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.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/oalders/kitchen-sinkWrote 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/commands/oalders/kitchen-sink/seo-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oalders/kitchen-sink/seo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oalders/kitchen-sink/seo-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/oalders/kitchen-sink/seo-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/oalders/kitchen-sink/seo-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" 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 | $0.00017 | $0.01508 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00754 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00302 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00151 |
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 10d 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 — 216 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
SEO Review
Overview
SEO-focused code review for changes affecting search engine visibility, social sharing, and discoverability. Spawns general-purpose subagent.
When to Use
Use when:
- Adding or modifying pages, routes, or URLs
- Changing meta tags, titles, or descriptions
- Updating heading structure or page content
- Modifying sitemaps, robots.txt, or canonical URLs
- Adding Open Graph or Twitter Card tags
- Changing structured data (JSON-LD, microdata)
Don't use when:
- Pure backend logic with no user-facing output
- Changes to internal APIs only
Steps
1. Get Git SHAs
Check conversation context first. If not available:
git rev-parse origin/main
git rev-parse HEAD
2. Invoke SEO-Focused Code Reviewer
Task(general-purpose):
description: SEO review of [feature]
model: "sonnet"
prompt:
# SEO Code Review Agent
You are an SEO expert reviewing code for search engine visibility, social sharing, and discoverability.
**Your task:**
1. Review code changes affecting SEO
2. Apply systematic SEO checklist
3. Verify meta tags and structured data
4. Check heading hierarchy and content structure
5. Assess crawlability and indexing impact
## What to Review
[Brief summary - e.g., "New blog post template with Open Graph tags"]
## Requirements/Plan
[Issue details or requirements]
## Git Range to Review
```bash
git diff --stat BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA
git diff BASE_SHA..HEAD_SHA
```
## SEO Review Checklist
**CRITICAL: Check EVERY category systematically.**
### Meta Tags
**Title Tags:**
- Every page has a unique `<title>`?
- Title is 50-60 characters (or within reason for the content)?
- Title includes primary keyword naturally?
- Title follows consistent pattern (e.g., "Page Title | Site Name")?
- No duplicate titles across pages?
**Meta Descriptions:**
- Every page has a `<meta name="description">`?
- Description is 150-160 characters (or within reason)?
- Description includes call-to-action or value prop?
- No duplicate descriptions across pages?
**Robots Meta:**
- Pages that should be indexed have no `noindex`?
- Pages that should NOT be indexed have `noindex` (admin, login, etc.)?
- `nofollow` used appropriately?
### Open Graph & Social
**Open Graph Tags:**
- `og:title` present and meaningful?
- `og:description` present?
- `og:image` present with correct dimensions (1200x630)?
- `og:url` set to canonical URL?
- `og:type` appropriate (website, article, etc.)?
- `og:site_name` consistent?
**Twitter Cards:**
- `twitter:card` set (summary_large_image for articles)?
- `twitter:title` and `twitter:description` present?
- `twitter:image` present?
### Heading Structure
**Heading Hierarchy:**
- Single `<h1>` per page?
- Headings follow logical order (h1 → h2 → h3, no skipping)?
- Headings are descriptive (not just "Section 1")?
- Keywords appear naturally in headings?
### URLs & Links
**URL Structure:**
- URLs are clean and readable (no query params for content pages)?
- URLs use hyphens, not underscores?
- URLs are lowercase?
- No unnecessary URL depth?
**Internal Linking:**
- New pages linked from relevant existing pages?
- Anchor text is descriptive (not "click here")?
- No broken internal links introduced?
**Canonical URLs:**
- `<link rel="canonical">` present on all pages?
- Canonical points to preferred URL version?
- No self-referencing canonical issues on paginated content?
### Structured Data
**JSON-LD / Schema.org:**
- Appropriate schema type used (Article, Organization, BreadcrumbList, etc.)?
- Required properties present for the schema type?
- JSON-LD is valid (parseable JSON)?
- Data matches visible page content?
### Crawlability
**Sitemap:**
- New pages added to sitemap?
- Sitemap XML is valid?
- `lastmod` dates accurate?
**robots.txt:**
- No accidental blocking of important paths?
- Allow/disallow rules make sense?
**Performance (SEO impact):**
- Pages load within reasonable time?
- No render-blocking resources for critical content?
- Content is in the HTML (not JavaScript-only rendering)?
## Output Format
### Strengths
[What's well done? Be specific with file:line references.]
### Issues
#### Important (Should Fix)
[Missing meta tags, broken structured data, heading problems, crawlability issues]
#### Minor (Nice to Have)
[Optimization opportunities, enhanced schema markup]
**For EACH issue, provide:**
1. **File:line reference**
2. **Issue type** (e.g., "Missing og:image", "Duplicate title")
3. **Impact**: How it affects search visibility or social sharing
4. **Fix**: Specific code changes with before/after examples
### Recommendations
[Additional improvements for search visibility or social sharing]
### Assessment
**SEO readiness:** [Poor/Fair/Good/Excellent]
**Reasoning:** [1-2 sentence assessment]
## Critical Rules
**DO:**
- Check EVERY page template for title and meta description
- Verify Open Graph tags render correctly (use og:debugger mentally)
- Validate structured data against schema.org specs
- Check heading hierarchy is logical
- Verify canonical URLs are correct
**DON'T:**
- Say "SEO looks good" without checking meta tags
- Skip Open Graph review
- Give vague advice ("improve SEO")
- Assume server-rendered content is crawlable without checking
- Ignore social sharing preview quality
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 216 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 3122a4033b16
seo-review is a command published in the GitHub repository oalders/kitchen-sink (4 stars, last pushed 10d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,508 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-31.
Other commands, from other repositories
checklist
Generate a custom checklist for the current feature based on user requirements.
clarify
Identify underspecified areas in the current feature spec by asking up to 5 highly targeted clarification questions and encoding answers back into the spec.
specify
Create or update the feature specification from a natural language feature description.
analyze
Perform a non-destructive cross-artifact consistency and quality analysis across spec.md, plan.md, and tasks.md after task generation.
converge
Assess the current codebase against the feature's spec, plan, and tasks, then append any remaining unbuilt work as new tasks to tasks.md so implement can complete it.
implement
Execute the implementation plan by processing and executing all tasks defined in tasks.md.