← LinkedditCONTENT HISTORY

Update to Linkeddit

Snapshot Nov 5, 2026 · 01:16 UTC · version 1.0.2

Collection source: downloaded plugin package.

WHAT CHANGED

First saved snapshot

No earlier snapshot is available to establish a change.

Save Linkeddit and check future changes in Following.

Up to 10 plugins free · no card required.

Compare saved observations

Download comparison JSON
Full technical diff · 0 changed fields
Full snapshot data
{
  "description": "Analyze Linkeddit search visibility measurements and recommendation gaps when a user asks why competitors appear, where visibility changed, or what evidence-backed improvements to prioritize.",
  "included_files": [],
  "name": "visibility-gap-analysis",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: visibility-gap-analysis\ndescription: Analyze Linkeddit search visibility measurements and recommendation gaps when a user asks why competitors appear, where visibility changed, or what evidence-backed improvements to prioritize.\n---\n\n# Visibility gap analysis\n\nResolve the user's domain with `answer_projects_list`; use returned project IDs. If several projects match, clarify the target before retrieving detailed records. Use the connected tools' current schemas; missing tools are an access limitation, not proof of a particular plan.\n\nFor current performance, use `answer_metrics_get`. For a change over time, use `answer_trends_get` with the requested period. Preserve each measurement segment (provider, model, tool version, locale), metric definitions, sample counts, and disclosures. Compare like segments and time windows. `usable=false` or missing observations mean unavailable measurement, not zero visibility. Do not average across segments or attribute a change to a cause without evidence.\n\nFor improvement opportunities, call `answer_gaps_list`, then `answer_gap_get` for the gaps most relevant to the user's buyers. Keep recorded observations, cited sources, hypotheses, and suggested actions distinct. A competitor mention alone does not establish a recommendation. Note evidence dates and gaps in coverage.\n\nReturn the material findings with source links or returned record IDs, why each matters, and a practical next action. Label your prioritization as analysis rather than a stored score. If the user wants content, draft it in the conversation from the retrieved evidence; don't imply it has been saved or published.\n\nReading results does not require a new audit. If the user requests a new audit, use the available estimate tool, explain its scope and credit estimate, and obtain agreement before starting it. No automatic project creation, recurring monitoring, or publishing follows from an analysis request.\n"
}

SHA-256 of public snapshot: 836d876605a45289179d52826b584319a6889fbe7e06a89e55b2bc1a45862f80