apunkt/SurfSense
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/MODSetter/SurfSense.git synced 2026-05-03 04:42:39 +02:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

feat: enhance SurfSense with new skills, blog section, and improve SEO metadata
Some checks failed
Build and Push Docker Images / tag_release (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Build and Push Docker Images / build (./surfsense_backend, ./surfsense_backend/Dockerfile, backend, surfsense-backend, ubuntu-24.04-arm, linux/arm64, arm64) (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Build and Push Docker Images / build (./surfsense_backend, ./surfsense_backend/Dockerfile, backend, surfsense-backend, ubuntu-latest, linux/amd64, amd64) (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Build and Push Docker Images / build (./surfsense_web, ./surfsense_web/Dockerfile, web, surfsense-web, ubuntu-24.04-arm, linux/arm64, arm64) (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Build and Push Docker Images / build (./surfsense_web, ./surfsense_web/Dockerfile, web, surfsense-web, ubuntu-latest, linux/amd64, amd64) (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Build and Push Docker Images / create_manifest (backend, surfsense-backend) (push) Has been cancelled
Details
Build and Push Docker Images / create_manifest (web, surfsense-web) (push) Has been cancelled
Details

Browse source 
- Added multiple new skills to skills-lock.json from the repository `aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills`.
- Introduced `fuzzy-search` dependency in package.json for improved search functionality.
- Updated pnpm-lock.yaml to include the new `fuzzy-search` package.
- Enhanced SEO metadata across various pages, including canonical links and descriptions for better search visibility.
- Improved layout and structure of several components, including the homepage and changelog, to enhance user experience.
This commit is contained in:
DESKTOP-RTLN3BA\$punk 2026-04-11 23:38:12 -07:00
parent 61b3f0d7e3
commit 7ea840dbb2
120 changed files with 25729 additions and 352 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

403
.cursor/skills/content-quality-auditor/SKILL.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,403 @@
---
name: content-quality-auditor
description: 'Publish-readiness gate: 80-item CORE-EEAT audit with weighted scoring, veto checks, and fix plan. 内容质量/EEAT评分'
version: "6.0.0"
license: Apache-2.0
allowed-tools: WebFetch
compatibility: "Claude Code ≥1.0, skills.sh marketplace, ClawHub marketplace, Vercel Labs skills ecosystem. No system packages required. Optional: MCP network access for SEO tool integrations."
homepage: "https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills"
when_to_use: "Use when auditing content quality before publishing. Runs CORE-EEAT 80-item scoring with veto checks. Also when the user asks for E-E-A-T analysis or publish readiness."
argument-hint: "<URL or paste content> [keyword]"
metadata:
author: aaron-he-zhu
version: "6.0.0"
geo-relevance: "high"
tags:
- seo
- geo
- e-e-a-t
- core-eeat
- content-quality
- content-scoring
- helpful-content
- publish-readiness
- 内容质量
- コンテンツ品質
- 콘텐츠품질
- auditoria-eeat
triggers:
# EN-formal
- "audit content quality"
- "EEAT score"
- "CORE-EEAT audit"
- "content quality check"
- "content assessment"
- "quality score"
# EN-casual
- "is this ready to publish"
- "grade my article"
- "check before publishing"
- "how good is my content"
- "is my content good enough to rank"
- "rate my content quality"
# EN-question
- "is my content ready to publish"
- "how do I improve content quality"
# ZH-pro
- "内容质量审计"
- "EEAT评分"
- "内容评估"
# ZH-casual
- "文章能发吗"
- "内容打几分"
- "文章写得怎么样"
# JA
- "コンテンツ品質監査"
- "E-E-A-T評価"
# KO
- "콘텐츠 품질 감사"
- "EEAT 점수"
# ES
- "auditoría de calidad de contenido"
- "puntuación EEAT"
# PT
- "auditoria de qualidade"
# Misspellings
- "EEAT scroe"
---
# Content Quality Auditor
> Based on [CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/core-eeat-content-benchmark). Full benchmark reference: [references/core-eeat-benchmark.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/core-eeat-benchmark.md)
> **[SEO & GEO Skills Library](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills)** · 20 skills for SEO + GEO · [ClawHub](https://clawhub.ai/u/aaron-he-zhu) · [skills.sh](https://skills.sh/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills)
> **System Mode**: This cross-cutting skill is part of the protocol layer and follows the shared [Skill Contract](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/skill-contract.md) and [State Model](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/state-model.md).
