Use when auditing content quality, E-E-A-T, or publish readiness; runs 80-item CORE-EEAT scoring with veto checks and a fix plan. Not for structural on-page tags/headers — use on-page-seo-auditor; not for domain/citation trust — use domain-authority-auditor. 内容质量/EEAT评分
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Use when auditing content quality, E-E-A-T, or publish readiness; runs 80-item CORE-EEAT scoring with veto checks and a fix plan. Not for structural on-page tags/headers — use on-page-seo-auditor; not for domain/citation trust — use domain-authority-auditor. 内容质量/EEAT评分
Use when auditing content quality before publishing. Runs CORE-EEAT 80-item scoring with veto checks. Also when the user asks for E-E-A-T analysis or publish readiness.
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 This Must Trigger
Use this when content needs a quality check before publishing — even if the user doesn't use audit terminology:
User asks "is this ready to publish" or "how good is this"
User just finished writing with seo-content-writer or content-refresher
PostToolUse hook recommendation: after content is written or substantially edited, the command-backed hook may recommend this audit. When hook-triggered, skip setup questions — audit the content that was just produced.
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
Start with one of these prompts. Finish with a publish verdict and a handoff summary using the repository format in Skill Contract.
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]
Skill Contract
Gate verdict: SHIP (no critical issues, dimension scores above threshold) / FIX (issues found but none critical) / BLOCK (a critical trust issue failed — see "Critical Issue to Fix" in the report). Always state the verdict prominently at the top of the report using plain language, not item IDs.
Expected output: a CORE-EEAT audit report, a publish-readiness verdict, and a short handoff summary ready for memory/audits/content/.
Reads: the target content, content type, and supporting evidence.
Writes: a user-facing audit report plus a reusable summary that can be stored under memory/audits/content/.
Promotes: veto items and publish blockers to memory/hot-cache.md (auto-saved, no user confirmation needed). Top improvement priorities to memory/open-loops.md.
Done when: all 80 CORE-EEAT items are scored or marked N/A, a SHIP/FIX/BLOCK verdict is stated, cap_applied/raw_overall_score/final_overall_score are set, and any veto (T04/C01/R10) is surfaced with a fix.
Primary next skill: use the Next Best Skill below once the verdict is clear.
With ~~web crawler + ~~SEO tool connected:
Fetch only user-provided or authorized URLs after SECURITY.md §Scraping Boundaries; then extract HTML, schema, links, and competitor content.
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).
Decision Gates
When stopping to ask, always: (1) state the specific value and threshold, (2) offer numbered options with outcomes.
Stop and ask the user when:
Content is under minimum word count for its type (blog/guide: 300 words; product/landing page: 150 words; FAQ: fewer than 3 entries with 50+ words each) — state the actual count and offer: (1) expand to minimum, (2) continue audit with Insufficient Data flags, (3) cancel
Content type cannot be auto-detected — state what you detected and ask to confirm before proceeding
Content is primarily media (video/image) with minimal text — ask whether to audit transcript, alt text, or skip
More than 50% of a dimension's items are N/A — name the dimension and ask: (1) provide supplementary data, (2) mark entire dimension as Insufficient Data
Any veto item triggers — flag it immediately with the item ID and ask: (1) stop for immediate fix, (2) continue full audit and flag in report
Continue silently (never stop for):
Individual Partial scores within a dimension
Missing SEO tool data (mark items as N/A and continue)
Low overall score (the report is the deliverable, not a judgment call)
User not specifying content type (auto-detect and state your assumption)
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]
#### Critical Trust Check (Emergency Brake)
| Check | Status | Action |
|-------|--------|--------|
| Affiliate links disclosed | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Add disclosure banner at page top immediately"] |
| Title matches page content | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Rewrite title and first paragraph to match"] |
| Data points are consistent | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "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.
Before scoring, Read ../../references/auditor-runbook.md. It is the authoritative, framework-agnostic
procedure: §1 Handoff Schema, §2 Critical Fail Cap method + decision table + deterministic rounding,
§4 Artifact Gate 7-item checklist, §5 User-Facing Translation format, and the untrusted-content
security boundary. It loads locally via relative path (no network) — do not skip it. This skill body
carries only the CORE-EEAT-specific pieces below: the weighted worked examples, the content-level
guardrails, and the CORE-EEAT veto-ID translation rows.
