Merge bugfix/seo-geo-integrity-phase1 into develop

.claude/tasks/TODO.md

@@ -1,5 +1,112 @@
 # TODO
 
+## 2026-07-16 — PLAN seo/geo parity vs claude-seo (not started, awaiting arbitrage)
+Source: audit of github.com/AgriciDaniel/claude-seo (11.5k★, MIT, v2.2.0,
+5 mo old, 185/197 commits single author). Verdict: cherry-pick, never install
+(install.sh:49 overwrites our skills/seo/; uninstall.sh:45 glob `seo-*.md`
+deletes our seo-analyzer.md 42K it never installed; extensions/*/install.sh:42
+wipes settings.json on parse error; skills/seo/SKILL.md:119 injects Skool
+upsell footer into deliverables). Their code is real (render_page.py 428 l
+Playwright, url_safety.py 622 l SSRF, 326 tests, 320 pass) — adapt to our
+fetch.sh contract, do NOT copy wholesale (no fail-open, no tokenstore, no
+JSON shape).
+
+Framing: their plus-values map onto OUR integrity gaps — report claims more
+than it measured. Same bar we held their README to.
+Seam: `lib/seo-data/fetch.sh` verbs (accounts|crux|queries|inspect|forget)
++ fail-open `{"status":"degraded"}` + fixtures + tests. Everything below lands
+as NEW VERBS. No new architecture.
+
+### AXE 0 — Integrity (no new deps, hours) — the score currently lies
+- [ ] I1 Off-page axis scores 10-15% of FULL with ZERO data source (no API,
+      no index) → today fabricated, and it feeds /client-handover. Immediate
+      fix: extend existing LOCAL `N/A — requires FULL audit` pattern to FULL,
+      redistribute weights. Data upgrade later (AXE 3). Honesty now, data after.
+- [ ] I2 VSI (Visual Stability Index) listed in CWV thresholds but NO path
+      retrieves it — neither CrUX nor PSI expose it. Phantom signal → remove
+      or source.
+- [ ] I3 **SAFETY** /geo standalone: geo/SKILL.md (125 l) has no STEP 0, no
+      confirmed-NAP collection — but geo-analyzer OWNS JSON-LD NAP. Standalone
+      /geo on a local business can write unverified NAP with zero LRN-032
+      protection. Real bug, not cosmetic.
+- [ ] I4 Security headers counted 3× (seo-analyzer STEP 4 scores them in
+      Technical axis; depth-matrix.md says drop unless indexability; /harden
+      re-audits /100 with 3 validators). Contradiction between dedup rule and
+      agent spec → pick one owner.
+- [ ] I5 Report says "audit", measured 5-15 sampled pages. State coverage %
+      explicitly in §0 until AXE 2 lands.
+
+### AXE 1 — Free wins on auth we ALREADY have (fetch.sh verbs)
+- [ ] W1 `richresults` verb — GSC URL Inspection already returns
+      `richResultsResult`; our OAuth already carries the scope. Programmatic
+      rich-results validation on real Google data. **BEATS claude-seo**: their
+      README:314 "dual validator (Rich Results Test + Markup Validator)" is
+      FALSE — grep of all .py = zero calls, they are hyperlinks a human clicks.
+      Today our JSON-LD validity is LLM-read only.
+- [ ] W2 `bing` verb — Bing Webmaster API, free. Closes the Google/Bing
+      asymmetry (Google = full OAuth layer, Bing = manual checklist) while
+      /geo targets ChatGPT Search, which indexes via Bing. Strategic, not cosmetic.
+- [ ] W3 `sameas` resolution check — trivial curl loop. entity-seo.md lists
+      "sameAs pointing to dead profiles" as a known error class and never
+      checks it. ~10 lines.
+
+### AXE 2 — Coverage (biggest lever: ~97% of a 500-page site unseen today)
+- [ ] C1 `crawl` verb — sitemap-driven URL discovery (we ALREADY fetch
+      sitemap.xml) + deterministic sampling + coverage % reported. No Chromium,
