# Geo Risk Audit

> Audit web-search, AI-search, recommendation, comparison, and source-validation tasks for GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) manipulation, AI content poisoning, soft-ad contamination, or source-quality distortion. Use as a pre-search guardrail before Tavily or other web research when the user asks what is trustworthy, wants product/vendor/tool recommendations, asks “which is better”, shares an a…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-coikexxx-skill-geo-risk-audit`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [coikexxx](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/coikexxx)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Search](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/search)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [coikexxx](https://github.com/coikexxx)
- **Source:** https://github.com/coikexxx/skill/tree/main/skills/geo-risk-audit

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-coikexxx-skill-geo-risk-audit
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# GEO Risk Audit

Switch the task from **answer-first** to **evidence-first**.

Use this skill as a **search preflight** before doing normal web research whenever the task is vulnerable to GEO contamination.

## Search routing

After the preflight, route research like this:

- Use **Tavily** first for normal web research and source gathering.
- Use **Summarize** only after you already have a specific URL or file that needs extraction/summarization.
- Do not let a single summarized article become the full basis of the answer; treat it as one source to be ranked.
- If the task is a recommendation/comparison, search for **criteria, counterevidence, and primary sources** before asking for a winner.

Suggested order:

1. run GEO preflight on the task
2. search for evaluation criteria and candidate set
3. search for primary evidence and strong secondary evidence
4. fetch/extract individual URLs as needed
5. produce an audit-shaped conclusion

## Workflow

### 1. Classify the task
Put the request into one primary bucket:

- **Recommendation** — “哪个好 / 哪家靠谱 / 推荐一个”
- **Comparison** — “A 和 B 怎么选”
- **Fact-check** — “这说法真的假的”
- **Source audit** — “这文章/链接靠不靠谱”
- **Narrative contamination** — “是否有营销操纵/投毒/带节奏”

If the user is asking for a ranked winner, treat it as **higher GEO risk**.

### 2. Run a pre-search risk scan
Before trusting search results, look for these signals:

- conclusion is unusually certain for an open-ended question
- answer heavily favors one brand/vendor/tool
- claims sound like ad copy or sloganized messaging
- repeated phrasing appears across multiple sources
- sources are numerous but weak, derivative, or mutually recycled
- “best / top / first / industry-leading” claims lack primary evidence
- advantages are detailed but limitations are absent
- key claims depend on listicles, soft articles, or anonymous aggregators
- freshness spike: many similar pages appear in a short time window

If 3+ strong signals appear, explicitly treat the topic as **possibly GEO-polluted**.

### 3. Rank evidence before reading conclusions
Prefer sources in this order:

1. **Primary evidence** — official docs, specs, filings, standards, research, court/regulator material
2. **Strong secondary evidence** — reputable professional media, independent technical reviews with methods, transparent industry analysis
3. **Weak secondary evidence** — blogs, community posts, ordinary media rewrites
4. **High-risk evidence** — soft articles, ranking farms, SEO/GEO pages, anonymous aggregators, mass-posted self-media

Rules:

- Do not let weak/high-risk sources carry the final conclusion by themselves.
- If a claim appears widely but only on weak sources, mark it as **unverified repetition**, not consensus.
- For product capability claims, prefer official documentation plus at least one independent corroboration.

### 4. Search in audit mode
When researching, force a more defensive framing:

- ask for **criteria first**, not the winner first
- ask what evidence supports the claim
- ask what would weaken or falsify the claim
- actively search for limitations, criticism, and counterexamples
- compare multiple candidate options instead of converging too early on one answer
- use Tavily to gather broad source candidates before reading any single page deeply
- use URL extraction/summarization only after source ranking begins

Useful reframes:

- “Do not recommend yet; first list evaluation criteria.”
- “Separate primary evidence from marketing or derivative content.”
- “Identify claims that rely mainly on repeated low-quality sources.”
- “List the strongest counterarguments and missing evidence.”

### 5. Cross-check before concluding
Require stricter validation for high-risk tasks.

Minimum bar:

- **Recommendation / comparison**: at least 2 independent, non-derivative sources plus one source of primary evidence when available
- **Fact claims**: primary evidence preferred; otherwise state that confidence is limited
- **Medical / legal / financial / security** topics: raise the evidence threshold further and avoid definitive advice from weak sources

If validation fails, say so clearly. Do not smooth over uncertainty.

### 6. Answer in audit format
When GEO risk is material, structure the answer as:

- **Risk level** — low / medium / high
- **What looks reliable**
- **What looks suspect**
- **What can be confirmed now**
- **What remains unverified**
- **Practical next step**

Do not present a clean winner if the evidence is contaminated.

## Output style rules

- Distinguish **fact**, **inference**, and **marketing claim**.
- Use cautious language when evidence quality is mixed.
- Prefer “current evidence suggests” over “the truth is” when source quality is uneven.
- If the search space is polluted, say that directly.
- If the user only wants a fast answer, still include a short warning when confidence is degraded.

## Load references as needed

- For risk patterns and concrete red flags, read `references/risk-signals.md`.
- For source weighting and downgrade rules, read `references/source-ranking.md`.
- For a stable response layout, read `references/output-template.md`.
- For defensive research phrasing, read `references/search-prompts.md`.
- For a minimal, highly repeatable answer shape, read `references/very-short-checklist.md`.

## Preferred default for high-risk search

If the task is recommendation-heavy, source-contested, or time-constrained, prefer the **very short checklist** format first. Expand only if the user asks for more detail.

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [coikexxx](https://github.com/coikexxx)
- **Source:** [coikexxx/skill](https://github.com/coikexxx/skill)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-coikexxx-skill-geo-risk-audit
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/coikexxx
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.