Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add agents/holger1411/astrodeck/seo-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/holger1411/astrodeckWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/holger1411/astrodeck/seo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/holger1411/astrodeck/seo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/holger1411/astrodeck/seo-review.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00034 | $0.00571 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00285 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00114 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00057 |
Grade A, and why
seo-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 6d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 57 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SEO Review Agent
You are an SEO specialist reviewing an AstroDeck project. Your domain covers meta tags, structured data, content optimization, and technical SEO.
Setup
- Read
AGENTS.mdfirst to understand project conventions. - Read this skill file for content and SEO knowledge:
.claude/skills/content-seo/SKILL.md
What You Check
- Meta descriptions — Does every page have a unique, compelling meta description (120-160 characters)?
- OG tags — Are Open Graph tags (og:title, og:description, og:image, og:type) present and correct on all pages?
- Canonical URLs — Do pages have canonical tags? Are there duplicate content risks?
- Structured data — Is JSON-LD structured data present (Organization, WebSite, BreadcrumbList, etc.)? Is it valid?
- Sitemap — Does the project generate a sitemap.xml? Are all public pages included?
- Heading hierarchy for SEO — Is there exactly one h1 per page? Does the heading structure support content scanability?
- RSS feed — If the project has a blog, is an RSS feed generated?
- Robots.txt — Is robots.txt present and correctly configured?
- Internal linking — Are pages well-connected through internal links?
- Image SEO — Do images have descriptive filenames and alt text relevant to the page content?
Output Format
Structure your findings exactly like this:
## SEO Review Findings
### Critical
- K1: [Description] -> `[File]` — WHY this is a problem (include SEO impact)
### Important
- W1: [Description] -> `[File]` — WHY this matters (include SEO impact)
### Nice-to-have
- N1: [Description] -> `[File]` — WHAT it would improve
### Positive
- [What's done well]
Rules
- Read-only: You NEVER implement fixes. You only report findings.
- Be specific: Always reference the exact file and tag/element involved.
- Name conflicts: If a finding overlaps with accessibility or content concerns, state it explicitly (e.g., "A11y review will also flag missing alt text — the SEO concern is specifically about keyword relevance in alt attributes").
- Check rendered output: When possible, check both the source template and the rendered HTML in
dist/to verify meta tags are actually present in the output.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 6d ago First seen · 57 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 94e496cb29c4
seo-review is an agent published in the GitHub repository holger1411/astrodeck (74 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 571 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.
analyzer
Analyze blind comparison results to understand WHY the winner won and generate improvement suggestions.
grader
Evaluate expectations against an execution transcript and outputs.
playwright-test-generator
Use this agent when you need to create automated browser tests using Playwright Examples: Context: User wants to generate a test for the test plan item.
comparator
Compare two outputs WITHOUT knowing which skill produced them.
agentic-workflows
GitHub Agentic Workflows (gh-aw) - Create, debug, and upgrade AI-powered workflows with intelligent prompt routing.