Standalone E-E-A-T scoring rubric for a URL or content draft. Scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust 0-5 each using concrete detectable signals, framed per Google's creating-helpful-content doc. Use when user says "E-E-A-T", "EEAT", "experience expertise", "trust signals", or "author authority".
Installation
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.
Standalone E-E-A-T scoring rubric for a URL or content draft. Scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust 0-5 each using concrete detectable signals, framed per Google's creating-helpful-content doc. Use when user says "E-E-A-T", "EEAT", "experience expertise", "trust signals", or "author authority".
allowed-tools
["Read","Bash","WebFetch"]
E-E-A-T Audit & Scoring
Framing (state this in every report — from Google's helpful-content doc)
E-E-A-T is NOT a specific ranking factor. Google's systems use a mix of
factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T.
Quality raters use E-E-A-T to evaluate whether ranking systems are
working; rater data is not used directly in ranking ("feedback cards from
diners"). Rater guidelines: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/hsw-sqrg.pdf
Trust is the most important member. The others contribute to trust;
content doesn't have to demonstrate all four.
YMYL gets extra weight: topics affecting health, financial stability,
safety, or societal welfare are held to stronger E-E-A-T. Detect YMYL and
raise the pass bar one point per dimension.
Inputs
URL — fetch with WebFetch (fallback curl -sL), or
Local draft — Read tool (markdown/HTML). For drafts, score content-side
signals only and mark site-level signals (HTTPS, about page) as N/A.
Execution
Fetch the page HTML; also fetch the homepage, /about, and /contact
(HEAD or GET) to verify site-level trust pages exist.
Detect signals per dimension using the rubric below (HTML parsing
heuristics: bylines, rel=author, Person/ProfilePage JSON-LD, <time>
elements, outbound citation links, first-person experience markers).
Score each dimension 0-5 with a verbatim evidence quote from the page
for every point awarded or withheld.
Who: Is it self-evident who authored the content? Are there bylines where
expected? Do bylines lead to author background?
How: Is the production method shown where it builds trust (testing
methodology, evidence of work)? If automation/AI substantially generated the
content: is that self-evident through disclosure, with background on how and
why AI was used?
Why: Created primarily to help people who arrive at the site — or
primarily to attract search visits? (If the latter, route to
/seo-helpful-content for the full self-assessment.)
Output
## E-E-A-T Audit — <URL or draft>
> Framing: E-E-A-T is not a direct ranking factor; raters use it to validate
> Google's systems. Trust is the most important dimension.
YMYL topic: YES/NO (bar adjusted accordingly)
| Dimension | Score | Key evidence (quoted) |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | X/5 | "..." |
| Expertise | X/5 | "..." |
| Authoritativeness | X/5 | "..." |
| Trust | X/5 | "..." |
| **Overall** | XX/20 | weakest: <dimension> |
### Who / How / Why
- Who: ...
- How: ...
- Why: ...
### Top 3 Highest-Impact Improvements
1. <fix on weakest dimension, Trust prioritized on ties>
2. ...
3. ...
Cross-references
/seo-content — broader content quality audit (readability, structure,
keyword coverage) that embeds a lighter E-E-A-T pass
