feat: add new skills for blog SEO standards, technical content structure, and tutorial writing

Author: alexandramartinez

.claude

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+---
+title: 'blog-seo-standards'
+description: 'A checklist skill for writing or reviewing a technical blog post that separates editorial readability guidelines from actual 2026 SEO facts — including the current numbers for word count, title length, and meta-description length.'
+tagline: 'Write posts that read well, rank in search, and get quoted by AI.'
+difficulty: Intermediate
+tags: ['SEO', 'AEO', 'Content Creation', 'Technical Writing', 'Claude Code']
+icon: 'search'
+pubDate: 2026-07-03
+---
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> This is the "will search *find* it, and will an AI quote it?" skill. It's the sibling of
+> [`technical-content-structure`](/skill/technical-content-structure) (will a human finish reading
+> it?) and [`tutorial-writing`](/skill/tutorial-writing) (can a
+> reader follow it?). Three focused checklists beat one giant one.
+
+## What it does
+
+`blog-seo-standards` is a Claude Code [skill](https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills) —
+a checklist for the *findability* half of a technical post: will search rank it, and can an AI answer
+engine (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews) quote it?
+
+The thing it does best is **separate two kinds of rules that usually get blended together**:
+
+- **Editorial / readability** — craft choices (length, voice). Great for the reader, but *not*
+  search-ranking rules. Break them on purpose when a topic needs it.
+- **SEO facts** — verified against Google Search Central, Ahrefs, Backlinko, Moz. Real numbers, and
+  not always the ones a writer memorized years ago.
+
+## When to use it
+
+- You're drafting a new post and want it found by search + AI as you write.
+- You want a quick audit of an existing post — title length, meta description, headings, alt text,
+  link text.
+- You're not sure whether a long-held writing rule is an SEO rule or just a habit.
+
+## How it works
+
+It's a plain instruction file — no code. It leads with three numbers worth getting right against
+current guidance:
+
+- **Post length is not an SEO rule.** Google doesn't rank on word count. It's a fine *readability*
+  guideline — so the skill keeps it, labeled editorial, not SEO.
+- **Title: ~50-60 characters.** Google truncates the title link in results at ~600 px, so a longer
+  title gets cut off.
+- **Meta description: ~155-160 characters** (~120 on mobile). Past that, the snippet is truncated and
+  the rest never displays.
+
+A few ideas here generalize to any "standards" skill: say what's a fact vs. a preference (and cite
+sources for the facts), and correct advice that risks a penalty rather than just softening it — the
+old "the meta description doesn't need to be in the article" is a clickbait trap, so the skill says
+plainly to describe what's genuinely on the page. It also folds in what a classic checklist misses:
+E-E-A-T and author bylines, matching search intent, descriptive internal links (never "click here"),
+AEO for AI answer engines, and keeping the URL slug stable.
+
+## The skill definition
+
+Here's the actual `SKILL.md`, verbatim. It cross-references two sibling writing skills; the SEO facts
+and the editorial-vs-SEO split stand on their own for any technical blog.
+
+````markdown title="SKILL.md"
+---
+name: blog-seo-standards
+description: >-
+  SEO + AEO standards for writing or reviewing a technical blog post — title, meta description,
+  headings, images, structured data, and the frontmatter that feeds them. Use when the user asks
+  whether a post is "SEO-friendly", wants a title/description/heading/alt-text check, or is drafting
+  an article to be found by search + AI answer engines. Separates EDITORIAL guidelines from the
+  actual 2026 SEO numbers for word count, title length, and meta-description length. This is the SEO
+  source of truth; for readability/structure see [[technical-content-structure]], for numbered
+  walkthroughs [[tutorial-writing]].
+---
+
+# SEO + AEO standards for a technical blog post
+
+The findability half of writing a post: will search rank it, and can an AI answer engine (ChatGPT,
+Perplexity, Google AI Overviews) quote it? Pairs with [[technical-content-structure]] (readability)
+and [[tutorial-writing]] (numbered walkthroughs).
+
+**Two kinds of rules — keep them apart when you report:**
+
+- **Editorial** — craft choices (length, voice). Fine for UX, NOT ranking rules.
+- **SEO facts** — verified against Google Search Central + Ahrefs/Backlinko/Moz (2025-2026).
+
+## The numbers that matter
+
+| Field | The 2026 number | Why |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Post length | No SEO target | Google doesn't rank on word count — length is a *readability* choice, not a ranking factor. |
+| Title | ~50-60 characters | Google truncates the title link at ~600 px; longer titles get cut off in results. |
+| Meta description | ~155-160 chars (~120 mobile) | The snippet truncates past that; the rest never shows. |