+      no paid API. Turns "5-15 LLM-chosen pages" into measured coverage.
+      Tradeoff vs claude-seo's link-following 500-page crawl: cheaper, but
+      misses unlinked/unsitemapped pages — accept + disclose.
+- [ ] C2 Dupe/cannibalization detection — becomes possible once N pages in
+      hand: compare titles/H1/canonicals across the set. Free, unblocked by C1.
+- [ ] C3 Internal-link graph — orphan pages + 3-click depth are TODAY stated
+      as checks with no command to compute them. C1 unblocks real computation.
+
+### AXE 3 — Off-page real (upgrades I1)
+- [ ] B1 `backlinks` verb — Common Crawl hyperlinkgraph
+      (data.commoncrawl.org/projects/hyperlinkgraph), free, no key.
+- [ ] B2 Honest cap — steal their idea (free-backlink-sources.md:33: cap
+      health at 70/100 when only Common Crawl). Fits our code-ceiling doctrine
+      exactly.
+- [ ] B3 VERIFY FIRST: GSC Links API. Subagent claimed "available, OAuth
+      already there" — I doubt it: Search Console API v3 has no links endpoint
+      (links report is UI-only AFAIK). Verify before planning on it. Do not
+      assert.
+
+### AXE 4 — SPA blindness (dep decision — needs arbitrage)
+- [ ] R1 `render` verb — Playwright, GATED on SPA detection (STEP 2 already
+      detects framework + rendering mode). Auto-mode only pays Chromium when
+      hydration shell detected (ref: render_page.py:226 logic, adapt not copy).
+- [ ] R2 ARBITRAGE: heavy dep (Chromium ~300MB) vs our bash+curl purity.
+      Cheaper honest alternative: on SPA, REFUSE to score on-page rather than
+      score it wrong (today: curl reads source, not hydrated DOM → every
+      meta/JSON-LD/heading/img grep is blind, compensated only by a §0 flag).
+
+### AXE 5 — Hardening + regression (lower priority)
+- [ ] H1 SSRF guard on curl paths — both agents curl user-supplied domains.
+      Our own CLAUDE.md doctrine says "never trust user input". url_safety.py
+      (622 l, obfuscated-IPv4 decode, DNS pinning) is a solid reference.
+- [ ] H2 `drift` baseline (SQLite) — SEO.md Historique keeps only date+score+
+      key changes. Their seo-drift is on-page regression detection, NOT rank
+      tracking (common misread). Optional.
+
+### NOT DOING (explicit, with reason)
+- Keyword volumes → Google Ads Tier 3 needs ACTIVE ad spend (~$150-300/mo);
+  without spend the API returns buckets ("1K-10K"). Their own detect_tier()
+  never even returns 3 (google_auth.py:642-724 caps at 2) + google-ads absent
+  from requirements.txt. Not worth it.
+- Real AI SoV (ChatGPT/Perplexity citation tracking) → paid everywhere
+  (SE Ranking/Profound/DataForSEO). Our current honest "not testable, here's
+  what we measured instead" disclosure BEATS faking it. Keep.
+- Installing the plugin / +33 skills namespace → see destructive paths above.
+
+### Keep (already beats claude-seo — do not regress)
+FR legal (LCEN/RGPD-ePrivacy/DGCCRF L121-1 — their whole repo: 2 hits, and
+dma-consent-mode-v2.md:27 tells the agent to stay out) · fix-bundle +
+ownership matrix + serial apply (their 18 agents are report-only, no
+ownership discipline) · trajectory-to-17/20 + honest code ceiling (theirs is
+flat 0-100, no legal axis) · llms.txt honest framing · NAP anti-dup-seed
+(LRN-032).
+
 ## 2026-07-16 — /close auto-persist memory (feature/close-auto-persist, BDR-068)
 - [x] STEP 5C: auto-finish chore→develop + push when capitalize/close branched off develop
 - [x] --no-push escape hatch; WORKING-branch + rc-3 skip; graceful push-fail

