---
name: geo-fix-content
description: Rewrite website content to maximize AI citability — remove hedge language, add data support, improve self-containment, and optimize structure for AI engines. Use when the user asks to improve content for AI, fix citability, rewrite for AI, remove hedge words, or make content more citable.
version: 1.0.0
---

# geo-fix-content Skill

You analyze website content at the paragraph level and provide specific rewrites that maximize AI citability — the likelihood that AI systems will quote, cite, or recommend the content. Every suggestion preserves the original meaning while making the text more quotable, data-backed, and self-contained.

Refer to `references/hedge-words.md` in this skill's directory for the hedge language dictionary and rewrite patterns.

---

## Phase 1: Discovery

### 1.1 Validate Input

Accept input in two forms:
- **URL** — Fetch the page and extract the main content
- **Pasted text** — Analyze directly

If a URL is provided:
- Fetch the page HTML
- Extract main content body (strip navigation, header, footer, sidebar, ads, cookie banners)
- Preserve headings, lists, tables, code blocks
- Note the page title and meta description

### 1.2 Content Inventory

Break the content into analyzable units:
- Split by paragraphs (separated by blank lines or `<p>` tags)
- Preserve heading context (which H2/H3 section each paragraph belongs to)
- Number each paragraph for reference
- Count total words, sentences, and paragraphs

Print a brief summary:

```
Content Analysis: {title or domain}
  Words: {count}
  Paragraphs: {count}
  Headings: {count}
  Scanning for citability issues...
```

---

## Phase 2: Paragraph-Level Diagnosis

Scan every paragraph for these 6 issue categories:

### 2.1 Hedge Language

Hedge words reduce AI citation probability because AI engines prefer authoritative, confident statements.

**Hedge word categories:**

| Category | Examples | Severity |
|----------|----------|----------|
| Uncertainty | maybe, perhaps, possibly, might, could | High |
| Qualification | somewhat, relatively, fairly, rather, quite | Medium |
| Approximation | about, around, approximately, roughly, nearly | Medium |
| Distancing | seems, appears, tends to, suggests, likely | High |
| Generalization | generally, usually, often, sometimes, typically | Medium |
| Weakening | a bit, sort of, kind of, in some ways | High |

**Metrics:**
- **Hedge Density** = (hedge word count / total word count) * 100
- Target: < 0.5% for high-citability content
- Critical: > 2.0% indicates systematically weak language

### 2.2 Missing Data Support

Paragraphs that make claims without evidence:
- Statements with "better", "faster", "more" without numbers
- Comparisons without baselines
- Claims about impact without metrics
- Trends stated without timeframes or sources

### 2.3 Missing Definitions

Technical terms or jargon used without explanation:
- Acronyms not expanded at first use
- Industry terms assumed known
- Concepts referenced without context

### 2.4 Poor Self-Containment

Paragraphs that cannot stand alone:
- Starts with "This", "It", "They" without clear antecedent
- Requires reading previous paragraphs to understand
- References "as mentioned above" or "as we discussed"
- Depends on surrounding context for meaning

### 2.5 Structural Issues

- Paragraphs longer than 4 sentences (AI prefers 2-3 sentence blocks)
- Content that should be a list or table but is written as prose
- Wall of text without visual breaks
- Missing topic sentence (first sentence doesn't summarize the paragraph)

### 2.6 Weak Answer Blocks

Content that could serve as a direct AI answer but doesn't:
- Questions in headings without direct answers in the first sentence
- Definition opportunities missed ("{Term} is..." pattern absent)
- FAQ content buried in prose instead of Q&A format

### Diagnosis Output

For each paragraph with issues, record:

```
Paragraph {n} (line {x}): {first 10 words}...
  Issues:
    - [HEDGE] 3 hedge words (density: 2.1%)
    - [DATA] Claim without metrics: "significantly improves..."
    - [SELF] Starts with "This" — unclear antecedent
  Severity: HIGH
```

---

## Phase 3: Rewrite

For each paragraph with issues, generate a rewrite following these rules:

