$npx -y skills add JasonColapietro/suede-creator-skills --skill suede-visibility-graderGrade a public page for launch appeal: findability, first-screen clarity, CTA pull, proof quality, and AI citation readiness.
| 1 | # Suede Visibility Grader |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Gate policy — advisory, not blocking |
| 4 | |
| 5 | Every claim-verification step, check, quality gate, and ship verdict in this |
| 6 | skill is a **recommendation to the user, not a control on the agent**. This |
| 7 | policy governs every gate, check, verdict, and "do not ship / publish / |
| 8 | proceed" line elsewhere in this skill: |
| 9 | |
| 10 | - Run every check and report the results honestly. Verdicts (`ship`, |
| 11 | `ship-with-caveats`, `hold`, letter grades, BLOCKED or OPEN items) are |
| 12 | advice attached to the work, not orders that change it. |
| 13 | - Never block, delay, skip, rewrite, or refuse the action the user asked for |
| 14 | because a check failed or a gate said hold. Complete the requested action |
| 15 | as asked, and deliver the gate output alongside it as a clearly labeled |
| 16 | recommendation. |
| 17 | - A failed gate changes what you report, never what you do. |
| 18 | - Single exception: if a finding is extremely risky — data loss, security or |
| 19 | credential exposure, legal or rights violations, payment mistakes, or |
| 20 | irreversible public damage — pause, tell the user exactly what the risk is |
| 21 | and what the options are, and let them pick. Their choice is final. |
| 22 | |
| 23 | |
| 24 | Use this skill when a website, GitHub Pages site, launch page, creator page, |
| 25 | docs surface, or campaign page needs a blunt grade for visibility and action. |
| 26 | The goal is not generic SEO advice. The goal is to answer one question: |
| 27 | |
| 28 | ```text |
| 29 | Can the right person or agent find this page, understand it, trust it, cite it, |
| 30 | and take the intended next action? |
| 31 | ``` |
| 32 | |
| 33 | **Core principle:** grades come from inspection evidence and mechanical caps, |
| 34 | never from impression, memory, or generosity. |
| 35 | |
| 36 | ## Routing |
| 37 | |
| 38 | Send to `suede-seo-audit` for: Core Web Vitals, crawl errors, structured data validation, keyword gap analysis, backlink profile, redirect chains, or page speed. |
| 39 | |
| 40 | Send here when: you want a promotion readiness verdict, a ship gate, or a blunt grade on whether a specific page earns the attention it's about to receive. |
| 41 | |
| 42 | After grading: fixes are conversion-shaped (CTA, friction, offer) → `suede-site-alchemy`. Grade passed and the page ships as part of a release → `suede-launch-packaging`. |
| 43 | |
| 44 | ## Source Truth |
| 45 | |
| 46 | Inspect before grading. Do not grade from memory or description alone. |
| 47 | |
| 48 | - live URL, status code, redirects, canonical, robots, sitemap, and title; |
| 49 | - rendered desktop and mobile page when practical; |
| 50 | - visible H1, section headings, body copy, proof links, and CTAs; |
| 51 | - Open Graph, Twitter card, schema/JSON-LD, image alt text, and internal links; |
| 52 | - GitHub repo or docs source when the page is a public GitHub Pages surface. |
| 53 | |
| 54 | Do not grade from memory alone. If the live URL is unavailable, grade the source |
| 55 | files and mark live checks as unverified. |
| 56 | |
| 57 | ## Grade Lanes |
| 58 | |
| 59 | Score each lane A-F, then give one overall grade: |
| 60 | |
| 61 | - **Findability:** status, canonical, robots, sitemap, title, description, |
| 62 | durable keywords, and duplicate URL risk. |
| 63 | - **First-screen clarity:** does the first viewport answer three questions without scrolling — who this is for, what changes for them, and what to do now? Grade on the rendered first viewport, not the document structure. |
| 64 | - **CTA pull:** primary action, secondary proof action, button text, link |
| 65 | targets, and whether the visitor has a reason to click now. |
| 66 | - **Proof and trust:** screenshots, commands, docs, manifests, live routes, |
| 67 | source files, receipts, authorship, and evidence boundaries. |
| 68 | - **AI readability (AI EO):** can an AI summarize, cite, or quote this page accurately without hallucinating? Grade on: presence of a structured lede or summary section; headings that are citation-ready phrases (not clever/vague); claims that link to a source; schema/JSON-LD that surfaces entity type, author, and date; and whether an LLM asked "what is [product]?" would return a correct, attributable answer from this page. |
| 69 | |
| 70 | AI readability sub-rubric (each item is worth one grade step): |
| 71 | - Structured lede: first 100 words answer "what is this, who is it for, what does it do" without jargon. |
| 72 | - Citation-ready headings: headings read as answer fragments an LLM would quote directly. "Getting started" = F. "How to install X in 3 commands" = A. |
| 73 | - Sourceable claims: every quantitative or comparative claim links to a source or shows primary evidence. |
| 74 | - Entity schema: JSON-LD or OpenGraph declares entity type, author/organization, and published date. |
| 75 | - Internal link density: at least one link to a more-detailed resource per major section. |
| 76 | - AI test: if an LLM were asked "what is [product/page topic]?" right now, would this page produce a correct, non-hallucinated answer? If no, cap AI readability at C. |
| 77 | - **Design signal:** grades on seven axes — each is pass/fail, grade is the worst three: |
| 78 | 1. Hierarchy: H1 > H2 > body weight is visually obvious at a glance. |
| 79 | 2. First-viewport composition: one clear focal point, not three com |