Content Quality Auditor Skill

Content Quality Auditor

Based on CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark. Full benchmark reference: references/core-eeat-benchmark.md

SEO & GEO Skills Library · 20 skills for SEO + GEO · Install all: npx skills add aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills

<details> <summary>Browse all 20 skills</summary>

Research · keyword-research · competitor-analysis · serp-analysis · content-gap-analysis

Build · seo-content-writer · geo-content-optimizer · meta-tags-optimizer · schema-markup-generator

Optimize · on-page-seo-auditor · technical-seo-checker · internal-linking-optimizer · content-refresher

Monitor · rank-tracker · backlink-analyzer · performance-reporter · alert-manager

Cross-cutting · content-quality-auditor · domain-authority-auditor · entity-optimizer · memory-management

</details>

This skill evaluates content quality across 80 standardized criteria organized in 8 dimensions. It produces a comprehensive audit report with per-item scoring, dimension and system scores, weighted totals by content type, and a prioritized action plan.

When to Use This Skill

Auditing content quality before publishing
Evaluating existing content for improvement opportunities
Benchmarking content against CORE-EEAT standards
Comparing content quality against competitors
Assessing both GEO readiness (AI citation potential) and SEO strength (source credibility)
Running periodic content quality checks as part of a content maintenance program
After writing or optimizing content with seo-content-writer or geo-content-optimizer

What This Skill Does

Full 80-Item Audit: Scores every CORE-EEAT check item as Pass/Partial/Fail
Dimension Scoring: Calculates scores for all 8 dimensions (0-100 each)
System Scoring: Computes GEO Score (CORE) and SEO Score (EEAT)
Weighted Totals: Applies content-type-specific weights for final score
Veto Detection: Flags critical trust violations (T04, C01, R10)
Priority Ranking: Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact
Action Plan: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps

How to Use

Audit Content

Audit this content against CORE-EEAT: [content text or URL]

Run a content quality audit on [URL] as a [content type]

Audit with Content Type

CORE-EEAT audit for this product review: [content]

Score this how-to guide against the 80-item benchmark: [content]

Comparative Audit

Audit my content vs competitor: [your content] vs [competitor content]

Data Sources

See CONNECTORS.md for tool category placeholders.

With ~~web crawler + ~~SEO tool connected: Automatically fetch page content, extract HTML structure, check schema markup, verify internal/external links, and pull competitor content for comparison.

With manual data only: Ask the user to provide:

Content text, URL, or file path
Content type (if not auto-detectable): Product Review, How-to Guide, Comparison, Landing Page, Blog Post, FAQ Page, Alternative, Best-of, or Testimonial
Optional: competitor content for benchmarking

Proceed with the full 80-item audit using provided data. Note in the output which items could not be fully evaluated due to missing access (e.g., backlink data, schema markup, site-level signals).

Instructions

When a user requests a content quality audit:

Step 1: Preparation

### Audit Setup

**Content**: [title or URL]
**Content Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [loaded from content-type weight table]

#### Veto Check (Emergency Brake)

| Veto Item | Status | Action |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| T04: Disclosure Statements | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Add disclosure banner at page top immediately"] |
| C01: Intent Alignment | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Rewrite title and first paragraph"] |
| R10: Content Consistency | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Verify all data before publishing"] |

If any veto item triggers, flag it prominently at the top of the report and recommend immediate action before continuing the full audit.

Step 2: CORE Audit (40 items)

Evaluate each item against the criteria in references/core-eeat-benchmark.md.

Score each item:

Pass = 10 points (fully meets criteria)
Partial = 5 points (partially meets criteria)
Fail = 0 points (does not meet criteria)

### C — Contextual Clarity

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| C02 | Direct Answer | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| C10 | Semantic Closure | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |

**C Score**: [X]/100

### O — Organization

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| O01 | Heading Hierarchy | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**O Score**: [X]/100

### R — Referenceability

[Same format]

**R Score**: [X]/100

### E — Exclusivity

[Same format]

**E Score**: [X]/100

Step 3: EEAT Audit (40 items)

Same format for Exp, Ept, A, T dimensions.

