Hoo Weekly

---
name: hoo-weekly
description: Use for the weekly health check + reflection - "run the weekly", scheduled weekly routine. Runs analytics-reporting-chief and serp-ai-monitor, then hands the week to the reflector.
---

# Weekly check

Resolve the brain: use registry.get_active() when running interactively;
scheduled runs receive the brain path from the routine configuration.

0. Run `core.contracts.check_schema(brain_path)` first. If not compatible,
   relay the action string and stop before any of the steps below.

1. Read profile. Launch analytics-reporting-chief and serp-ai-monitor agents
   (parallel) with the profile path.
2. Save their reports under runs/YYYYMMDD-weekly/ (01-analytics.md,
   02-serp-ai.md, REPORT.md synthesis).
3. Append the week's headline observations as signals. Include the
   week-over-week `ai_referrals` trend read from the week's daily signal
   lines (the AI-surface list is maintained in hoo-daily's SKILL.md -
   quote it, never extend it here); days without an `ai_referrals` line
   are stated as gaps, never interpolated. A sustained rise on a single
   landing page (3 or more of the week's daily lines) feeds the citation
   tracker: name the page in REPORT.md so the next citation run checks
   whether a new AI citation explains the traffic.
3.5. Stage classification. Build rows from this run's GSC page/query pull
   (one dict per query: clicks, impressions, position, plus query and page
   where the pull has them) and call `core.stage.classify(rows)`:
   `PYTHONPATH="$CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/lib" python3 -c "..."` importing
   `core.stage`. The thresholds live in that module and are never
   restated here (see docs/INFORMATION-MAP.md in the repo). Record the
   result as ONE structured signal line - the exact token
   `stage: <early|growing|established>` followed by the returned reason
   sentence - and repeat it as the first line of REPORT.md. No GSC pull
   this run means no `stage:` line at all, never a guessed one.
   GROWING or ESTABLISHED: every section below runs exactly as it runs
   today; this step changes nothing for a site that has clicks. EARLY:
   run the early-stage report below in place of the three volume-gated
   detectors.
4. Invoke the organic-os:hoo-reflector skill to propose skillbook deltas from
   this week's signals + outcomes.
5. Queue any proposed work items; rebuild queue; notify per approval channel
   with one call:
   `PYTHONPATH="$CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT/lib" python3 -c "..."` importing
   `core.approval` and calling `notify_pending(<brain>, send)`, where `send`
   delivers over the configured channel (same channel selection as
   skills/onsite-propose step 4). An item is marked notified ONLY after its
   send returns without raising, so a failed send is retried on the next run
   rather than lost. Do not call `is_notified` or `mark_notified` by hand.
   Commit + push if git.

Any content brief this run emits for comparison-intent queries (vs,
alternative, best X for) sets `brief_type="comparison"` on `create_item`;
absence means explainer (see docs/site-repo-contract.md).

Run cost: wrapper-invoked runs land one row in
`~/.config/organic-os/cost-ledger-YYYYMM.tsv` (written by the runtime
wrapper, never by this skill); the Monday report is what surfaces it.

## Keyword portfolio

Runs when the GSC connector is reachable AND keywords/tracking.yaml has
entries. Either one missing: skip and note it as one line in REPORT.md
("keyword portfolio: skipped, no GSC connector" / "keyword portfolio:
skipped, no tracked keywords") instead of guessing.

1. For each tracked keyword, pull the last-28-day GSC average position,
   clicks, and impressions for queries matching the tracked term.
2. Append one history line per keyword to `keywords/history.tsv`
   (create it with its header row if absent): date, keyword, position,
   clicks, impressions - tab-separated, append-only, never edited (see
   docs/site-repo-contract.md). A keyword with zero impressions has an
   unknown position: record the row with clicks and impressions 0 and
   the position field EMPTY - absent, never guessed.
3. Report movement vs the previous recorded week in REPORT.md: for each
   keyword with a prior history line, one line - position now, position
   then, the delta, and the clicks/impressions direction. First-ever
   run: state that history starts today; there is no movement to report.
4. The biggest mover (either direction, by absolute position change)
   gets one line in the Monday report's What moved section - the Monday
   report reads it from the history file and this run's REPORT.md (see
   skills/hoo-monday-report).