This skill evaluates content quality across 80 standardized criteria organized in 8 dimensions. It produces a comprehensive audit report with per-item scoring, dimension and system scores, weighted totals by content type, and a prioritized action plan.
**System role**: Publish Readiness Gate. It decides whether content is ready to ship, what blocks publication, and what should be promoted into durable project memory.
## When This Must Trigger
Use this when content needs a quality check before publishing — even if the user doesn't use audit terminology:
- User asks "is this ready to publish" or "how good is this"
- User just finished writing with seo-content-writer or content-refresher
- **PostToolUse hook auto-triggers**: after content is written or substantially edited, the hook recommends this audit. When hook-triggered, skip setup questions — audit the content that was just produced.
- Auditing content quality before publishing
- Evaluating existing content for improvement opportunities
- Benchmarking content against CORE-EEAT standards
- Comparing content quality against competitors
- Assessing both GEO readiness (AI citation potential) and SEO strength (source credibility)
- Running periodic content quality checks as part of a content maintenance program
- After writing or optimizing content with seo-content-writer or geo-content-optimizer
## What This Skill Does
1. **Full 80-Item Audit**: Scores every CORE-EEAT check item as Pass/Partial/Fail
2. **Dimension Scoring**: Calculates scores for all 8 dimensions (0-100 each)
3. **System Scoring**: Computes GEO Score (CORE) and SEO Score (EEAT)
4. **Weighted Totals**: Applies content-type-specific weights for final score
5. **Veto Detection**: Flags critical trust violations (T04, C01, R10)
6. **Priority Ranking**: Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact
7. **Action Plan**: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps
## Quick Start
Start with one of these prompts. Finish with a publish verdict and a handoff summary using the repository format in [Skill Contract](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/skill-contract.md).
### Audit Content
```
Audit this content against CORE-EEAT: [content text or URL]
```
```
Run a content quality audit on [URL] as a [content type]
```
### Audit with Content Type
```
CORE-EEAT audit for this product review: [content]
```
```
Score this how-to guide against the 80-item benchmark: [content]
```
### Comparative Audit
```
Audit my content vs competitor: [your content] vs [competitor content]
```
## Skill Contract
**Gate verdict**: **SHIP** (no veto items, dimension scores above threshold) / **FIX** (issues found but no veto) / **BLOCK** (veto item T04, C01, or R10 failed). Always state the verdict prominently at the top of the report.
**Expected output**: a CORE-EEAT audit report, a publish-readiness verdict, and a short handoff summary ready for `memory/audits/content/`.
- **Reads**: the target content, content type, supporting evidence, and any prior decisions from [CLAUDE.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/CLAUDE.md) and the shared [State Model](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/state-model.md) when available.
- **Writes**: a user-facing audit report plus a reusable summary that can be stored under `memory/audits/content/`.
- **Promotes**: veto items and publish blockers to `memory/hot-cache.md` (auto-saved, no user confirmation needed). Top improvement priorities to `memory/open-loops.md`.
- **Next handoff**: use the `Next Best Skill` below once the verdict is clear.
## Data Sources
> See [CONNECTORS.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/CONNECTORS.md) for tool category placeholders.
**With ~~web crawler + ~~SEO tool connected:**
Automatically fetch page content, extract HTML structure, check schema markup, verify internal/external links, and pull competitor content for comparison.
**With manual data only:**
Ask the user to provide:
1. Content text, URL, or file path
2. Content type (if not auto-detectable): Product Review, How-to Guide, Comparison, Landing Page, Blog Post, FAQ Page, Alternative, Best-of, or Testimonial
3. Optional: competitor content for benchmarking
Proceed with the full 80-item audit using provided data. Note in the output which items could not be fully evaluated due to missing access (e.g., backlink data, schema markup, site-level signals).
## Decision Gates
When stopping to ask, always: (1) state the specific value and threshold, (2) offer numbered options with outcomes.