agents/geo-analyzer.md

@@ -13,10 +13,13 @@ Apple Intelligence**. Google classical search is handled by the
 
 ## Context — why GEO is its own discipline in 2026
 
-- AI Overviews trigger on ~48% of Google searches (April 2026).
+- `[UNVERIFIED — 2026-07-16]` AI Overviews trigger on ~48% of Google
-- ChatGPT processes 2.5B queries/day.
+  searches (April 2026); ChatGPT processes 2.5B queries/day; Gartner
-- Gartner projects commercial organic search traffic to fall 25% by
+  projects commercial organic search traffic to fall 25% by end-2026 as
-  end-2026 as discovery shifts to AI engines.
+  discovery shifts to AI engines. Framing only — **never quote these to a
+  client** until each carries `source + measured: + link` per
+  `resources/README.md`. GEO is worth doing on mechanism; it does not need
+  these numbers to be true.
 - Classical SEO ≠ GEO. Some signals overlap (headings, Schema.org)
   but the optimization levers differ: entity clarity, definition
   architecture, citable stats, crawler permissions.
@@ -141,6 +144,16 @@ If called standalone via `/geo`, gather:
 
 ## STEP 2 — DETECT CONTEXT `[both]`
 
+**FIRST — the CWD must BE the audited site.** You grep the current working
+directory; no dispatcher checks that it matches the target domain. If a URL
+was supplied and the CWD shows no web project at all (no `package.json` /
+`composer.json` / `index.html` / `*.astro` / `*.php` / `.htaccess`), or its
+signals contradict the domain, STOP and report:
+`CWD/TARGET MISMATCH — <cwd> is not <domain>'s repo. Re-run from it, or
+confirm live-only audit (LOCAL findings will be N/A).`
+Never grep one codebase while curling another: the live half looks right,
+the code half is fiction, and the report reads as authoritative.
+
 ```bash
 # Framework (reuse detection from seo-analyzer if available)
 ls package.json composer.json Gemfile Cargo.toml go.mod 2>/dev/null
@@ -360,7 +373,9 @@ action (G5 batch, confirmation needed — visible page creation).
 
 **Local business:**
 - [ ] `LocalBusiness` with most specific subclass (Plumber/Dentist/etc.)
-- [ ] NAP consistent with GMB
+- [ ] NAP consistent with GMB — **direction rule applies** (Data integrity:
+      never pick a value from source majority; no canonical → no directional
+      fix)
 - [ ] `sameAs` includes GMB URL + main social + Wikidata if applicable
 - [ ] `areaServed` lists served cities/regions
 - [ ] `openingHoursSpecification` matches reality
@@ -447,6 +462,12 @@ Load: `~/.claude/agents/resources/content-shape-for-ai.md`
 
 Sample 5-10 key pages (homepage + top service/blog pages). For each:
 
+**Record the denominator.** This samples; the report says "audit". Count the
+URLs in `sitemap.xml` for the coverage ratio, and carry it into the GEO
+SCORING block. No sitemap → total UNKNOWN, say so. Content shape is the
+axis most damaged by silent sampling: it is judged per page, so a 6-page
+sample of a 300-page site says nothing about the other 294.
+
 ### Checks
 
 1. **Definition Lead** — does the first sentence (or H1) follow
@@ -574,6 +595,7 @@ Score each axis. Use concrete findings from STEP 2-9.
 
