# Four SEO skills on one homepage: only Sweep 4 found the gap

> Four skills on the same live homepage. Three SEO rubrics returned clean scores. Only copy-editing's Sweep 4 caught the claim-vs-proof colocation gap.

**Canonical URL**: https://agentcookbooks.com/blog/four-seo-skills-only-sweep-4-found-the-gap/

**Published**: 2026-05-04

**Tags**: claude-code, skills, seo

---

Four skills on the same live homepage, run in sequence: [`/seo-page`](/skills/seo-page/) (88/100 on-page), [`/seo-content`](/skills/seo-content/) (E-E-A-T 52/100, AI Citation 72/100), [`/seo-geo`](/skills/seo-geo/) (53/100 GEO), and [`/copy-editing`](/skills/copy-editing/) (5 of 7 sweeps clean). Three SEO-framed audits returned scored findings already covered by their respective frameworks. Only `/copy-editing` Sweep 4 (Prove It) caught a critical structural gap — claim-vs-proof colocation — that the other three all missed from different framings. The receipt below: what each rubric is wired to find, why three frameworks missed the same gap, and why on receipts-first sites Sweep 4 belongs first in the audit stack.

## The three SEO rubrics: scores and findings

Each of the three SEO-framed audits ran end-to-end and produced numerical scores plus prioritized findings. None of them flagged the gap that Sweep 4 caught.

| Skill | Score | What it surfaced | The gap it didn't isolate |
|---|---|---|---|
| `/seo-page` | 88/100 on-page | Title chars, schema integrity, internal-link count, body word count | Page-level evidence-presence check; doesn't isolate per-claim colocation |
| `/seo-content` | E-E-A-T 52/100 | Experience 14, Expertise 12, Authority 8, Trust 18; brand-anonymity ceiling explicit | Folds proof into Experience as one of four equally-weighted signals |
| `/seo-geo` | 53/100 GEO | Citability 16/25, Multi-Modal 3/15, robots.txt edge conflict | Measures citability of what's there; no rubric for what's missing-but-claimed |

Two structural-ceiling caveats are worth naming before reading those scores as fix-list items: `/seo-content` Authority 8/25 and `/seo-geo` Authority/Brand 6/20 are both policy-capped by the site's brand-anonymity rule (no author bios, no operator-driven brand mentions). Authority is the dimension where the rubrics punish anonymity by design. Same root cause across both frameworks; different rubric framings. The [corpus-wide E-E-A-T audit ran two weeks later](/blog/eeat-audit-anonymity-policy-as-authority-ceiling/) confirmed the ceiling holds at ~5/10 Authority across all 197 skills + 20 posts — the homepage scores aren't an outlier, they're the structural cap.

What's important for the rest of this post: every category each of these three rubrics flagged was a *known* category of finding. Title length. Multi-modal asset count. Robots.txt edge config. Schema completeness. The audits behaved as designed.

## What Sweep 4 caught that the others didn't

`/copy-editing` Sweep 4 is the *Prove It* sweep — for every claim on the page, check whether the evidence is colocated with the claim itself.

The homepage makes three editorial-bar claims, all in close proximity:

1. *"the JSON, the timings, and the failure modes from real use"* (lede)
2. *"a working hook, a measured cost, a documented failure mode"* (body paragraph)
3. *"no AI-generated filler"* (eyebrow + body)

Three claims, all asserting the site ships proofs. **Zero proof artifacts inline on the homepage itself.** The proofs exist — they're in the blog posts and the wiki entries. But a reader landing on the hub has to click through to verify any of them.

That's the gap. Not a content quality issue. Not a structured-data issue. Not a citability issue. It's a *proof colocation* issue: the page makes claims and outsources every verification to one click away.

## Why three rubrics missed the same gap

Each of the three SEO-framed rubrics has a related check. None has the same one.

`/seo-page` scores Content Quality at the page level — does this page have evidence, schema, supporting links. Page-scope pass/fail. The check is "is there evidence somewhere on the page" not "is each specific claim's evidence within reading distance of the claim."