THE HONESTY RULE, stated here and repeated in every output that quotes
these numbers: this is GSC average position for queries matching the
tracked term - real user impressions, not a scraped SERP snapshot
(docs/adr/0006 in the repo: no scraping; GSC is the licensed data).
Positions for keywords with zero impressions are unknown, recorded as
absent, never guessed.

## Attribution, for every detector below

The attribution rule is canonical in hoo-daily's anomaly section (step
2.7); it binds the three detectors below without restatement. In short: a
cause may not be asserted without naming the comparison that was actually
run, and every causal claim carries the claim, the comparison performed,
and what would falsify it. Where the comparison was not run, the signal
records `cause: unknown (no <comparison> run)` instead of a likely story.
A named diagnosis that no one checked is worse than an admitted unknown,
because the next run treats it as settled.

## Early-stage report

Runs in place of the three detectors below when step 3.5 classified the
site EARLY and this run pulled any impressions. Those detectors all gate
on click or impression volume, which is precisely the signal a new site
does not have yet, so on an EARLY site they return nothing and the week
reads as silence. It is not silence: position is readable from day one.

1. Call `core.stage.early_opportunities(rows)` on the same rows step 3.5
   built. In REPORT.md and as signals, report how many queries the site
   is visible for and across how many pages, then one line per returned
   opportunity: query | page | position | impressions | band | the lever
   from the note. The note names the lever; it never claims a position
   change will follow, the same discipline the attribution rule above
   enforces on causes.
2. State the expectation plainly: zero clicks at these positions is
   normal and not a fault. Nothing is being ranked and skipped over;
   there is nothing high enough yet to be clicked.
3. Say what would change the picture, naming this week's specific pages
   and queries rather than generic advice: title and description work on
   the `top` band, on-page work on `page-two`, depth or authority on
   `visible`, and time - indexing and position move over weeks.
4. Name the dormant detectors and the threshold that activates each, one
   summary line in REPORT.md, so the operator knows why three sections
   below are empty:
   - striking distance: positions 4.0-15.0 with impressions above the
     site's median impressions for the period.
   - cannibalization: two pages each earning impressions on one query.
   - content decay: 50 or more clicks on a page in the older 28-day
     window.
5. Week-over-week progress is the headline at this stage, so state it:
   new queries the site became visible for since last week, and any
   opportunity that changed band. First run on an EARLY site: say that
   the comparison starts this week rather than implying movement.

Classified EARLY with zero impressions: skip this section and note it in
REPORT.md as one line ("early-stage report: skipped, no impressions
yet"). There are no positions to band.

## Striking distance

EARLY site (step 3.5): dormant, see the early-stage report above.

1. Pull GSC queries for the last 28 days for the profile's site.
2. Filter to positions 4.0-15.0 with impressions above the site's median
   impressions for the period.
3. Group the filtered queries by landing page.
4. For the top 5 opportunities, write one P2 signal per opportunity in
   falsifiable form: query | page | position | impressions | leading
   indicator to watch. Any reason offered for why a page sits stuck at
   that position - thin content, missing internal links, a stronger
   competitor - names the comparison that produced it (the pages
   actually inspected, the link graph actually read). No comparison, no
   reason: write `cause: unknown` and let the opportunity stand on the
   numbers, which are enough to justify the work.
5. Where a single page carries 2+ striking-distance queries, `create_item(
   kind="onpage-fix", ...)` naming the specific on-page focus (the queries
   it should consolidate around) - gated through the approval queue like
   every other proposal, never applied directly.

No GSC connector: skip this section and note it as one line in REPORT.md
("striking distance: skipped, no GSC connector") instead of guessing.

## Cannibalization

EARLY site (step 3.5): dormant, see the early-stage report above.