 ```
 GEO SCORING (<depth>)
+COVERAGE                  : <N> of <M> sitemap URLs (<P>%) | <N> pages, total UNKNOWN
 AI Crawlers Policy        : XX/20  <justification>
 llms.txt                  : XX/20  <justification>
 Schema.org for AI         : XX/20  <justification>
@@ -584,6 +606,12 @@ AI Visibility (live)      : XX/20 | N/A (LOCAL)
 GEO GLOBAL (weighted)     : XX.X/20 (<depth>)
 ```
 
+**COVERAGE is mandatory, never omitted, never rounded up.** It bounds the
+per-page axes — Content Shape above all, and the page-level share of
+Schema.org. Site-wide axes (AI Crawlers Policy, llms.txt) are unaffected:
+robots.txt and llms.txt are single files, fully read. Say which is which
+rather than letting one ratio discredit the whole report.
+
 Per user instruction: **GEO weight in combined SEO+GEO report = 20% for
 local, 25% for national/SaaS/content.**
 
@@ -895,9 +923,31 @@ PROCHAINE ETAPE : <highest-priority>
 - **No invented entity data.** Never write a fake Wikidata QID, fake
   `sameAs` URLs, fake `knowsAbout`, fake press mentions. Unknown →
   placeholder `[À COMPLÉTER]` or omit.
+- **NAP direction rule (LRN-032).** You own JSON-LD NAP, so this binds you
+  whoever called you — `/seo` passes a canonical, standalone `/geo` does
+  not. NEVER infer a correct NAP value from source majority: on-site
+  sources (JSON-LD, footer, settings DB, legal pages) usually descend from
+  ONE seed and can all carry the same wrong value — the single diverging
+  source may be the only one a human actually corrected. Direction of fix:
+  - Diverging from a CONFIRMED canonical field (passed by `/seo` STEP 0)
+    → fix the diverging source.
+  - Canonical UNCONFIRMED or absent (the standalone `/geo` case) → report
+    the divergence WITHOUT a directional fix; escalate as a user question
+    ("which value is correct?") in §11.
+  No G2/G6 item may write or rewrite a NAP value that no confirmed
+  canonical backs — **creating** a `LocalBusiness` from scratch included:
+  unknown fields → `[À COMPLÉTER]`, never a value copied from a sibling
+  on-site source.
 - **Remove deprecated schemas rather than keep broken ones.**
-- **Cite sources.** When emitting stats in the report, link
+- **Cite sources, and only citable ones.** A stat reaches the client only
-  `content-shape-for-ai.md` research citations.
+  if it carries `source + measured: + link` per `resources/README.md`.
+  Anything marked `[UNVERIFIED]` is framing for you, never a line in the
+  report. Quote the source's ACTUAL measurement, never a widened or
+  re-subjected version of it — the 2026-07-16 audit found every stat in
+  that directory real but attached to the wrong claim, and this rule is
+  what pushed them into client deliverables as research-backed.
+  A recommendation that only stands up with a number you cannot source was
+  never standing up: make it on mechanism, or drop it.
 
 ### Process
 - **Every user action lists automation options.** Mandatory from

agents/resources/README.md

@@ -17,7 +17,52 @@ Loaded on demand — keep each file focused and current.
 
 These files capture state as of 2026-04. Crawler lists, Schema.org
 deprecations, and tool landscape shift fast. Agents MUST cross-check
-via WebSearch on each run when FULL depth is selected.
+crawler lists and tool names via WebSearch on each run when FULL depth is
+selected.
+
+## Citation standard (mandatory for every statistic)
+
+**WebSearch is NOT verification for a number.** It ranks SEO blogs, and SEO
+blogs cross-cite each other into a consensus that looks like corroboration.
+Two 2026-07-16 audits of this directory show how it fails:
+
+- A "VSI (Visual Stability Index) — new 2026 Core Web Vital" lived in
+  `seo-analyzer.md`. Ten blogs asserted it; several claimed CrUX already
+  collected it. It is absent from the CrUX API metric list and from
+  web.dev. WebSearch returned the echo, not the truth.
+- Every stat in this directory was real **and attached to the wrong
+  subject**: the GEO paper's 40% (all methods) pinned on one technique;
+  LLMrefs' 3x (brand mentions vs backlinks) pinned on freshness decay;
+  AccuraCast's 58.9% (Person schema prevalence) pinned on QAPage lift, with
+  its meaning inverted; a smart-speaker adoption figure sold as voice-search
+  share.
+
+The failure mode is not invention — it is **plausible recombination**, which
+is exactly what a model half-remembering a search result produces. So the
+format has to make an unsourced number conspicuous:
+
+```
+<claim> — <source, year, venue|vendor> — measured: <what the source ACTUALLY
+measured> — <link>
+```
+
+`measured:` is the field that catches it. All four errors above survive a
+source name; none survives having to state the source's real measurement
+next to the claim.
+
+Rules:
+1. **Primary source or no number.** Peer-reviewed paper, the vendor's own
+   published study, or an official API/doc. `developer.chrome.com/docs/crux`
+   is decisive for metrics: what CrUX cannot return, we cannot score.
+2. **Name the tier.** Peer review ≠ vendor marketing. LLMrefs, AccuraCast,
+   Ahrefs publish useful data and sell products — say "vendor".
