SEO depth plan — flagship
Evidence-backed organic plan for codevetter.com: publish verifiable benchmark receipts, deepen competitor comparisons, expand the xray demo library.
CodeVetter SEO depth plan — flagship
Source of truth: ~/.fleet ledgers via seo-scoreboard.mjs (28-day window ending
2026-09-18): 403 imp · 2 clicks · avg pos 37 — Google associates us with
the right queries but ranks us page 5–9.
What the queries say
| Query | Imp | Pos | Intent |
|---|---|---|---|
| ai code review benchmark | 1 | 75 | eval comparison — wants real numbers |
| ai code validation / verification | 44 | 76–89 | category-defining searches — we own this framing |
| codexglue benchmark | 3 | 50 | named-benchmark lookup — we should BE this |
| code evaluator / check if code is ai | 2 | 62–77 | adjacent, weaker fit |
The queries at pos 50–90 are exactly the category CodeVetter defines (“verification, not another LLM opinion”). Nobody ranks a page without authority there — the moat is verifiable evidence nobody else can publish.
The play: become the evidence source, not another comparison page
/codevetter-vs-*, /verify-ai-generated-code, /xray/* already exist.
The gap is that they assert instead of prove. Depth = real artifacts:
Phase 1 — publish real benchmark evidence (highest leverage)
- Repo already has
benchmarks/+evidence/+/benchmark/optimization/*pages running fleet products through the verifier. Publish the corpus as a first-class, citable artifact:codevetter.com/benchmarks/<suite>with the raw evidence bundle linked (the.jsonreceipt is the differentiator — “here is the proof, verify it yourself”). - One “AI code review benchmark” page: run the same task set through the verifier, publish pass/fail evidence per finding class. This is the page “ai code review benchmark” and “codexglue benchmark” are looking for. It only wins if the numbers are real — do not publish synthetic results.
Phase 2 — deepen the vs-pages with receipts
codevetter-vs-coderabbit,codevetter-vs-greptile: add a concrete verdict section — “what each tool can prove vs. claim” with one worked example per competitor (an AI-written bug each tool missed or caught, with the evidence bundle attached). Opinionated is fine; fabricated is fatal./ai-code-review-vs-verification→ expand into the category pillar (“verification vs review” glossary + decision guide).
Phase 3 — xray demo library as the long tail
/xray/*pages are the proof-of-product. Expand to one demo per bug class CodeVetter catches (race conditions, injection, auth bypass, flaky tests) — each with the failing trace and the verification receipt. These pages are what engineers link to.
Phase 4 — indexing follow-through
- 67 queued URLs churn via the daily agent; homepage is indexed. Watch
pnpm --dir site-health indexing status --project codevetterweekly and investigate coverage states that readDiscovered — currently not indexedon the new evidence pages (they signal “Google saw it, didn’t think it was worth it” = deepen the page).
Rules
- Every claim needs a runnable receipt or a link to the evidence bundle. Marketing copy without proof is exactly what CodeVetter exists to distrust.
- Don’t chase “ai code review” head terms yet — own “verification/evidence/ benchmark for coding agents” first; the review crowd follows.
- Register every shipped page:
seo-scoreboard.mjs register --project codevetter --lane editorial|programmatic --summary "…" --target <url>.