Handoff Summary
Emit the auditor-class handoff defined in
references/auditor-runbook.md §1: status, objective,
key_findings, evidence_summary, recommended_next_skill, plus the auditor fields cap_applied,
raw_overall_score (content-type weighted, floor-rounded, before cap), and final_overall_score.
§2 (CORE-EEAT) · Worked examples — weighted cap arithmetic
Walk the runbook's §2 decision table, then mirror the matching example below. raw_overall_score
is the content-type weighted total (Σ dimension × weight from
core-eeat-benchmark.md §Content-Type Weight Table),
floor-rounded, before the cap. Never the unweighted /8 mean.
Worked example 1 — single veto, raw dim above cap (Product Review)
Dimensions: C=75 O=77 R=80 E=75 Exp=78 Ept=77 A=77 T=85
Weights (Product Review): C .10 O .10 R .15 E .20 Exp .20 Ept .05 A .05 T .15
Weighted: 75×.10 + 77×.10 + 80×.15 + 75×.20 + 78×.20 + 77×.05 + 77×.05 + 85×.15
= 7.5 + 7.7 + 12.0 + 15.0 + 15.6 + 3.85 + 3.85 + 12.75 = 78.25 → raw_overall = 78
Veto check: T04 failed (affiliate links without disclosure)
After cap: T dimension 85 → 60 (capped down, raw > 60)
Overall 78 → 60 (any veto forces overall cap)
Handoff: cap_applied: true raw_overall_score: 78 final_overall_score: 60
key_findings:
- title: "Missing affiliate disclosure"
severity: veto
evidence: "No disclosure banner; 3 affiliate links detected in body"
Worked example 2 — single veto, raw dim already below cap (FAQ Page)
Dimensions: C=55 O=75 R=88 E=80 Exp=80 Ept=75 A=82 T=85
Weights (FAQ Page): C .25 O .25 R .15 E .05 Exp .05 Ept .10 A .05 T .10
Weighted: 55×.25 + 75×.25 + 88×.15 + 80×.05 + 80×.05 + 75×.10 + 82×.05 + 85×.10
= 13.75 + 18.75 + 13.2 + 4.0 + 4.0 + 7.5 + 4.1 + 8.5 = 73.8 → raw_overall = 73
Veto check: C01 failed (clickbait — title doesn't match content)
After cap: C dimension 55 → 55 (unchanged; cap is a ceiling, not a floor)
Overall 73 → 60 (overall still capped because a veto is present)
Handoff: cap_applied: true raw_overall_score: 73 final_overall_score: 60
key_findings:
- title: "Title promises something the page doesn't deliver"
severity: veto
evidence: "Title: '10 Free Tools'; body delivers 3 free tools and 7 paid"
The C dimension stays 55 in the internal report — it is NOT raised to 60. Note that the weighted
total (73) differs from the unweighted /8 mean (77) — always score with the weighted total.
Worked example 3 — 2+ veto fails (BLOCKED path)
Dimensions: C=75 O=77 R=80 E=75 Exp=78 Ept=77 A=77 T=85 (Product Review weights → raw_overall = 78)
Veto check: T04 AND R10 both failed
Resolution: status: BLOCKED — do NOT compute capped scores.
raw_overall_score retained for record; final_overall_score omitted.
Handoff: status: BLOCKED cap_applied: false raw_overall_score: 78
open_loops:
- "2 veto items failed: T04 (affiliate disclosure) and R10 (data inconsistency)"
- "Multi-veto cap calibration pending; page requires manual review before re-scoring"
key_findings:
- title: "Missing affiliate disclosure"
severity: veto
- title: "Data points contradict each other"
severity: veto
These signals are POSITIVE under the stated condition. Award points, do not deduct. Conditions are
explicit — unconditional reframes cause false negatives.
Signal
Treat as positive WHEN
Example flag rule
Year marker in title/body
Year is within [current_year − 2, current_year]
"2026" in 2026: freshness positive. "2020" in 2026: R-dimension concern — do NOT award freshness
Never apply length or stop-word filter to these tokens
Homepage brand-first title ("Acme | AI Workflow")
The page IS the homepage
Correct pattern; do not flag under C01
Inner-page keyword-first title ("AI Workflow for Teams — Acme")
The page is NOT the homepage
Correct pattern; do not flag under C01
If context contradicts a positive reframe (e.g. an explicitly evergreen page carrying a year stamp),
state the exception in the finding's evidence field. Evaluate current_year dynamically at audit time.
§5 (CORE-EEAT) · Veto-ID translation rows
Use alongside the runbook's shared translation rows. These are the CORE-EEAT veto meanings —
never the CITE ones.
