjacent explanation of how list order differs from score or store suitability. The editorial-policy link is in the footer.
The stated ordering method is a page claim, not an independently verified analytics finding. Do not describe it as verified popularity or comparative performance.
Exact replacement for the explanatory paragraph:
English: These lists are starting points for research. List position and score do not establish which resource fits your store. Before choosing, check supported platforms, required access, setup, costs and review needs. Read our editorial policy for how we assess resources.
Chinese: 这些列表可作为选型的起点。列表位置和评分不能直接说明哪项资源适合你的店铺。选择前,请核对支持的平台、所需权限、配置要求、成本和人工复核需求。评估方式请参阅编辑规范。
Link “editorial policy” to /about/editorial-policy and “编辑规范” to /zh/about/editorial-policy. Replace the list H3s as follows:
| Current English | Replacement English | Replacement Chinese |
|---|---|---|
| Browse Prompts | Explore Prompts | 浏览提示词 |
| Popular Skills | Explore Skills | 浏览 AI 技能 |
| Popular SaaS Tools | Explore SaaS Tools | 浏览 SaaS 工具 |
Keep numerical scores only with a nearby methodology link. Do not invent score weights, testing claims, commercial-independence claims or a new sorting mechanism. Removing the current sorting explanation should be paired with the neutral headings above; the display order itself need not change for this copy edit.
Current evidence. Each homepage contains four “View all” / “查看全部” anchors: one leads to search and the others to the prompts, Skills and SaaS directories. The homepage already links to product-description and inventory comparison guides, but only later in the guides section. The three hero task links all lead to the same matcher?from=home destination; no task-specific parameter is present in their hrefs. That alone does not establish a defect in JavaScript behavior, so retain them pending a separate interaction review.
Replace the four generic directory anchors with these exact labels, preserving destinations:
| Destination | English label | Chinese label and destination |
|---|---|---|
/search | Browse all ecommerce AI resources | 浏览全部电商 AI 资源 — /zh/search |
/prompts | Browse all prompts | 浏览全部提示词 — /zh/prompts |
/skills | Browse all AI Skills | 浏览全部 AI 技能 — /zh/skills |
/saas-tools | Browse all SaaS tools | 浏览全部 SaaS 工具 — /zh/saas-tools |
After the new comparison module, add this paragraph with contextual links to existing homepage destinations:
English: Comparing a specific workflow? Start with AI product description generators or inventory forecasting tools.
Chinese: 正在比较某项具体工作流?可以先看AI 商品描述生成器对比,或库存预测工具对比。
These are navigation improvements, not a recommendation to add more links indiscriminately.
Current evidence. English category summaries include “pages that sell more”, “bring new customers” and “grow repeat sales”. Chinese equivalents include “让访客多下单”, “持续带来新客户” and “提升复购和口碑”. These imply outcomes where a comparison directory should describe the work a resource supports.
Replace the affected card summaries with:
| Card | English | Chinese |
|---|---|---|
| Market & product research | Research market trends, competitor reviews and product opportunities. | 研究市场趋势、竞品评论与商品机会。 |
| Store & conversion | Explore site search, recommendations and product-page improvements. | 查找站内搜索、商品推荐与商品页面优化工具。 |
| Marketing & acquisition | Plan ads, campaigns, email and SMS workflows. | 规划广告、营销活动、邮件与短信工作流。 |
| Customers & retention | Review support automation, customer feedback and retention workflows. | 了解客服自动化、客户反馈与留存工作流。 |
| Data & profit | Analyze revenue, costs and pricing decisions. | 分析收入、成本与定价决策。 |
| Automation & integrations | Connect store systems and define automation steps, approvals and handoffs. | 连接店铺系统,明确自动化步骤、审批与人工交接。 |
Keep the product-and-content card and use the supply-chain replacement from priority 2.
Direct rendered-page evidence is preserved in homepage-evidence.json; destination responses and crawl-control retrievals are in link-checks.json. Counts, metadata lengths and sitemap validation are in verification-summary.json. The checks cover these homepages and their outgoing internal destinations, not a whole-site crawl.
index, follow robots meta, and reciprocal en, zh and x-default alternate links. English declares lang="en"; Chinese declares lang="zh-CN". No correction is needed to these observed elements./api/. It declares the sitemap, which returned HTTP 200 and parsed successfully. Both homepage URLs appear in it with language alternates. No homepage crawl-control correction is indicated.WebSite, Organization and SearchAction. No broken JSON was found. A homepage is not a single-product page: do not add Product ratings or aggregate ratings based on the directory’s editorial scores. Schema additions are lower priority than the comparison edits; no rich-result eligibility is claimed.Apply priorities 1–3 together so the comparison promise, resource definitions and list labels agree. Then apply descriptive internal links and category copy. Keep the existing workflow category destinations and practical FAQs.
Before publishing, check that the English and Chinese pages each retain one H1, unique localized metadata and their existing canonical and alternate links. Confirm the comparison table is readable on mobile, its directory and guide links resolve to the intended language, and the methodology link is adjacent to the scores. Check that replacing the paragraph does not leave duplicate selection advice or the old popularity labels. These are acceptance criteria for the proposed edits; no website changes were made during this audit.
Merchant business data is synthetic. Website observations, when present, come from the public URLs listed in the report.
It is not a crawler or ranking-data service. The source’s FID reference and fixed word-count rules are dated heuristics; verify current metrics and page intent.
Network-collected; no confirmed author source. The collected text was reviewed, but it has not been linked to a verified original publication. This does not establish that no official package exists; the examples here use only the collected text.
Use authorized inputs and keep secrets out of prompts. Review customer-facing claims, calculations, code changes, and any proposed external action before applying them.
Review supplied page HTML or crawl exports and prioritize SEO fixes. The checklist groups indexing blockers, content gaps, metadata, links, and technical issues.
Copy the collected instructions below into a model chat or project instructions. Replace assumed access, default policies, sample numbers, and placeholders with your actual context. Attach a small redacted sample, use a starter prompt, and review the draft before acting.
Audit metadata and links; Review content gaps; Prioritize repair work
It is not a crawler or ranking-data service. The source’s FID reference and fixed word-count rules are dated heuristics; verify current metrics and page intent.
Network-collected; no confirmed author source. The collected text was reviewed, but it has not been linked to a verified original publication. This does not establish that no official package exists; the examples here use only the collected text.
The complete available Skill content is cataloged and reviewed; public web material does not currently name the original author. Attribution does not affect its directory visibility or content-based recommendation eligibility.
Network-collected; no author source is listed. This label describes attribution only, not capability, visibility, or recommendation eligibility.
No reviews yet.