`/seo-content` Experience scoring is the closest of the three. Its Experience 14/25 score on the homepage *specifically reflects this gap* — strong claim, no proof artifact on the page itself. But Experience is one of four E-E-A-T dimensions, weighted equally in the rubric. The colocation issue lives inside Experience, gets averaged into a 52/100 E-E-A-T total, and surfaces as one bullet among many. It doesn't get its own rubric line.

`/seo-geo` measures Citability 16/25 — quotable lede, structured answer block, citation-friendly content. It scores whether what's on the page is citable for AI engines. It doesn't score whether the page is *missing* citable proof for its own assertions.

`/copy-editing` Sweep 4's framing is unique because *colocation is the unit of analysis*. Each claim gets checked against its own neighborhood for matching evidence. A claim with proof colocated passes; a claim with proof one click away fails — not because the proof doesn't exist, but because the colocation is broken.

This isn't framework *bias*. It's framework *coverage*. Three rubrics with related-but-not-identical checks, none of which has a per-claim-colocation lens.

## The corpus-wide validation

The same Sweep 4 was run across all 10 published blog posts in a separate audit. Result: **10 of 10 PASS.**

Every blog post on this site has its claims colocated with its proofs:

- `claude-code-frontmatter-guard-hook` ships verbatim stderr blocks alongside the claim that the hook surfaces frontmatter errors. Stderr *is* the proof.
- `cloudflare-ai-audit-robots-txt-trap` leads with the byte-count diff (2,704 vs 966) before the prose explanation. Diff *is* the proof.
- `cloudflare-pages-csp-pagefind` ships the full 14-line `_headers` config inline with the per-directive reasoning two paragraphs down. Config *is* the proof.

Same skill, same Sweep 4 rubric, opposite verdicts on different surfaces. The blog posts pass because each one has 1–3 specific claims and shows the corresponding proofs in adjacent sections. The homepage fails because it *aggregates* the corpus's claims (the editorial-bar promise) and can't show all the corresponding proofs at once.

The actionable read: the editorial discipline IS being practiced at the post level. The hub level just doesn't inherit it. The fix isn't a content rewrite — it's a single ~80-word inline-receipt block on the homepage that borrows one of the corpus's proofs into the hub's content surface.

## What this means for audit ordering

On any site that publishes editorial-bar claims (receipts-first, evidence-based, "with real X" framing), the most failure-prone audit category is the colocation gap. Three SEO-framed audits won't catch it. One copy-editing sweep will.

Practical order for receipts-first sites:

1. **Run `/copy-editing` Sweep 4 first on the homepage and high-traffic landing pages.** If colocation is intact, the rest of the audit shifts from "find the critical gap" to "validate everything else."
2. **Then run the SEO-framed audits.** They'll surface their structural-ceiling findings (anonymity caps, multi-modal asset gaps, technical fundamentals) which have nothing to do with claim-proof colocation. Those are real findings; they're just orthogonal to the gap Sweep 4 catches.
3. **Don't read three "evidence-related" rubric lines as the same finding.** They aren't. `/seo-page`'s Content Quality, `/seo-content`'s Experience, and `/seo-geo`'s Citability all touch evidence, but none of them has the per-claim-colocation lens that Sweep 4 has. The overlap is closer to "they all care about evidence" than "they all check the same thing."

Related: the cross-skill convergence finding from the [page-cro audit on the same homepage](/blog/claude-code-cro-content-blog/) — `/page-cro` Quick Win #3 is the same gap as Sweep 4, scored from a CRO framing instead of a copy framing. Two skills agreeing from different framings is a stronger signal than either scoring it critical alone. The lesson there is convergence; the lesson here is that *three skills NOT finding it* doesn't mean the gap isn't there — it means the gap lives in a category none of the three rubrics covers.

The receipt is the unique-finder finding: four skills, one URL, only one rubric was wired for the question that mattered. The same rubric applied corpus-wide returned the inverse verdict (10/10 PASS at the post level), which is what makes the homepage gap an *inheritance* problem instead of a *discipline* problem.

For the prior parallel audit on Astro source files, see [Three SEO skills on pre-launch Astro: what each caught](/blog/three-seo-skills-pre-launch-audit/). Three skills, source files, no live URL — a different shape but the same skill-overlap-and-coverage discipline.