+3. **Never widen scope.** An aggregate result is not a per-technique result.
+4. **No number beats a wrong number.** A recommendation that only stands up
+   with a fabricated statistic was never standing up. Delete the stat, keep
+   the recommendation if it survives on mechanism.
+5. **Unverified ⇒ labelled.** `[UNVERIFIED — <date>]` inline. Never quote an
+   unverified number to a client: `geo-analyzer.md` ("Cite sources") sends
+   these into client reports as research-backed.
 
 ## Loading pattern
 

agents/resources/ai-visibility-tools.md

@@ -4,9 +4,17 @@ Tools that track whether your brand appears in AI-generated answers
 across ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, and Google AI
 Overviews.
 
-Context: Google AI Overviews trigger on ~48% of searches; ChatGPT
+Context `[UNVERIFIED — 2026-07-16]`: Google AI Overviews trigger on ~48% of
-processes 2.5B queries/day; Gartner projects commercial organic
+searches; ChatGPT processes 2.5B queries/day; Gartner projects commercial
-search traffic will drop 25% by 2026. Monitoring is no longer optional.
+organic search traffic will drop 25% by 2026.
+
+> Not checked against primary sources in the 2026-07-16 audit that corrected
+> the rest of this directory — flagged rather than asserted or deleted, per
+> the citation standard in `README.md` (rule 5). The Gartner projection at
+> least names its source; the other two float. Treat all three as
+> motivation, not evidence: **do NOT quote them to a client** until each
+> carries `source + measured: + link`. Their only job here is to explain why
+> this file exists, and that argument does not need numbers.
 
 ## Commercial tools
 

agents/resources/content-shape-for-ai.md

@@ -61,9 +61,18 @@ query. A one-sentence self-contained answer has the highest density.
 
 ### 4. Citations and statistics (strongest measured lever)
 
-Adding peer-cited statistics with clear sources increases AI visibility
+Aggarwal et al., 2024 ("GEO: Generative Engine Optimization", KDD 2024)
-**by up to 40%** (Aggarwal et al., 2024 "GEO: Generative Engine
+report that their optimisation methods **collectively** boost visibility
-Optimization").
+**by up to 40%** in generative-engine responses, and state the effect
+**varies across domains**. Citations/statistics/quotations are among those
+methods.
+
+> **Attribute this correctly.** Until 2026-07-16 this section read "Adding
+> peer-cited statistics with clear sources increases AI visibility by up to
+> 40%" — pinning the paper's *aggregate* result on this *one* technique. The
+> paper publishes no separate figure per technique. When quoting it to a
+> client: "up to 40%, across the method set, domain-dependent" — never "+40%
+> if you add stats".
 
 Pattern: embed specific numbers with attribution.
 
@@ -100,8 +109,20 @@ Comparison tables are even stronger. Structure:
 
 ### 6. Freshness signals
 
-Pages not updated at least quarterly are **3x more likely to lose AI
+Freshness is a real retrieval input: RAG systems fetch live and read
-citations** (LLMRefs 2026 study).
+timestamps, so a page updated this quarter carries a stronger recency
+signal than the same page last touched years ago. LLMrefs (a **vendor**,
+not peer review) reports cited content running **~25.7% fresher** than
+organic top-10 across ~17M citations. Substantive updates only — bumping a
+date string is not freshness.
+
+> **The "3x" that lived here was grafted from another claim.** Until
+> 2026-07-16 this read "Pages not updated at least quarterly are 3x more
+> likely to lose AI citations (LLMRefs 2026 study)". LLMrefs' actual "3x"
+> says **brand mentions correlate ~3x more strongly with AI visibility than
+> backlinks** — a different subject entirely. No source supports a quarterly
+> decay multiplier. Recommend quarterly refresh on its merits; do not price
+> it with a borrowed number.
 
 What to maintain:
 - Visible "Last updated: YYYY-MM-DD" at the top of content pages

agents/resources/geo-schemas.md

@@ -21,8 +21,20 @@ existing instances. They no longer produce rich results.
 
 ### QAPage — single Q&A format
 
-Pages cited 58% more often by ChatGPT vs basic Article schema.
+Use when the page is built around ONE primary question. Emitting the type
-Use when the page is built around ONE primary question.
+that matches the content shape beats wrapping everything in a generic
+`Article`.
+
+> **No lift figure here — the one that lived here was wrong.** Until
+> 2026-07-16 this read "Pages cited 58% more often by ChatGPT vs basic
+> Article schema", uncited. Nothing supports it. The nearest real number is
+> AccuraCast 2025 (~2,000 prompts across ChatGPT / AI Overviews /
+> Perplexity, ~9,000 cited sources): **`Person` schema appeared in 58.9%**
+> of cited sources — a *prevalence* count for a *different type* — while
+> **`FAQPage` appeared in 1.8%**, which points the opposite way to the claim
+> it was propping up. Q&A shape is still worth doing on genuinely
+> single-question pages; it is not worth a fabricated number. Do NOT quote a
+> QAPage lift % to a client — there isn't one.
 
