seo-helpful-content

name	seo-helpful-content
description	Pre-publish (or retroactive) content-quality gate implementing Google's official self-assessment questions from the creating-helpful-content doc, plus 2024 spam-policy red flags. Verdict: PUBLISH / REVISE / RETHINK. Use when user says "helpful content", "people-first", "content self-assessment", "is my content helpful", or "content quality gate".
allowed-tools	["Read","Bash","WebFetch"]

Helpful Content Gate (People-First Self-Assessment)

Implements Google's own self-assessment from https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content. Walk EVERY question with YES / NO / PARTIAL + one line of evidence from the content. Google also suggests getting an honest assessment from people unaffiliated with the site — this skill plays that role.

Inputs

• URL — WebFetch (fallback curl -sL), or
• Local file/draft — Read tool
• Optional context: site purpose, intended audience, whether AI assisted

Execution

1. Fetch/read the content; identify topic, format, and apparent audience.
2. Walk Section A (content & quality), Section B (expertise), Section C (people-first) — each answer YES/NO/PARTIAL + evidence quote.
3. Walk Section D (search-engine-first warning signs) — here YES answers are red flags.
4. Run Section E spam-policy screen (2024 policies).
5. If AI-assisted, apply the AI content rules.
6. Issue verdict with prioritized revision list.

Section A — Content and Quality Questions (Google's list)

• Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis?
• Does it provide a substantial, complete, or comprehensive description of the topic?
• Does it provide insightful analysis or interesting information beyond the obvious?
• If drawing on other sources, does it avoid simply copying/rewriting them and add substantial value and originality?
• Does the main heading or page title provide a descriptive, helpful summary?
• Does the heading/title avoid exaggerating or being shocking?
• Is this a page you'd bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
• Would you expect to see it referenced by a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book?
• Does it provide substantial value compared to other pages in search results?
• Is it free of spelling/stylistic issues?
• Is it produced well — not sloppy or hastily made?
• Is it NOT mass-produced/outsourced across many creators or sites such that pages don't get attention or care?

Section B — Expertise Questions (Google's list)

• Is information presented in a way that makes you want to trust it — clear sourcing, evidence of expertise, author/site background (author page, About page)?
• Would someone researching the site come away seeing it as well-trusted or widely recognized as an authority on its topic?
• Is it written or reviewed by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well?
• Is it free of easily-verified factual errors?

Section C — People-First Signals (YES = good)

• Existing/intended audience would find it useful coming directly to the site?
• Clearly demonstrates first-hand expertise and depth of knowledge (actually used the product/service, visited the place)?
• Does the site have a primary purpose or focus?
• Will readers leave feeling they've learned enough to achieve their goal?
• Will readers leave feeling they've had a satisfying experience?

Section D — Search-Engine-First Warning Signs (YES = red flag)

• Content primarily made to attract search engine visits?
• Producing lots of content on many topics hoping some performs?
• Using extensive automation to produce content on many topics?
• Mainly summarizing what others say without adding much value?
• Writing about things only because they're trending, not for your audience?
• Will readers need to search again for better information elsewhere?
• Writing to a word count because of a believed Google preference? (Google: there is no preferred word count.)
• Entered a niche with no real expertise, mainly for traffic?
• Promising an answer to a question that has no answer (e.g., unconfirmed release dates)?
• Changing dates to seem fresh without substantial content changes?
• Adding/removing lots of content mainly to seem "fresh" for rankings? (Google: it won't help.)

SEO itself is fine — people-first content plus SEO is Google's recommended combination; search-engine-first content is the problem.

Section E — Spam Policy Screen (2024 policies)

From https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies:

• Scaled content abuse: many pages generated primarily to manipulate rankings, not help users — regardless of how made (gen-AI without added value; scraped/synonymized/translated feeds; stitched content; multi-site networks hiding scale; keyword pages that make little sense to a reader).
• Site reputation abuse: third-party content published on a host mainly to exploit the host's established ranking signals (sponsored payday-loan reviews on an .edu, white-label coupons on a news site). NOT violations: wire services, syndicated news, genuine UGC/forums, editorial columns, advertorials meant for the publication's own readers, normal affiliate links.
• Expired domain abuse: repurposing an expired domain's history to host low-value content (casino content on a former school domain).

Any confirmed hit here = automatic RETHINK verdict.

AI-Generated / AI-Assisted Content

From https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content: automation is acceptable when people-first; using AI primarily to manipulate rankings violates the scaled content abuse policy. Check:

• Accuracy, quality, relevance — including auto-generated titles, meta descriptions, structured data, and alt text
• Context for users: disclose how automation was used where readers would reasonably ask "how was this created?" (the "How" from Who/How/Why)
• Ecommerce: Merchant Center requires IPTC DigitalSourceType TrainedAlgorithmicMedia metadata on AI-generated images, and AI-generated product data must be labeled

Output

## Helpful Content Gate — <URL or draft>

### A. Content & Quality        (12 questions)
| Question | Answer | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Original information/research? | YES/NO/PARTIAL | "..." |
... (every question, all sections)

### D. Search-Engine-First Flags: N raised
### E. Spam Policy Screen: CLEAR / VIOLATION (<policy>)
### AI content: N/A or compliant/issues

### Verdict: PUBLISH | REVISE | RETHINK
- PUBLISH — A/B/C mostly YES, ≤2 PARTIALs, no D flags, E clear
- REVISE  — fixable gaps: list revisions in priority order
- RETHINK — multiple D flags or any E violation; the premise (the "Why")
  is search-first — revision won't fix intent

### Prioritized Revisions
1. ...

Cross-references

• /seo-eeat-audit — deep E-E-A-T scoring (trust/author signals)
• /seo-content — structural/readability content audit
• /seo-ai-optimization — Google AI feature readiness (cites this gate as the main content lever)