lemuriaOS
seoseoanalyticsgrowth

SEO Automation Workflow Design

Design SEO automation workflows for repeatable tasks like rank tracking, content scoring, redirect management, and reporting, with human review gates for quality control.

Context

Use this when an SEO operation has grown beyond what manual processes can sustain. Common automation targets: rank tracking alerts, content freshness scoring, redirect chain detection, broken link monitoring, and automated reporting. The key design principle: automate monitoring and alerting freely, but gate any content-modifying actions behind human review.

Procedure

  1. Inventory current manual SEO workflows: list every recurring task, its frequency, and time cost.
  2. Classify each workflow: monitoring (read-only), alerting (notification), or action (modifies content/config).
  3. Design automation spec for each workflow: trigger condition, automated steps, output, and gate placement.
  4. For action workflows: define the human review gate (who reviews, approval criteria, SLA).
  5. For monitoring workflows: define alert thresholds and notification channels.
  6. Specify tool integrations required for each workflow.
  7. Design kill-switch and rollback procedure for each automation.

Output Format

# SEO Automation Design: [Site/Team]

## Workflow Inventory
| # | Workflow | Type | Current Frequency | Time Cost | Automate? |
|---|---------|------|-------------------|-----------|-----------|
| 1 | | Monitor/Alert/Action | Weekly | Xh | Yes/No |

## Automation Specs

### Workflow: [Name]
- Type: [Monitor/Alert/Action]
- Trigger: [condition or schedule]
- Steps:
  1. [Automated step]
  2. [Automated step]
  3. [Human gate: reviewer approves/rejects]
  4. [Execution if approved]
- Output: [report/alert/content change]
- Tools: [integrations needed]
- Kill-switch: [how to stop immediately]
- Rollback: [how to undo if something goes wrong]

## Human Review Gates
| Workflow | Gate Placement | Reviewer | Approval Criteria | SLA |
|---------|---------------|----------|-------------------|-----|
| | Before [action] | [Role] | [Criteria] | [Time] |

## Alert Thresholds
| Monitor | Metric | Warning | Critical | Channel |
|---------|--------|---------|----------|---------|
| Rank tracker | Position drop | > 5 positions | > 10 positions | Slack/Email |

## Kill-Switch Registry
| Automation | Kill-Switch Method | Rollback Procedure |
|-----------|-------------------|-------------------|
| | [Disable in tool/remove cron/toggle flag] | [Revert via X] |

QA Rubric (scored)

  • Gate placement (0-5): every content-modifying automation has a human review gate.
  • Threshold definition (0-5): alert thresholds are specific and calibrated to actual risk.
  • Kill-switch coverage (0-5): every automation has a documented stop and rollback procedure.
  • Tool feasibility (0-5): required integrations are realistic with the current tool stack.

Examples (good/bad)

  • Good: "Workflow: Automated redirect chain detection. Trigger: weekly crawl. Steps: 1) Crawl all URLs, 2) Flag redirect chains > 2 hops, 3) Generate fix list, 4) Human review, 5) Implement approved fixes. Kill-switch: disable weekly cron job."
  • Bad: "Automate everything." (no specific workflows, no gates, no risk assessment)

Variants

  • Monitoring-first variant: automate tracking and alerting only (zero risk, immediate value).
  • Full automation variant: monitoring + alerting + gated content actions with human review at every modification point.