Terms in this guide: Evaluation · Prompt · Skill
A source-led SEO collection for planning useful content, checking internal links, verifying primary evidence, and refreshing important pages.
Why this collection exists
SEO work is most useful when it improves the page a person reaches: clearer intent, complete answers, trustworthy evidence, navigable structure, and helpful connections to the next task. The collection supports those decisions without promising rankings.
The four skills cover the brief, internal links, primary-source verification, and content refresh. They work best with a defined site, audience, and editorial standards.
SEO content brief
The brief identifies the reader, search intent, core question, necessary evidence, unique contribution, competing pages on the same site, section plan, internal links, and success criteria. It refuses to manufacture a page for a keyword variant when an existing page already owns the intent.
Internal-link review
The link review maps related pages by visitor task, checks anchors and destinations, finds important orphaned content, and recommends a small number of useful connections. It does not treat every repeated keyword as a reason to add a link.
Primary-source check
The source skill locates authoritative documentation, release notes, repositories, standards, or first-party data. It records publication and event dates, distinguishes direct statements from inference, and identifies claims the source does not establish.
Content refresh
The refresh skill compares the current page with current sources and user needs, then proposes or applies substantive changes. It preserves useful original analysis, links moved URLs, and avoids changing the review date when no meaningful review occurred.
AboutCodex evaluation plan
Test the collection on one foundation page, one tutorial, one directory entry, and one update article. Record whether the brief found overlap, whether new links helped the visitor’s path, whether sources supported each factual claim, and which refreshes materially changed the page.
Build a reader journey, not a keyword pile
Begin with the content brief to define one reader task and its useful outcome. Use the primary-source check while drafting update-sensitive facts. Run the internal-link review after the article has a stable structure, then schedule the content refresh when product behavior, source documentation, or reader needs change.
The pack avoids invented keyword volume and ranking promises. Search evidence can inform a choice, but a page still needs original value: tested steps, a clearer model, an inspectable resource, or a decision the reader can make. Multiple pages that restate the same intent weaken the reference instead of expanding it.
Measure usefulness after publication
Before publishing, check indexability, canonical URL, title, description, heading structure, source links, and internal paths. After publishing, monitor whether readers reach the promised next action, whether the page earns useful queries, and whether a newer page has begun competing for the same intent.
A refresh decision should use evidence: changed product documentation, broken commands, outdated screenshots, weak task completion, or overlapping content. Preserve the URL when its purpose remains valid. Document meaningful updates so returning readers can understand what changed.
Progress stays in this browser. No account needed.
Updates and upgrade guidance
- Learning context added
Added prerequisites, a suggested practice estimate, expected output, and connected definitions. The article procedure was not independently re-evaluated in this change.
What to do: Use the opening checklist to prepare. No software update is required for this editorial change.
This log starts with the first recorded review; it is not a reconstruction of earlier revisions.