Content Quality Auditor

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 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 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

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 Repeat the same table format for O (Organization), R (Referenceability), and E (Exclusivity), scoring all 10 items per dimension.

Step 3: EEAT Audit (40 items)

### Exp — Experience | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | **Exp Score**: [X]/100 Repeat the same table format for Ept (Expertise), A (Authority), and T (Trust), scoring all 10 items per dimension. See references/item-reference.md for the complete 80-item ID lookup table and site-level item handling notes.

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

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

See references/item-reference.md for a complete scored example showing the C dimension with all 10 items, priority improvements, and weighted scoring.

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 references/item-reference.md — All 80 item IDs in a compact lookup table + site-level item handling notes + scored example report

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)