### 3.1 Rewrite Principles

1. **Preserve original meaning** — Never change what the author is saying, only how they say it
2. **Replace hedge with certainty** — "might help" → "reduces costs by X%"
3. **Add data placeholders** — If real data is unknown, use `[TODO: add specific metric]`
4. **Front-load the answer** — Put the key claim in the first sentence
5. **Make self-contained** — Each paragraph should be quotable in isolation
6. **Keep it concise** — 2-3 sentences per paragraph, maximum 4

### 3.2 Rewrite Format

For each rewritten paragraph:

```markdown
### Paragraph {n} (line {x})

**Issues**: {comma-separated issue list}

**Before**:
> {Original paragraph text}

**After**:
> {Rewritten paragraph text}

**Changes**:
- {What was changed and why}
- {What was changed and why}
```

### 3.3 Rewrite Patterns

**Hedge → Confident:**
- "might help" → "helps" or "reduces X by Y%"
- "seems to indicate" → "indicates" or "shows that"
- "could potentially improve" → "improves"
- "is generally considered" → "is"
- "in some cases" → "[specific condition]"

**Vague → Specific:**
- "significantly improves" → "improves by 34%"
- "many customers" → "2,500+ customers" or "[TODO: customer count]"
- "recently" → "in Q1 2026" or "[TODO: specific date]"
- "industry-leading" → "[TODO: specific benchmark or ranking]"

**Dependent → Self-Contained:**
- "This helps..." → "{Product Name} helps..."
- "It works by..." → "{Feature Name} works by..."
- "As mentioned above..." → Remove, restate the key fact

**Prose → Structure:**
- Lists of 3+ items → Bullet list or table
- Comparisons → Table with columns
- Sequential steps → Numbered list
- Features with details → Table (Feature | Description | Benefit)

### 3.4 Skip Rules

Do NOT rewrite paragraphs that:
- Already score well on all dimensions
- Are legal disclaimers or regulatory text
- Are direct quotes from named sources
- Are code blocks or technical specifications

---

## Phase 4: Output

### 4.1 Generate Fix File

Create a file named `content-fix-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md` (or `content-fix-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md` if input was pasted text).

Structure:

```markdown
# Content Citability Fix: {title}

**Source**: {url or "pasted text"}
**Date**: {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Paragraphs analyzed**: {total}
**Issues found**: {count}
**Paragraphs rewritten**: {count}

## Citability Score

| Metric | Before | After (est.) |
|--------|--------|-------------|
| Hedge Density | {x}% | {y}% |
| Data-Supported Claims | {x}% | {y}% |
| Self-Contained Paragraphs | {x}% | {y}% |
| Avg Paragraph Length | {x} sentences | {y} sentences |
| Answer Block Patterns | {x} found | {y} found |
| **Overall Citability** | **{x}/100** | **{y}/100** |

## Issue Summary

| Category | Count | Severity |
|----------|-------|----------|
| Hedge Language | {n} | {avg severity} |
| Missing Data | {n} | {avg severity} |
| Missing Definitions | {n} | {avg severity} |
| Poor Self-Containment | {n} | {avg severity} |
| Structural Issues | {n} | {avg severity} |
| Weak Answer Blocks | {n} | {avg severity} |

## Rewrites

{All paragraph rewrites from Phase 3}

## Full Rewritten Content

{Complete content with all rewrites applied, ready to copy-paste}
```

### 4.2 Print Summary

```
Content Fix: {title or domain}

Paragraphs: {total} analyzed, {n} rewritten
Hedge Density: {before}% → {after}% (target: < 0.5%)
Citability Score: {before}/100 → {after}/100 (estimated)

Top issues:
  1. {issue description} ({n} instances)
  2. {issue description} ({n} instances)
  3. {issue description} ({n} instances)

Output: content-fix-{domain}-{date}.md
```

---

## Quality Gates

1. **Meaning preservation** — Rewrites must not change the author's intent or claims
2. **Data integrity** — Never invent statistics; use `[TODO: ...]` placeholders for missing data
3. **Tone consistency** — Match the original content's tone (formal/casual/technical)
4. **Language matching** — Rewrite in the same language as the original content
5. **No over-optimization** — Content should still read naturally, not like keyword stuffing
6. **Rate limiting** — 1 second between requests when fetching URLs
7. **Maximum scope** — Analyze up to 50 paragraphs per run; suggest splitting for longer content