← Về thư mục
📄 / / workspace / claude-seo / skills / seo-technical / SKILL.md

name: seo-technical description: > Technical SEO audit across 9 categories: crawlability, indexability, security, URL structure, mobile, Core Web Vitals, structured data, JavaScript rendering, and IndexNow protocol. Use when user says "technical SEO", "crawl issues", "robots.txt", "Core Web Vitals", "site speed", or "security headers". user-invocable: true argument-hint: "[url]" license: MIT metadata: author: AgriciDaniel version: "2.2.4" category: seo


Technical SEO Audit

Categories

1. Crawlability

AI Crawler Management

As of 2025-2026, AI companies actively crawl the web to train models and power AI search. Managing these crawlers via robots.txt is a critical technical SEO consideration.

Known AI crawlers:

Crawler Company robots.txt token Purpose
GPTBot OpenAI GPTBot Model training
ChatGPT-User OpenAI ChatGPT-User Real-time browsing
ClaudeBot Anthropic ClaudeBot Model training
PerplexityBot Perplexity PerplexityBot Search index + training
Bytespider ByteDance Bytespider Model training
Google-Extended Google Google-Extended Gemini training (NOT search)
CCBot Common Crawl CCBot Open dataset

Key distinctions: - Blocking Google-Extended prevents Gemini training use but does NOT affect Google Search indexing or AI Overviews (those use Googlebot) - Blocking GPTBot prevents OpenAI training but does NOT prevent ChatGPT from citing your content via browsing (ChatGPT-User) - ~3-5% of websites now use AI-specific robots.txt rules

Example, selective AI crawler blocking:

# Allow search indexing, block AI training crawlers
User-agent: GPTBot
Disallow: /

User-agent: Google-Extended
Disallow: /

User-agent: Bytespider
Disallow: /

# Allow all other crawlers (including Googlebot for search)
User-agent: *
Allow: /

Recommendation: Consider your AI visibility strategy before blocking. Being cited by AI systems drives brand awareness and referral traffic. Cross-reference the seo-geo skill for the full AI crawler/fetcher taxonomy.

User-triggered fetchers ignore robots.txt by design. Google now documents Google-Agent (Project Mariner, agentic browsing) plus Google-NotebookLM and Google Messages as user-triggered fetchers that cannot be blocked via robots.txt. Use server-side access controls instead. By contrast, Google-Extended and Google-CloudVertexBot obey robots.txt. Emerging: Web Bot Auth (RFC 9421) lets bots authenticate cryptographically via a Signature-Agent header + key directory at agent.bot.goog (used by Google-Agent); reverse-DNS verification remains the fallback.

2. Indexability

3. Security

4. URL Structure

5. Mobile Optimization & Page Experience

Page experience is guidance, not a single ranking system. Only Core Web Vitals feeds ranking directly; HTTPS is a confirmed but lightweight signal (affects <~1% of queries). Relevance can still win even when page experience is sub-par, so don't over-weight security headers. Note: the standalone Page Experience report was removed from Search Console (monitor via the Core Web Vitals + HTTPS reports).

6. Core Web Vitals

7. Structured Data

8. JavaScript Rendering

JavaScript SEO: Canonical & Indexing Guidance (December 2025)

Google updated its JavaScript SEO documentation in December 2025 with critical clarifications:

  1. Canonical conflicts: If a canonical tag in raw HTML differs from one injected by JavaScript, Google may use EITHER one. Ensure canonical tags are identical between server-rendered HTML and JS-rendered output.
  2. noindex with JavaScript: If raw HTML contains <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> but JavaScript removes it, Google MAY still honor the noindex from raw HTML. Serve correct robots directives in the initial HTML response.
  3. Non-200 status codes: Google does NOT render JavaScript on pages returning non-200 HTTP status codes. Any content or meta tags injected via JS on error pages will be invisible to Googlebot.
  4. Structured data in JavaScript: Product, Article, and other structured data injected via JS may face delayed processing. For time-sensitive structured data (especially e-commerce Product markup), include it in the initial server-rendered HTML.