Internal
User-facing
"T04 failed"
"Missing affiliate disclosure"
"C01 veto triggered"
"Title doesn't match what the page delivers"
"R10 failure"
"Data on the page contradicts itself"
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] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Findings by Severity Tier
Render BEFORE "Top 5 Priority Improvements". Group every `key_findings` entry by `severity` per [Runbook §5 Severity tier routing](../../references/auditor-runbook.md): `veto` → **Critical issues (must fix)**, `high` → **Should-fix**, `medium`/`low` → **Nice-to-have**. Within each tier sort by `weight × points lost` (highest first). Apply the §5 Never say → Always say translation — no `P0/P1/P2` or `severity:` literals in user output. Omit empty-tier headers.
```markdown
**Critical issues (must fix)**
- [Item Name] — [plain-language observation]
**Should-fix**
- [Item Name] — [observation]
**Nice-to-have**
- [Item Name] — [observation]
Top 5 Priority Improvements
Sorted by: weight × points lost across all tiers (highest impact first). This is the cross-tier highlight; the per-tier breakdown above is the full picture.
For full content rewrite: use seo-content-writer with CORE-EEAT constraints
For GEO optimization: use geo-content-optimizer targeting failed GEO-First items
For content refresh: use content-refresher with weak dimensions as focus
For technical fixes: run /aaron-seo-geo:audit --tech for site-level issues
### Step 4.5: Apply Scoring Runbook
Execute in order, using the framework-agnostic procedure in [references/auditor-runbook.md](../../references/auditor-runbook.md) together with the CORE-EEAT-specific §2 worked examples, §3 guardrails, and §5 veto rows in this file:
1. **Cap Enforcement** (Runbook §2): walk the decision table. Identify which scenario matches your input (0 veto, 1 veto above cap, 1 veto below cap, or 2+ veto). Apply the cap rule — remember it's a ceiling, not a floor. Set `cap_applied` in the handoff.
2. **Artifact Gate Self-Check** (Runbook §4): run the 7-item checklist. If any item fails, force `status: BLOCKED` with reason in `open_loops`.
3. **User-Facing Translation** (Runbook §5): translate internal language before rendering the user-facing report. Veto IDs, raw-vs-capped deltas, and internal field names must not appear in the rendered output. The handoff YAML retains the raw values for downstream consumers; the user sees plain-language findings and a single score with the explanatory sentence.
### Save Results
Write the audit artifact to `memory/audits/content/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md` (the per-role path from [skill-contract.md §Write Paths](../../references/skill-contract.md); the PostToolUse Artifact Gate validates anything under `memory/audits/`) with `class: auditor-output` in its frontmatter. Promote any veto issues to `memory/hot-cache.md`. `memory-management` later rolls these into the monthly `memory/audits/YYYY-MM.md` aggregate. Do not save audit artifacts to a bare `memory/` path — that bypasses the gate.
## 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
- [ ] **Findings by Severity Tier section rendered before Top 5** — at least one tier (Critical / Should-fix / Nice-to-have) is non-empty when key_findings has items; empty-tier headers are omitted
- [ ] 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
- [ ] No P0/P1/P2 or `severity: …` literals in user-visible output (translation per Runbook §5)
## Example
See [references/item-reference.md](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
1. **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.
2. **Focus on high-weight dimensions** — Different content types prioritize different dimensions
3. **GEO-First items matter most for AI visibility** — Prioritize items tagged GEO 🎯 if AI citation is the goal
4. **Some EEAT items need site-level data** — Don't penalize content for things only observable at the site level (backlinks, brand recognition)
5. **Use the weighted score, not just the raw average** — A product review with strong Exclusivity matters more than strong Authority
6. **Re-audit after improvements** — Run again to verify score improvements and catch regressions
7. **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](../domain-authority-auditor/SKILL.md) for the full 120-item picture
## Reference Materials
- [CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark](../../references/core-eeat-benchmark.md) — Full 80-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, and GEO-First item markers
- [Item Reference](references/item-reference.md) — All 80 item IDs in a compact lookup table + site-level item handling notes + scored example report
## Next Best Skill
Primary: [content-refresher](../../optimize/content-refresher/SKILL.md) (FIX verdict). BLOCK: [seo-content-writer](../../build/seo-content-writer/SKILL.md) or [entity-optimizer](../entity-optimizer/SKILL.md). SHIP: [rank-tracker](../../monitor/rank-tracker/SKILL.md).