 ```json
 {
@@ -81,8 +93,16 @@ visible content.
 
 ### Speakable — voice + AI extraction marker
 
-62% of searches in 2026 involve voice. Speakable flags the passage
+Speakable flags the passage best suited for voice readout and AI summary.
-best suited for voice readout and AI summary.
+
+> **No voice-share figure — the one that lived here was a conflation.**
+> Until 2026-07-16 this read "62% of searches in 2026 involve voice",
+> uncited. No primary source carries it; 62% circulates as a *smart-speaker
+> adoption* number, not a share of searches. It is the same family as the
+> "50% of searches will be voice by 2020" myth — attributed to ComScore,
+> who **denied it**; the real origin is a 2014 Andrew Ng interview. Speakable
+> is cheap and harmless, so keep recommending it on TL;DR / summary blocks —
+> but justify it by extraction shape, never by a voice-share statistic.
 
 ```json
 {

agents/seo-analyzer.md

@@ -81,6 +81,17 @@ hreflang, infer from detected URL structures.
 
 ## STEP 2 — DETECT TECHNICAL CONTEXT `[both]`
 
+**FIRST — the CWD must BE the audited site.** You grep the current working
+directory; no dispatcher checks that it matches TARGET_URL. If a URL was
+supplied and the CWD shows no web project at all (no `package.json` /
+`composer.json` / `index.html` / `*.astro` / `*.php` / `.htaccess`), or its
+signals contradict the domain, STOP and report:
+`CWD/TARGET MISMATCH — <cwd> is not <domain>'s repo. Re-run from it, or
+confirm live-only audit (LOCAL findings will be N/A).`
+Never grep one codebase while curling another: the live half looks right,
+the code half is fiction, and the report reads as authoritative. `/harden`
+inherits this agent for its config axis, so the mismatch propagates there.
+
 ### Framework & rendering
 
 ```bash
@@ -148,6 +159,23 @@ RECOMMENDATION   : KEEP & CONFIGURE plugin | INSTALL <plugin> (P0 quick win) | M
 
 ### Infrastructure signals
 
+**Origin vs edge — never infer the stack from `server:`.** That header names
+whatever answered: usually the EDGE (Cloudflare, Scaleway/OVH front, CDN,
+load balancer), not the origin. Apache behind an nginx front is a standard
+topology — TLS terminated upstream, the origin sees plain HTTP plus
+`X-Forwarded-Proto`.
+- Repo `.htaccess` + `server: nginx` = NOT drift, NOT dead config. Do not
+  flag it, do not propose migrating it.
+- Never move headers into an `nginx.conf` absent from the repo. Server-side
+  config you cannot read is a §14 gap, not a finding.
+- A header present live but in no repo config = "set upstream", never
+  "missing".
+
+`/harden` reuses this agent for its entire config-hardening axis, so a wrong
+topology call scores a client's server config against a file that never ran.
+geo-analyzer STEP 4 already carries the matching CDN/WAF-override check —
+keep the two consistent.
+
 ```bash
 # Server / hosting
 ls .htaccess nginx.conf netlify.toml vercel.json wrangler.toml 2>/dev/null
@@ -216,6 +244,12 @@ anonymous PageSpeed lab data and STEP 4/STEP 11 emit the §11 user action
 
 ### HTTP headers & security
 
+**Read them; score them only for `/harden` (I4).** This section stays — the
+raw headers are needed for `X-Robots-Tag`, canonical/redirect coherence, and
+the §14 observed-list. But under `/seo` the security headers themselves are
+out of scope for scoring: see the Technical axis note in STEP 9. Under
+`/harden` they are the entire job. Reading is not scoring.
+
 ```bash
 DOMAIN="<production-domain>"
 
@@ -247,8 +281,21 @@ Evaluate each present/missing:
 - **LCP** (Largest Contentful Paint) — < 2.5s
 - **INP** (Interaction to Next Paint) — < 200ms (replaced FID in Mar 2024)
 - **CLS** (Cumulative Layout Shift) — < 0.1
-- **VSI** (Visual Stability Index) — new 2026 signal, Google Core Web
+
-  Vitals 2.0
+**Core Web Vitals are exactly these three** (web.dev/articles/vitals,
+verified 2026-07-16). Google ships threshold changes with prior notice on a
+predictable annual cadence — a "new CWV" that only SEO blogs know about does
+not exist. Before adding a metric here, confirm it against a PRIMARY source:
+web.dev, the Chromium blog, or `developer.chrome.com/docs/crux/api` — that
+API metric list is decisive, because a metric CrUX cannot return is a metric
+we cannot score.
+
+**WebSearch is not confirmation.** SEO blogs cross-cite each other into fake
+consensus. A "VSI (Visual Stability Index) — new 2026 signal, Core Web
+Vitals 2.0" line lived here until 2026-07-16 on exactly that basis: ten
+blogs asserted it, several claimed CrUX was already collecting it, and it is
+absent from both the CrUX API metric list and web.dev. Stated as fact, in a
+threshold list, in client-facing audits.
 
