[dknauss]

Requested by Dan · project thread

Summary

• What changed? Borges's wpseo_schema_article and wpseo_schema_webpage filters now take the post from the Meta Tags Context that Yoast passes with each piece, and fall back to the queried post only when the context has no post. bibliography_builder_json_ld_page_url() takes an optional post, and passes it to the bibliography_builder_json_ld_page_url filter as a second argument.
• Why was this change needed? Borges found the post through the main query (is_singular() / get_queried_object()), so a graph Yoast built for some other caller came back without the citation edge. NLWeb's WordPress plugin is one such caller. It calls YoastSEO()->meta->for_post() to answer agents over MCP. On a local WordPress 7.1 + Yoast SEO 28.8 + NLWeb site, its ask answer for the fixture post had 0 citations before this change and 12 after. The page's own JSON-LD and Yoast's schema aggregator (/wp-json/yoast/v1/schema-aggregator/…) already had all 12, because both set up the global query state.

I found this while tracing citation metadata through Yoast and NLWeb (the study PR follows separately). I didn't touch the Rank Math path. Its rank_math/json_ld filter has the same reliance on the main query, but I haven't tested it with a Rank Math caller outside the page request.

Validation

• composer test:php passes: 714 tests. The new test_yoast_pieces_read_the_post_from_yoast_context fails on main and passes here.
• phpcs is clean on the changed files
• Psalm not run locally: it needs PHP ≥ 8.3.16 and the container has 8.3.6, so CI will run it
• Checked live: an NLWeb MCP tools/call ask against a local site now returns the Article with its citation list
• JS is unchanged, so the JS lint, test and build items don't apply

Checklist

• No linked issue. This came out of the Yoast/NLWeb trace Andrey suggested, which follows the markup-value study (Add tools/markup-value: measure what Borges markup gives machines #203)
• No sensitive details disclosed publicly

---

Generated by Claude Code

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 68.42105% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 88.68%. Comparing base (ba065eb) to head (4b9063b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
includes/json-ld-enrichment.php	68.42%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               main     #252      +/-   ##
============================================
+ Coverage     88.64%   88.68%   +0.03%     
  Complexity       67       67              
============================================
  Files           102      102              
  Lines         10968    10982      +14     
  Branches        962      962              
============================================
+ Hits           9723     9739      +16     
+ Misses          447      445       -2     
  Partials        798      798              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[dknauss]

@codex review

---

Generated by Claude Code

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-11-06T17:24:14.892871Z	4b9063b	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Swish!

Reviewed commit: 4b9063bb52

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".