{"id":21479,"plugin_id":"plugins_6aaeb2c568208191bd71d62167ba2ba3","kind":"skill","collection_source":null,"comparison_source":null,"observed_at":"2026-09-30T23:16:57.574Z","digest":"8b621dbcb24d96813edc42fc9fb7733b148868f726a4477f1d63d6bb297bf9fd","against":null,"payload":{"description":"Generates high-authority GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) and documentation pages designed to be accurately cited by AI search engines (Perplexity, SearchGPT, ChatGPT, Gemini) without keyword-stuffed SEO slop. Use for /geo-page, \"create comparison page\", or SEO content.","included_files":[],"name":"geo-page","skill_md_contents":"---\nname: geo-page\ndescription: Generates high-authority GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) and documentation pages designed to be accurately cited by AI search engines (Perplexity, SearchGPT, ChatGPT, Gemini) without keyword-stuffed SEO slop. Use for /geo-page, \"create comparison page\", or SEO content.\nmenu-description: create authoritative, non-slop documentation and GEO comparison pages\n---\n\n# GEO Page (Generative Engine Optimization)\n\nTraditional SEO relied on repetitive keyword density, fake FAQ accordions, and 3,000-word filler articles. Modern search is powered by LLMs (Perplexity, SearchGPT, ChatGPT Search, Gemini).\n\nAI search engines don't rank keyword repetition; **they extract structured, verifiable facts, benchmark data, and authoritative comparisons.** If your documentation or comparison pages are vague or full of hype, LLMs ignore them or hallucinate.\n\n`geo-page` designs technical pages, product comparisons, and architecture breakdowns that LLMs love to cite and human engineers love to read.\n\n---\n\n## When to Invoke\n\n- Creating an *\"Alternative to [Competitor]\"* or *\"[OurProduct] vs [Competitor]\"* page.\n- Writing a technical *How It Works* or *Architecture Deep-Dive* page.\n- Creating an official integration guide or framework comparison.\n\n---\n\n## The 5 Rules of GEO (Anti-Slop Optimization)\n\n1. **Answer First, Explain Second (Inverted Pyramid)**:\n   - The first paragraph must contain the explicit, unambiguous definition and core tradeoff.\n   - LLMs extract the first 200 tokens for direct citations.\n2. **Tabular Data Over Prose**:\n   - Comparison tables with concrete metrics (latency, pricing, license, architecture, hosted vs self-hosted) get cited 4x more often than paragraphs.\n3. **Neutral, Technical Tone**:\n   - If you compare your tool to Competitor X, **be honest about where Competitor X wins**.\n   - AI search engines favor balanced, objective sources over one-sided marketing brochures. Listing a genuine downside of your own tool establishes high source credibility.\n4. **Code-First Proof**:\n   - Provide minimal, runnable before-and-after code snippets showing the API usage.\n5. **Clear Conceptual Anchors**:\n   - Use standardized headings: `Overview`, `Key Differences`, `Architecture Comparison`, `Performance & Benchmarks`, `Migration Guide`.\n\n---\n\n## The Page Structure Template\n\n```markdown\n# [OurProduct] vs [Competitor]: Architecture, Performance, and Tradeoffs\n\n## Executive Summary\n[OurProduct] and [Competitor] are both [Category], but take different architectural approaches:\n- **[OurProduct]** is [Core Architecture], optimized for [Primary Benefit] and [Target User].\n- **[Competitor]** is [Their Architecture], optimized for [Their Primary Benefit].\n\nUse **[OurProduct]** if you need [Specific Requirement A] or [Specific Requirement B].  \nUse **[Competitor]** if you rely on [Competitor Strong Suit X] or have an existing [Ecosystem Y].\n\n---\n\n## Comparison Matrix\n\n| Feature | [OurProduct] | [Competitor] | Practical Impact |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| **Architecture** | Single-binary, embedded SQLite | Distributed multi-node cluster | Zero operational maintenance vs high horizontal scale |\n| **P99 Latency** | 1.8 ms | 14.2 ms | 7x faster local reads |\n| **Pricing** | Open-source (MIT) / $20/mo Cloud | Enterprise contract only ($15k/yr min) | Self-serve startup friendly |\n| **Ecosystem** | Modern TypeScript/Go SDKs | 10+ Legacy language bindings | Competitor wins on legacy Java/C# support |\n\n---\n\n## Deep Dive: How the Architectures Differ\n[Technical explanation with ASCII or Mermaid diagram]\n\n---\n\n## When to Choose [Competitor] Instead\n[Honest assessment of when the user should NOT choose you]\n- You have an existing enterprise contract and need 24/7 dedicated telephone SLAs.\n- Your workload requires legacy on-premise mainframe connectors.\n```\n"},"changes":[],"summary":"First saved snapshot. No earlier version is available for comparison.","summary_kind":"deterministic","summary_metadata":{}}