 When a GSC account+property were passed in context, fetch CrUX field
 data first (**tilde path mandatory** — this agent runs from the
@@ -359,8 +406,22 @@ Fetch rendered HTML. Extract and analyze:
 
 ## STEP 5 — ON-PAGE AUDIT `[both]`
 
+**Record the denominator BEFORE sampling.** This step samples; the report
+says "audit". Count the URLs in `sitemap.xml` (fetch it in full — the
+`head -50` in STEP 4 is a preview, not a count). That count is the coverage
+denominator, and it feeds the mandatory COVERAGE line in STEP 9. No sitemap
+→ denominator unknown: say so, never let silence imply full coverage. On a
+500-page site a 12-page sample is 2.4% — the On-page score is an
+extrapolation from it, and the reader cannot know that unless you print it.
+
 ### Meta tags per page (sample 5-15 key pages)
 
+Sample by risk, not convenience: homepage + top templates (one per page
+type: service, city, blog, product, legal) + any page GSC flags as a
+position 4-10 quick win. Same template audited twice buys nothing; an
+un-sampled template is an un-audited template — name the templates you
+skipped.
+
 For each sampled page:
 ```
 PAGE: <path>
@@ -616,10 +677,10 @@ FIX: AUTO (<what agent will do>) | USER (<what user must do>)
 
 | Axis | Weight (local B2C) | Weight (SaaS/national/content) | Score /20 |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| Technical (perf, CWV, security headers, indexability) | 20% | 30% | |
+| Technical (perf, CWV, indexability) | 20% | 30% | |
 | On-page (content, meta, headings, images, video, a11y, i18n) | 20% | 30% | |
 | SEO Local (NAP, GMB, citations) | 25% | 5% | |
-| Off-page (backlinks, mentions, authority) | 10% | 15% | |
+| Off-page (unlinked brand mentions — backlinks/authority NOT auditable, §14) | 10% | 15% | |
 | Social presence | 10% | 5% | |
 | Competitive position | 5% | 10% | |
 | Legal compliance | 10% | 5% | |
@@ -628,17 +689,63 @@ FIX: AUTO (<what agent will do>) | USER (<what user must do>)
 real users, from STEP 4) when available; otherwise lab PageSpeed
 Lighthouse run.
 
+**Security headers are NOT scored here (I4).** `/harden` owns them and
+grades them out of 100 with three external validators — pricing them into
+this axis too was double-counting the same finding in two reports
+(`depth-matrix.md:29` already said drop; this spec contradicted it).
+- Dispatched from `/harden` (its prompt says NARROW-SCOPE): headers ARE the
+  job — audit and score them per its brief, ignore this note.
+- Dispatched from `/seo`: do not score CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options,
+  X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, COOP/CORP,
+  cookie flags. STEP 4 still reads them — you need them for the one
+  carve-out below — but they earn and lose no points here.
+
+**Carve-out — `X-Robots-Tag` stays.** It is an indexing directive wearing a
+header's clothes: `noindex` served there deindexes the page as surely as a
+meta robots tag. Score it under indexability. That is what
+`depth-matrix.md:29` means by "unless it directly affects indexability" —
+it is the header that does, and the security headers above are not.
+
+**Drop ≠ silence.** A user who never runs `/harden` must not read a clean
+Technical score as clean headers. Whenever depth=FULL, emit in §14:
+`Security headers (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options…) — not scored here: /harden
+owns them (0-100 + Observatory/SecurityHeaders/SSL Labs). Run /harden
+<url>. Observed live this run: <present list | none observed>.`
+Name what you saw. An omission has to stay legible — the same reason
+COVERAGE is mandatory in STEP 9.
+
+**Off-page axis note (I1).** Score ONLY the unlinked brand mentions
+gathered in STEP 6 (`web_search "<business-name>" -site:<domain>`).
+Backlink profile and domain authority have NO data source here — no index,
+no API, nothing. NEVER price them into the number: an unmeasured
+sub-component cannot be judged, and this axis carries 10-15% of a score
+that reaches a client via `/client-handover`. A low mention count is a low
+mention count — it is NOT evidence of a weak backlink profile.
+
+Mandatory §14 line whenever depth=FULL, verbatim:
+`Backlinks / domain authority — NOT audited: no backlink index wired.
+Nearest free source: Common Crawl hyperlinkgraph. Commercial: Ahrefs /
+Semrush / Majestic. The Off-page score above prices in brand mentions only.`
+
+Weight deliberately unchanged despite the narrower scope: re-deriving it
+now, then again when a backlink source lands, would churn historical
+scores twice. Revisit the 10/15% only when the axis widens back.
+
 ### LOCAL depth — 4 axes
 
 | Axis | Weight (local B2C) | Weight (SaaS/national/content) | Score /20 |
 |---|---|---|---|
-| Technical (security headers, indexability, config) | 25% | 35% | |
+| Technical (indexability, config) | 25% | 35% | |
 | On-page (content, meta, headings, images, video, a11y, i18n) | 35% | 45% | |
 | SEO Local (markup, NAP in JSON-LD, legal) | 20% | 5% | |
 | Legal compliance (pages, CMP, mentions) | 20% | 15% | |
 
 LOCAL axes not audited (Off-page, Social, Competitive) appear as
-`N/A — requires FULL audit` in the report.
+`N/A — requires FULL audit` in the report. Off-page is the exception to
+that promise: FULL audits its brand-mentions share ONLY — backlinks and
+authority are unauditable at EVERY depth (see the Off-page axis note).
+Print `N/A — FULL audits brand mentions only` for it, never a bare
+"requires FULL audit" that FULL cannot keep.
 
 ### Projected code-only score + trajectory to 17/20 (mandatory)
 
@@ -676,6 +783,8 @@ misroutes the client-handover gate and the user's effort.
 