### Exp — Experience

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Exp Score**: [X]/100

### Ept — Expertise
[Same format]

### A — Authority
[Same format]

### T — Trust
[Same format]

Complete Item Reference

| ID | Item | ID | Item | |----|------|----|------| | C01 | Intent Alignment | Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | | C02 | Direct Answer | Exp02 | Sensory Details | | C03 | Query Coverage | Exp03 | Process Documentation | | C04 | Definition First | Exp04 | Tangible Proof | | C05 | Topic Scope | Exp05 | Usage Duration | | C06 | Audience Targeting | Exp06 | Problems Encountered | | C07 | Semantic Coherence | Exp07 | Before/After Comparison | | C08 | Use Case Mapping | Exp08 | Quantified Metrics | | C09 | FAQ Coverage | Exp09 | Repeated Testing | | C10 | Semantic Closure | Exp10 | Limitations Acknowledged | | O01 | Heading Hierarchy | Ept01 | Author Identity | | O02 | Summary Box | Ept02 | Credentials Display | | O03 | Data Tables | Ept03 | Professional Vocabulary | | O04 | List Formatting | Ept04 | Technical Depth | | O05 | Schema Markup | Ept05 | Methodology Rigor | | O06 | Section Chunking | Ept06 | Edge Case Awareness | | O07 | Visual Hierarchy | Ept07 | Historical Context | | O08 | Anchor Navigation | Ept08 | Reasoning Transparency | | O09 | Information Density | Ept09 | Cross-domain Integration | | O10 | Multimedia Structure | Ept10 | Editorial Process | | R01 | Data Precision | A01 | Backlink Profile | | R02 | Citation Density | A02 | Media Mentions | | R03 | Source Hierarchy | A03 | Industry Awards | | R04 | Evidence-Claim Mapping | A04 | Publishing Record | | R05 | Methodology Transparency | A05 | Brand Recognition | | R06 | Timestamp & Versioning | A06 | Social Proof | | R07 | Entity Precision | A07 | Knowledge Graph Presence | | R08 | Internal Link Graph | A08 | Entity Consistency | | R09 | HTML Semantics | A09 | Partnership Signals | | R10 | Content Consistency | A10 | Community Standing | | E01 | Original Data | T01 | Legal Compliance | | E02 | Novel Framework | T02 | Contact Transparency | | E03 | Primary Research | T03 | Security Standards | | E04 | Contrarian View | T04 | Disclosure Statements | | E05 | Proprietary Visuals | T05 | Editorial Policy | | E06 | Gap Filling | T06 | Correction & Update Policy | | E07 | Practical Tools | T07 | Ad Experience | | E08 | Depth Advantage | T08 | Risk Disclaimers | | E09 | Synthesis Value | T09 | Review Authenticity | | E10 | Forward Insights | T10 | Customer Support |

Note on site-level items: Most Authority items (A01-A10) and several Trust items (T01-T03, T05, T07, T10) require site-level or organization-level data that may not be observable from a single page. When auditing a standalone page without site context, mark these as "N/A — requires site-level data" and exclude from the dimension average.

Step 4: Scoring & Report

Calculate scores and generate the final report:

## CORE-EEAT Audit Report

### Overview

- **Content**: [title]
- **Content Type**: [type]
- **Audit Date**: [date]
- **Total Score**: [score]/100 ([rating])
- **GEO Score**: [score]/100 | **SEO Score**: [score]/100
- **Veto Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ [item] triggered

### Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| C — Contextual Clarity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| O — Organization | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| R — Referenceability | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| E — Exclusivity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| Exp — Experience | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| Ept — Expertise | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| A — Authority | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| T — Trust | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| **Weighted Total** | | | | **[X]/100** |

**Score Calculation**:
- GEO Score = (C + O + R + E) / 4
- SEO Score = (Exp + Ept + A + T) / 4
- Weighted Score = Σ (dimension_score × content_type_weight)

**Rating Scale**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Medium | 40-59 Low | 0-39 Poor

### N/A Item Handling

When an item cannot be evaluated (e.g., A01 Backlink Profile requires site-level data not available):

1. Mark the item as "N/A" with reason
2. Exclude N/A items from the dimension score calculation
3. Dimension Score = (sum of scored items) / (number of scored items x 10) x 100
4. If more than 50% of a dimension's items are N/A, flag the dimension as "Insufficient Data" and exclude it from the weighted total
5. Recalculate weighted total using only dimensions with sufficient data, re-normalizing weights to sum to 100%

**Example**: Authority dimension with 8 N/A items and 2 scored items (A05=8, A07=5):
- Dimension score = (8+5) / (2 x 10) x 100 = 65
- But 8/10 items are N/A (>50%), so flag as "Insufficient Data -- Authority"
- Exclude A dimension from weighted total; redistribute its weight proportionally to remaining dimensions

### Per-Item Scores

#### CORE — Content Body (40 Items)

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| C02 | Direct Answer | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

#### EEAT — Source Credibility (40 Items)

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

### Top 5 Priority Improvements

Sorted by: weight × points lost (highest impact first)

1. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]

2. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]

3–5. [Same format]

### Action Plan

#### Quick Wins (< 30 minutes each)
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]

#### Medium Effort (1-2 hours)
- [ ] [Action 3]
- [ ] [Action 4]

#### Strategic (Requires planning)
- [ ] [Action 5]
- [ ] [Action 6]

### Recommended Next Steps

- For full content rewrite: use [seo-content-writer](../../build/seo-content-writer/) with CORE-EEAT constraints
- For GEO optimization: use [geo-content-optimizer](../../build/geo-content-optimizer/) targeting failed GEO-First items
- For content refresh: use [content-refresher](../../optimize/content-refresher/) with weak dimensions as focus
- For technical fixes: run `/seo:check-technical` for site-level issues