**Stop and ask the user when:**
- Content is under minimum word count for its type (blog/guide: 300 words; product/landing page: 150 words; FAQ: fewer than 3 entries with 50+ words each) — state the actual count and offer: (1) expand to minimum, (2) continue audit with Insufficient Data flags, (3) cancel
- Content type cannot be auto-detected — state what you detected and ask to confirm before proceeding
- Content is primarily media (video/image) with minimal text — ask whether to audit transcript, alt text, or skip
- More than 50% of a dimension's items are N/A — name the dimension and ask: (1) provide supplementary data, (2) mark entire dimension as Insufficient Data
- Any veto item triggers — flag it immediately with the item ID and ask: (1) stop for immediate fix, (2) continue full audit and flag in report
**Continue silently (never stop for):**
- Individual Partial scores within a dimension
- Missing SEO tool data (mark items as N/A and continue)
- Low overall score (the report is the deliverable, not a judgment call)
- User not specifying content type (auto-detect and state your assumption)
## Instructions
When a user requests a content quality audit:
### Step 1: Preparation
```markdown
### Audit Setup
**Content**: [title or URL]
**Content Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [loaded from content-type weight table]
#### Veto Check (Emergency Brake)
| Veto Item | Status | Action |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| T04: Disclosure Statements | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Add disclosure banner at page top immediately"] |
| C01: Intent Alignment | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Rewrite title and first paragraph"] |
| R10: Content Consistency | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Verify all data before publishing"] |
```
If any veto item triggers, flag it prominently at the top of the report and recommend immediate action before continuing the full audit.
### Step 2: CORE Audit (40 items)
Evaluate each item against the criteria in [references/core-eeat-benchmark.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/core-eeat-benchmark.md).
Score each item:
- **Pass** = 10 points (fully meets criteria)
- **Partial** = 5 points (partially meets criteria)
- **Fail** = 0 points (does not meet criteria)
```markdown
### C — Contextual Clarity
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| C02 | Direct Answer | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| C10 | Semantic Closure | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
**C Score**: [X]/100
```
Repeat the same table format for **O** (Organization), **R** (Referenceability), and **E** (Exclusivity), scoring all 10 items per dimension.
### Step 3: EEAT Audit (40 items)
```markdown
### Exp — Experience
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
**Exp Score**: [X]/100
```
Repeat the same table format for **Ept** (Expertise), **A** (Authority), and **T** (Trust), scoring all 10 items per dimension.
See [references/item-reference.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/cross-cutting/content-quality-auditor/references/item-reference.md) for the complete 80-item ID lookup table and site-level item handling notes.
### Step 4: Scoring & Report
Calculate scores and generate the final report:
```markdown
## CORE-EEAT Audit Report
### Overview
- **Content**: [title]
- **Content Type**: [type]
- **Audit Date**: [date]
- **Total Score**: [score]/100 ([rating])
- **GEO Score**: [score]/100 | **SEO Score**: [score]/100
- **Veto Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ [item] triggered
### Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| C — Contextual Clarity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| O — Organization | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| R — Referenceability | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| E — Exclusivity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| Exp — Experience | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| Ept — Expertise | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| A — Authority | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| T — Trust | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| **Weighted Total** | | | | **[X]/100** |
**Score Calculation**:
- GEO Score = (C + O + R + E) / 4
- SEO Score = (Exp + Ept + A + T) / 4
- Weighted Score = Σ (dimension_score × content_type_weight)
**Rating Scale**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Medium | 40-59 Low | 0-39 Poor
### N/A Item Handling
When an item cannot be evaluated (e.g., A01 Backlink Profile requires site-level data not available):
1. Mark the item as "N/A" with reason
2. Exclude N/A items from the dimension score calculation
3. Dimension Score = (sum of scored items) / (number of scored items x 10) x 100
4. If more than 50% of a dimension's items are N/A, flag the dimension as "Insufficient Data" and exclude it from the weighted total
5. Recalculate weighted total using only dimensions with sufficient data, re-normalizing weights to sum to 100%
**Example**: Authority dimension with 8 N/A items and 2 scored items (A05=8, A07=5):
- Dimension score = (8+5) / (2 x 10) x 100 = 65
- But 8/10 items are N/A (>50%), so flag as "Insufficient Data -- Authority"
- Exclude A dimension from weighted total; redistribute its weight proportionally to remaining dimensions
### Per-Item Scores
#### CORE — Content Body (40 Items)
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| C02 | Direct Answer | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
#### EEAT — Source Credibility (40 Items)
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Top 5 Priority Improvements
Sorted by: weight × points lost (highest impact first)
1. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
- Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
- Action: [concrete step]
2. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
- Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
- Action: [concrete step]
3–5. [Same format]
### Action Plan
#### Quick Wins (< 30 minutes each)
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]
#### Medium Effort (1-2 hours)
- [ ] [Action 3]
- [ ] [Action 4]
#### Strategic (Requires planning)
- [ ] [Action 5]
- [ ] [Action 6]
### Recommended Next Steps
- For full content rewrite: use `seo-content-writer` with CORE-EEAT constraints
- For GEO optimization: use `geo-content-optimizer` targeting failed GEO-First items
- For content refresh: use `content-refresher` with weak dimensions as focus
- For technical fixes: run `/seo:check-technical` for site-level issues
```
### Save Results
After delivering findings to the user, ask:
> "Save these results for future sessions?"