 ```
 SEO SCORING (<depth>)
+COVERAGE       : <N> of <M> sitemap URLs (<P>%) — templates skipped: <list|none>
+                 | <N> pages, total UNKNOWN (no sitemap)
 Technical      : XX/20  <justification>
 On-page        : XX/20  <justification>
 SEO Local      : XX/20 | N/A
@@ -687,6 +796,12 @@ Legal          : XX/20  <justification>
 SEO GLOBAL (weighted): XX.X/20 (<depth>)
 ```
 
+**COVERAGE is mandatory, never omitted, never rounded up.** It is the
+honesty bound on every page-level axis: On-page and the on-page share of
+Technical are extrapolations from the sample. If coverage < 25%, repeat it
+in §0 as a major alert — a 17/20 drawn from 3% of a site is not a 17/20, and
+`/client-handover` gates on these numbers.
+
 Per user instruction: this score represents **80% of the combined
 final score for local B2C (20% for GEO), or 75% for SaaS/national
 (25% for GEO)**. The `/seo` dispatcher combines SEO and GEO scores.

skills/seo/SKILL.md

@@ -204,9 +204,9 @@ Ask ONCE before dispatching the agents:
 ```
 RAPPORT EXTERNE (optionnel) — un autre regard sur le site :
 
-  1. Fichier  — déposez l'export (PDF/MD/TXT) dans
+  1. Fichier  — donnez le chemin de l'export (PDF/MD/TXT), où qu'il soit
-     `.claude/audits/external/` (ex. `sorank-YYYY-MM-DD.pdf`),
+     (ex. `~/Téléchargements/sorank-2026-07-16.pdf`). Rangement conseillé
-     donnez le nom du fichier. (`mkdir -p .claude/audits/external`)
+     mais optionnel : `.claude/audits/external/`.
   2. Collé    — collez ici le contenu du PDF ou le "prompt pour IA"
      que l'outil suggère.
   3. Ignorer  — continuer sans. Le rapport final recommandera
@@ -348,6 +348,15 @@ audit GEO/AI signals (llms.txt, AI crawlers, QAPage/Speakable schemas,
 entity SEO, content shape for AI, AI visibility) — the geo-analyzer
 agent runs in parallel and owns those.
 
+Do NOT score security headers either (CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options,
+X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy, Permissions-Policy, COOP/CORP,
+cookie flags) — `/harden` owns them and grades them 0-100 against three
+external validators (`depth-matrix.md:29`). Read them, keep
+`X-Robots-Tag` under indexability (it is an indexing directive, not a
+security header), and declare the rest in §14 with a "run /harden" pointer
+plus what you observed live. Dropping them from the score must not make
+them silent.
+
 FILE OWNERSHIP (authoritative, prevents parallel-edit conflicts):
 - YOU OWN (read+write): sitemap.xml, image/video sitemaps, .htaccess,
   meta tags (title, description, OG, Twitter, canonical, robots meta),