Validation Checkpoints

Input Validation

[ ] Content source identified (text, URL, or file path)
[ ] Content type confirmed (auto-detected or user-specified)
[ ] Content is substantial enough for meaningful audit (≥300 words)
[ ] If comparative audit, competitor content also provided

Output Validation

[ ] All 80 items scored (or marked N/A with reason)
[ ] All 8 dimension scores calculated correctly
[ ] Weighted total matches content-type weight configuration
[ ] Veto items checked and flagged if triggered
[ ] Top 5 improvements sorted by weighted impact, not arbitrary
[ ] Every recommendation is specific and actionable (not generic advice)
[ ] Action plan includes concrete steps with effort estimates

Example

User: "Audit this blog post against CORE-EEAT: [paste of 'Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025']"

Output (partial -- showing one dimension to demonstrate format):

## CORE-EEAT Audit Report

### Overview

- **Content**: "Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025"
- **Content Type**: Blog Post / Comparison
- **Audit Date**: 2025-06-15
- **Veto Status**: No triggers

### C -- Contextual Clarity (scored dimension example)

| ID  | Check Item         | Score   | Points | Notes                                                       |
|-----|--------------------|---------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment   | Pass    | 10     | Matches "best X" comparison intent; title and body aligned  |
| C02 | Direct Answer      | Partial | 5      | Answer appears in first 300 words but no summary box        |
| C03 | Query Coverage     | Pass    | 10     | Covers "project management tools", "remote team software", "best PM tools" |
| C04 | Definition First   | Pass    | 10     | Key terms ("PM tool", "async collaboration") defined on first use |
| C05 | Topic Scope        | Partial | 5      | States what's covered but not what's excluded               |
| C06 | Audience Targeting | Pass    | 10     | Explicitly targets "remote team leads and managers"         |
| C07 | Semantic Coherence | Pass    | 10     | Logical flow: intro > criteria > tools > comparison > verdict |
| C08 | Use Case Mapping   | Pass    | 10     | Decision matrix for team size, budget, and features         |
| C09 | FAQ Coverage       | Fail    | 0      | No FAQ section despite long-tail potential ("free PM tools for small teams") |
| C10 | Semantic Closure   | Partial | 5      | Conclusion present but doesn't loop back to opening promise |

**C Dimension Score**: 75/100 (Good)
**Blog Post weight for C**: 25%
**Weighted contribution**: 18.75

#### Priority Improvements from C Dimension

1. **C09 FAQ Coverage** -- Add FAQ section with 3-5 long-tail questions
   - Current: Fail (0) | Potential gain: 2.5 weighted points
   - Action: Add FAQ with "Are there free PM tools for small remote teams?", "How to migrate between PM tools?", etc.

2. **C02 Direct Answer** -- Add a summary box above the fold
   - Current: Partial (5) | Potential gain: 1.25 weighted points
   - Action: Insert a "Top 3 Picks" callout box in the first 150 words

[... remaining 7 dimensions (O, R, E, Exp, Ept, A, T) follow the same per-item format ...]
[... then: Dimension Scores table, Top 5 Priority Improvements, Action Plan, Recommended Next Steps ...]

Tips for Success

Start with veto items — T04, C01, R10 are deal-breakers regardless of total score

These veto items are consistent with the CORE-EEAT benchmark (Section 3), which defines them as items that can override the overall score.
Focus on high-weight dimensions — Different content types prioritize different dimensions
GEO-First items matter most for AI visibility — Prioritize items tagged GEO 🎯 if AI citation is the goal
Some EEAT items need site-level data — Don't penalize content for things only observable at the site level (backlinks, brand recognition)
Use the weighted score, not just the raw average — A product review with strong Exclusivity matters more than strong Authority
Re-audit after improvements — Run again to verify score improvements and catch regressions
Pair with CITE for domain-level context — A high content score on a low-authority domain signals a different priority than the reverse; run domain-authority-auditor for the full 120-item picture

Reference Materials

CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark — Full 80-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, and GEO-First item markers

Related Skills

domain-authority-auditor — Domain-level CITE audit (40 items) — the sister skill for full 120-item assessment
seo-content-writer — Write content that scores high on CORE dimensions
geo-content-optimizer — Optimize for GEO-First items
content-refresher — Update content to improve weak dimensions
on-page-seo-auditor — Technical on-page audit (complements this skill)
technical-seo-checker — Technical signals contributing to trust dimension
internal-linking-optimizer — Linking quality signals for content audit
memory-management — Store audit results for tracking over time
entity-optimizer — Entity presence audit across Knowledge Graph and AI systems
performance-reporter — Track content quality trends over time

Agent Skills: Content Quality Auditor

Install this agent skill to your local

Skill Files