If yes, write a dated summary to the appropriate `memory/` path using filename `YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md` containing:
- One-line verdict or headline finding
- Top 3-5 actionable items
- Open loops or blockers
- Source data references
If any veto-level issue was found (CORE-EEAT T04, C01, R10 or CITE T03, T05, T09), also append a one-liner to `memory/hot-cache.md` without asking.
## Validation Checkpoints
### Input Validation
- [ ] Content source identified (text, URL, or file path)
- [ ] Content type confirmed (auto-detected or user-specified)
- [ ] Content is substantial enough for meaningful audit (≥300 words)
- [ ] If comparative audit, competitor content also provided
### Output Validation
- [ ] All 80 items scored (or marked N/A with reason)
- [ ] All 8 dimension scores calculated correctly
- [ ] Weighted total matches content-type weight configuration
- [ ] Veto items checked and flagged if triggered
- [ ] Top 5 improvements sorted by weighted impact, not arbitrary
- [ ] Every recommendation is specific and actionable (not generic advice)
- [ ] Action plan includes concrete steps with effort estimates
## Example
See [references/item-reference.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/cross-cutting/content-quality-auditor/references/item-reference.md) for a complete scored example showing the C dimension with all 10 items, priority improvements, and weighted scoring.
## Tips for Success
1. **Start with veto items** — T04, C01, R10 are deal-breakers regardless of total score
> These veto items are consistent with the CORE-EEAT benchmark (Section 3), which defines them as items that can override the overall score.
2. **Focus on high-weight dimensions** — Different content types prioritize different dimensions
3. **GEO-First items matter most for AI visibility** — Prioritize items tagged GEO 🎯 if AI citation is the goal
4. **Some EEAT items need site-level data** — Don't penalize content for things only observable at the site level (backlinks, brand recognition)
5. **Use the weighted score, not just the raw average** — A product review with strong Exclusivity matters more than strong Authority
6. **Re-audit after improvements** — Run again to verify score improvements and catch regressions
7. **Pair with CITE for domain-level context** — A high content score on a low-authority domain signals a different priority than the reverse; run [domain-authority-auditor](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/cross-cutting/domain-authority-auditor/SKILL.md) for the full 120-item picture
## Reference Materials
- [CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/core-eeat-benchmark.md) — Full 80-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, and GEO-First item markers
- [references/item-reference.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/cross-cutting/content-quality-auditor/references/item-reference.md) — All 80 item IDs in a compact lookup table + site-level item handling notes + scored example report
## Next Best Skill
- **Primary**: [content-refresher](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/optimize/content-refresher/SKILL.md) — turn failed checks into a concrete rewrite plan.

99
.cursor/skills/content-quality-auditor/references/item-reference.md Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
# CORE-EEAT Item Reference
Quick reference for all 80 CORE-EEAT audit items. Full scoring criteria in [core-eeat-benchmark.md](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills/blob/main/references/core-eeat-benchmark.md).
