From 4ea2fb8c373aac0fc94a79a15933922872e23a55 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bastien Chanot Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2026 16:46:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?fix(seo):=20I2=20=E2=80=94=20remove=20VSI,=20an?= =?UTF-8?q?=20SEO-blog=20fiction,=20from=20CWV=20thresholds?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit seo-analyzer.md:278 listed "VSI (Visual Stability Index) — new 2026 signal, Google Core Web Vitals 2.0" as a threshold, stated as fact, no hedge, in client-facing audits. It does not exist. Verified against two primary sources: - developer.chrome.com/docs/crux/api — complete metric list carries no visual_stability_index. Blogs claimed "Google is actively collecting VSI through CrUX": flatly false. - web.dev/articles/vitals — three stable CWV (LCP, INP, CLS). No VSI, no "Core Web Vitals 2.0". Thresholds change with prior notice on an annual cadence. Ten SEO blogs cross-cited each other into an apparent consensus. WebSearch returns that consensus, which is why the resources README rule "agents MUST cross-check via WebSearch on FULL" did not catch it — that mitigation launders blog misinformation into apparent verification. Fix removes the metric and states the sourcing rule where a future rumour would land: primary sources only (web.dev / Chromium blog / CrUX API list, the last being decisive — a metric CrUX cannot return is one we cannot score). Incident documented inline so it is not re-added. Verified: make test 35 GREEN / 0 RED. --- agents/seo-analyzer.md | 17 +++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/agents/seo-analyzer.md b/agents/seo-analyzer.md index b5ef9bc..b00fdbd 100644 --- a/agents/seo-analyzer.md +++ b/agents/seo-analyzer.md @@ -275,8 +275,21 @@ 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