Best practice: Serve critical SEO elements (canonical, meta robots, structured data, title, meta description) in the initial server-rendered HTML rather than relying on JavaScript injection.

9. IndexNow Protocol

Agent-Friendly Pages & Agentic Browsing

AI agents (not just AI summarizers) increasingly read sites through three channels: vision models on screenshots, raw HTML/DOM, and the accessibility tree (the cleanest signal). Audit criteria: semantic HTML (real <button> and <a>, not <div onclick>), label associations, interactive target sizing, layout stability across templates, cursor: pointer correctness, live in references/agent-friendly-pages.md.

Google now ships a Lighthouse Agentic Browsing category (default-on since Lighthouse 13.3.0, Chrome 150+; buckets: agent-centric accessibility, CLS + llms.txt, three WebMCP audits). It reports a fractional pass-ratio (X of N), not a 0-100 score, keep that distinct from this skill's own Agent-UX 0-100 heuristic below. The PSI REST API does not expose it; run via Lighthouse CLI --only-categories=agentic-browsing, DevTools, or the PSI web UI. See references/agent-friendly-pages.md.

Audit command

# Render with Playwright + capture accessibility tree, then score
claude-seo run agent_ux_check.py https://example.com --json

The scanner outputs an Agent-UX score (0-100) plus itemized issues: - HTML findings: real buttons / anchors, <div onclick> widgets, semantic landmarks, inputs without <label for>, inputs without ARIA labels - Accessibility tree findings: total nodes, interactive nodes, unnamed interactive elements, role="generic" ratio

The accessibility-tree snapshot uses Playwright's page.accessibility.snapshot(interesting_only=False). To capture the tree without scoring, use claude-seo run render_page.py <url> --a11y-tree --json.

Surface findings as opportunities, not failures; don't gate audits on a sub-100 Agent-UX score. WebMCP origin-trial/sign-up status needs verification, and absence of WebMCP support is still an opportunity, not a defect.

Output

Technical Score: XX/100

Category Breakdown

Category Status Score
Crawlability pass/warn/fail XX/100
Indexability pass/warn/fail XX/100
Security pass/warn/fail XX/100
URL Structure pass/warn/fail XX/100
Mobile pass/warn/fail XX/100
Core Web Vitals pass/warn/fail XX/100
Structured Data pass/warn/fail XX/100
JS Rendering pass/warn/fail XX/100
IndexNow pass/warn/fail XX/100

Critical Issues (fix immediately)

High Priority (fix within 1 week)

Medium Priority (fix within 1 month)

Low Priority (backlog)

DataForSEO Integration (Optional)

If DataForSEO MCP tools are available, use on_page_instant_pages for real page analysis (status codes, page timing, broken links, on-page checks), on_page_lighthouse for Lighthouse audits (performance, accessibility, SEO scores), and domain_analytics_technologies_domain_technologies for technology stack detection.

Google API Integration (Optional)

If Google API credentials are configured, use claude-seo run pagespeed_check.py <url> --json for real PSI + CrUX field data (replaces lab-only CWV estimates), claude-seo run crux_history.py <url> --json for 25-week CWV trends, and claude-seo run gsc_inspect.py <url> --json for real indexation status per URL.

Error Handling

Scenario Action
URL unreachable Report connection error with status code. Suggest verifying URL, checking DNS resolution, and confirming the site is publicly accessible.
robots.txt not found Note that no robots.txt was detected at the root domain. Recommend creating one with appropriate directives. Continue audit on remaining categories.
HTTPS not configured Flag as a critical issue. Report whether HTTP is served without redirect, mixed content exists, or SSL certificate is missing/expired.
Core Web Vitals data unavailable Note that CrUX data is not available (common for low-traffic sites). Suggest using Lighthouse lab data as a proxy and recommend increasing traffic before re-testing.