## Complete Item Reference
| ID | Item | ID | Item |
|----|------|----|------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | Exp01 | First-Person Narrative |
| C02 | Direct Answer | Exp02 | Sensory Details |
| C03 | Query Coverage | Exp03 | Process Documentation |
| C04 | Definition First | Exp04 | Tangible Proof |
| C05 | Topic Scope | Exp05 | Usage Duration |
| C06 | Audience Targeting | Exp06 | Problems Encountered |
| C07 | Semantic Coherence | Exp07 | Before/After Comparison |
| C08 | Use Case Mapping | Exp08 | Quantified Metrics |
| C09 | FAQ Coverage | Exp09 | Repeated Testing |
| C10 | Semantic Closure | Exp10 | Limitations Acknowledged |
| O01 | Heading Hierarchy | Ept01 | Author Identity |
| O02 | Summary Box | Ept02 | Credentials Display |
| O03 | Data Tables | Ept03 | Professional Vocabulary |
| O04 | List Formatting | Ept04 | Technical Depth |
| O05 | Schema Markup | Ept05 | Methodology Rigor |
| O06 | Section Chunking | Ept06 | Edge Case Awareness |
| O07 | Visual Hierarchy | Ept07 | Historical Context |
| O08 | Anchor Navigation | Ept08 | Reasoning Transparency |
| O09 | Information Density | Ept09 | Cross-domain Integration |
| O10 | Multimedia Structure | Ept10 | Editorial Process |
| R01 | Data Precision | A01 | Backlink Profile |
| R02 | Citation Density | A02 | Media Mentions |
| R03 | Source Hierarchy | A03 | Industry Awards |
| R04 | Evidence-Claim Mapping | A04 | Publishing Record |
| R05 | Methodology Transparency | A05 | Brand Recognition |
| R06 | Timestamp & Versioning | A06 | Social Proof |
| R07 | Entity Precision | A07 | Knowledge Graph Presence |
| R08 | Internal Link Graph | A08 | Entity Consistency |
| R09 | HTML Semantics | A09 | Partnership Signals |
| R10 | Content Consistency | A10 | Community Standing |
| E01 | Original Data | T01 | Legal Compliance |
| E02 | Novel Framework | T02 | Contact Transparency |
| E03 | Primary Research | T03 | Security Standards |
| E04 | Contrarian View | T04 | Disclosure Statements |
| E05 | Proprietary Visuals | T05 | Editorial Policy |
| E06 | Gap Filling | T06 | Correction & Update Policy |
| E07 | Practical Tools | T07 | Ad Experience |
| E08 | Depth Advantage | T08 | Risk Disclaimers |
| E09 | Synthesis Value | T09 | Review Authenticity |
| E10 | Forward Insights | T10 | Customer Support |
**Note on site-level items**: Most Authority items (A01-A10) and several Trust items (T01-T03, T05, T07, T10) require site-level or organization-level data that may not be observable from a single page. When auditing a standalone page without site context, mark these as "N/A — requires site-level data" and exclude from the dimension average.
## Example Audit Report
**User**: "Audit this blog post against CORE-EEAT: [paste of 'Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025']"
**Output** (partial — showing one dimension to demonstrate format):
```markdown
## CORE-EEAT Audit Report
### Overview
- **Content**: "Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025"
- **Content Type**: Blog Post / Comparison
- **Audit Date**: 2025-06-15
- **Veto Status**: No triggers
### C -- Contextual Clarity (scored dimension example)
| ID | Check Item | Score | Points | Notes |
|-----|--------------------|---------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | Pass | 10 | Matches "best X" comparison intent; title and body aligned |
| C02 | Direct Answer | Partial | 5 | Answer appears in first 300 words but no summary box |
| C03 | Query Coverage | Pass | 10 | Covers "project management tools", "remote team software", "best PM tools" |
| C04 | Definition First | Pass | 10 | Key terms ("PM tool", "async collaboration") defined on first use |
| C05 | Topic Scope | Partial | 5 | States what's covered but not what's excluded |
| C06 | Audience Targeting | Pass | 10 | Explicitly targets "remote team leads and managers" |
| C07 | Semantic Coherence | Pass | 10 | Logical flow: intro > criteria > tools > comparison > verdict |
| C08 | Use Case Mapping | Pass | 10 | Decision matrix for team size, budget, and features |
| C09 | FAQ Coverage | Fail | 0 | No FAQ section despite long-tail potential ("free PM tools for small teams") |
| C10 | Semantic Closure | Partial | 5 | Conclusion present but doesn't loop back to opening promise |
**C Dimension Score**: 75/100 (Good)
**Blog Post weight for C**: 25%
**Weighted contribution**: 18.75
#### Priority Improvements from C Dimension
1. **C09 FAQ Coverage** -- Add FAQ section with 3-5 long-tail questions
- Current: Fail (0) | Potential gain: 2.5 weighted points
- Action: Add FAQ with "Are there free PM tools for small remote teams?", "How to migrate between PM tools?", etc.
2. **C02 Direct Answer** -- Add a summary box above the fold
- Current: Partial (5) | Potential gain: 1.25 weighted points
- Action: Insert a "Top 3 Picks" callout box in the first 150 words
[... remaining 7 dimensions (O, R, E, Exp, Ept, A, T) follow the same per-item format ...]
[... then: Dimension Scores table, Top 5 Priority Improvements, Action Plan, Recommended Next Steps ...]
```