+
+## Title (the H1 + browser/tab title)
+
+- **~50-60 characters** — the safe zone before Google's ~600 px truncation.
+- **Front-load the primary keyword** — the phrase a reader types. One primary + a natural secondary
+  is plenty; **don't stuff 2-5 keywords**. Keyword-in-title is a "ticket to entry," not a boost, and
+  stuffing reads as spam.
+- **Match the title to the actual format.** A conceptual headline on a hands-on walkthrough is a
+  scope mismatch — searchers and AI won't connect it to the direct query. If the body is a
+  walkthrough, say so in the H1; save the clever framing for the lede.
+- **Write for the click**, and keep every title unique. Positive framing out-clicks clickbait.
+
+## Meta description (the search + social snippet)
+
+This ONE field usually feeds the search snippet, the social card, AND the post card — it's what a
+person reads in Google before clicking.
+
+- **~155-160 characters** (~120 mobile). Past that it's truncated.
+- **It must accurately summarize the page.** "It doesn't need to be in the article" is a clickbait
+  trap — a mismatch tanks dwell time and trust. Describe what's genuinely there.
+- **Phrase it as the reader's search** — state the concrete outcome, not just the topic. Google bolds
+  matching query terms, so natural keywords help CTR. Not a ranking factor; a *click* factor.
+- Keywords that belong to the topic but didn't fit the title can live here — if the post covers them.
+
+## Structure & headings
+
+- **One H1 (the title), then H2 → H3, never skip a level.** Body sections start at H2 (the title is
+  the only H1). A H3-led post skips H2 → breaks WCAG 1.3.1 + the table of contents.
+- **Land the primary keyword in at least one H2, not only the H1** — a common gap. Section headers
+  double as topic signals for search and AI section-identification.
+- **Descriptive, standalone headings** ("Handling the timeout error"), not bare "Step 1" — readers
+  skim headings first.
+- **Lead each section with the answer.** Buried answers don't win featured snippets or get quoted.
+
+## Images & code
+
+- **Explain what an image/code block shows BEFORE you show it** — inverted-pyramid; the reader knows
+  what they're looking at and AI reads the lead-in prose for context.
+- **Descriptive alt text on every meaningful image** (WCAG 1.1.1 + image search) — describe what's IN
+  it ("the settings page with the API-key field highlighted"), don't keyword-stuff; empty alt for
+  purely decorative images.
+- **Optimize the file:** descriptive filename (`user-settings.png`, not `DSC_4536.png`), compressed,
+  explicit dimensions (avoids layout shift), lazy-load offscreen images.
+
+## Modern additions (what the classic checklist missed)
+
+- **E-E-A-T — show a real author.** Google asks "is it self-evident who wrote this?" Set a per-post
+  author byline + Article JSON-LD. First-hand experience — your own screenshots, "I hit this error
+  and fixed it" — is what AI can't fabricate and E-E-A-T rewards. State first-party authority in one
+  first-person sentence near the top when you built/operate the thing.
+- **Match search intent.** Check what already ranks for the query — an opinion piece won't win a slot
+  the top results fill with tutorials, however clean the on-page SEO.
+- **Internal links, descriptive anchors.** Link related posts; anchor text that names the destination
+  ("the setup guide"), **never "click here" / "read more"** (Google flags them; useless to screen
+  readers). ~2-4 internal links per 1,000 words.
+- **AEO.** Structure for extraction: question-shaped H2s, a direct answer first, standalone quotable
+  sentences, one extractable "X is Y that does Z" definition in the first 100 words for any named
+  concept, and a FAQs block.
+- **Structured data.** Emit `Article` + `BreadcrumbList` (and `FAQPage`) JSON-LD — keep `author`,
+  `pubDate`, `updatedDate` accurate because they feed it. (Google dropped the FAQ *rich result* in
+  2026, but the visible FAQ text still helps AI + non-Google engines.)
+- **URL slug:** short, human-readable, hyphenated, keyword-bearing. Keep it stable once published —
+  changing it 404s the old URL and drops its link equity.
+- **Freshness:** for version-/time-sensitive posts, make *substantive* updates then bump the modified
+  date — a real update, not a cosmetic date change.
+
+## How to apply
+
+- **New post:** use this while drafting — title length, description length + accuracy, keyword in an
+  H2, explain-before-show.
+- **Reviewing:** read the post, then report findings grouped **Editorial** vs **SEO facts**. Flag:
+  title > 60 chars, description > 160 or not reflecting the body, H3-led sections, empty alt, "click
+  here" links, a missing author byline, an image/code block with no lead-in.
+- **Verify** any change with a build.
+
+## Sources
+
+Google Search Central (title link, snippet, helpful-content, images, links, URL-structure); Ahrefs &
+Backlinko on-page/title studies; Moz; Nielsen Norman Group. Verified 2026 — SEO numbers drift, so
+re-check before treating any figure as gospel.
+````