1. From the same 28-day GSC query pull, find queries where two or more
   pages each earned impressions and neither holds a stable majority
   (guideline: the second page carries 20% or more of the query's
   impressions).
2. For the top 3 offending queries by total impressions, write one P2
   signal each: the query, both pages with their positions, the
   impression split between them, the comparison that produced the
   diagnosis (the per-page impression split across the same 28-day pull,
   named explicitly), and the falsifiability check - "if consolidating
   did not lift the primary page's position within 28 days, the
   diagnosis was wrong." Cannibalization is a claim about two pages
   competing; without the split actually computed for both, it is a
   guess and the signal says `cause: unknown` instead.
3. Where a page on this list also appears in the striking-distance list
   above, note the linkage in the signal: cannibalization is often the
   blocker behind a stuck striking-distance position, not a content or
   authority gap.
4. For the single clearest case (largest impression split, most obvious
   primary-page pick), `create_item(kind="onpage-fix", ...)` naming the
   recommended consolidation direction - canonical tag, 301 redirect, or
   content merge - as a proposal item, gated through the approval queue
   like every other proposal, never applied directly. At most 1 gated
   proposal from this section per run.

No GSC connector: skip this section and note it as one line in REPORT.md
("cannibalization: skipped, no GSC connector") instead of guessing.

## Content decay

EARLY site (step 3.5): dormant, see the early-stage report above.

1. Pull each page's GSC clicks for the last 28 days and for the same
   page's 28-day window starting 90 days prior - two date-windowed pulls,
   not a single trend line.
2. Flag pages with a 30% or greater click decline between the two windows
   AND at least 50 clicks in the older window (noise floor - a 5-click
   page swinging 30% is not a signal).
3. For the top 3 flagged pages by absolute click loss, write one P2
   signal each: the page, both window values, the decline percent, and a
   cause line naming the comparison behind it. The comparison here is
   position-vs-CTR movement across the same two windows - position fell
   = ranking problem; position held but CTR fell = SERP feature
   intrusion or title/meta staleness. Name which one the data points to
   AND state that this is the comparison that produced it. If position
   and CTR were not both pulled for both windows, the comparison did not
   happen: record `cause: unknown (position-vs-CTR not pulled for both
   windows)` and report the decline on its own.
4. For the single clearest case, `create_item(kind="content-brief", ...)`
   as a refresh brief - target the decayed page, cite the decline and the
   likely-cause hypothesis, and let it move through the normal brief
   lifecycle (approve -> skills/ce-produce -> skills/onsite-publish). At
   most 1 gated proposal from this section per run; never drafted or
   applied directly.

No GSC connector: skip this section and note it as one line in REPORT.md
("content decay: skipped, no GSC connector") instead of guessing.

## Mention opportunities

Runs after the detectors above, capped at roughly 10 minutes of work per
run - this is a sample, not a census.

1. From the profile take the top 3 topics (keywords.targets, file order)
   and the top 2 competitors (competitors, file order).
2. Via WebSearch, sample where the brand and those competitors are
   mentioned across public surfaces for those topics - industry
   roundups, comparison posts, community threads. Record per surface:
   URL, does the brand appear, does each competitor appear.
   WebSearch/WebFetch of public pages within the session is the
   sanctioned mechanism (docs/adr/0006 in the repo, same as the
   citation tracker); never scrape engines or third-party tools.
3. For each surface where a competitor appears and the brand does not,
   write one P3 signal in falsifiable form: the surface | why it
   matters (one line: what the surface answers and for whom) | the
   falsifiability check - "if a mention landed here does not show up in
   AI answers or referral traffic within 90 days, this surface mattered
   less than it looked."
4. At most ONE outreach proposal per run: for the single best-fit gap,
   `create_item(kind="strategy", ...)` naming the target surface, the
   angle (why that editor or thread would plausibly include the brand),
   and the existing asset to reference (a page, a tool, a data point
   already published - never one to be invented). Gated through the
   approval queue like every other proposal; a human executes the
   outreach. This skill NEVER contacts anyone - no emails, no form
   fills, no posts, no DMs.
5. Rationale line, carried next to this section's output in REPORT.md:
   brand mentions correlate roughly 3x more strongly with AI visibility
   than backlinks do, per Ahrefs' 75,000-brand study
   (https://ahrefs.com/blog/ai-brand-visibility-correlations/).
6. Sampling caveat, same discipline as the AI-visibility baseline:
   state which surfaces this session actually reached, and never let
   the report imply broader coverage than that.

No web access this session: skip this section and note it as one line
in REPORT.md ("mention opportunities: skipped, no web access") instead
of guessing.