Domain Authority Auditor
Based on CITE Domain Rating. Full benchmark reference: references/cite-domain-rating.md
This skill evaluates domain authority across 40 standardized criteria organized in 4 dimensions. It produces a comprehensive audit report with per-item scoring, dimension and weighted scores by domain type, veto item checks, and a prioritized action plan.
Sister skill: content-quality-auditor evaluates content at the page level (80 items). This skill evaluates the domain behind the content (40 items). Together they provide a complete 120-item assessment.
Namespace note: CITE uses C01-C10 for Citation items; CORE-EEAT uses C01-C10 for Contextual Clarity items. In combined 120-item assessments, prefix with the framework name (e.g., CITE-C01 vs CORE-C01) to avoid confusion.
When This Must Trigger
Use this when domain credibility or citation trustworthiness is in question — even if the user doesn't use audit terminology:
- User asks "how trustworthy is my site" or "is my domain credible"
- When backlink-analyzer finds toxic link ratio above 15%, its handoff summary recommends this gate check
- Evaluating domain authority before a GEO campaign
- Benchmarking your domain against competitors
- Assessing whether a domain is trustworthy as a citation source
- Running periodic domain health checks or after link building campaigns
- Identifying manipulation red flags (PBNs, link farms, penalty history)
- Cross-referencing with content-quality-auditor for full 120-item assessment
What This Skill Does
- Full 40-Item Audit: Scores every CITE check item as Pass/Partial/Fail
- Dimension Scoring: Calculates scores for all 4 dimensions (0-100 each)
- Weighted Totals: Applies domain-type-specific weights for CITE Score
- Critical Issue Detection: Flags critical manipulation signals that cap the score
- Priority Ranking: Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact
- Action Plan: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps
- Cross-Reference: Optionally pairs with CORE-EEAT for combined diagnosis
Quick Start
Start with one of these prompts. Finish with a citation-trust verdict and a handoff summary using the repository format in Skill Contract.
Audit Your Domain
Audit domain authority for [domain]
Run a CITE domain audit on [domain] as a [domain type]
Audit with Domain Type
CITE audit for example.com as an e-commerce site
Score this SaaS domain against the 40-item benchmark: [domain]
Comparative Audit
Compare domain authority: [your domain] vs [competitor 1] vs [competitor 2]
Combined Assessment
Run full 120-item assessment on [domain]: CITE domain audit + CORE-EEAT content audit on [sample pages]
Skill Contract
Gate verdict: TRUSTED (no critical issues, scores above threshold) / CAUTIOUS (issues found but none critical) / UNTRUSTED (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 CITE audit report, a citation-trust verdict, and a short handoff summary ready for memory/audits/domain/.
- Reads: the target domain, supporting authority signals, and comparison domains.
- Writes: a user-facing authority report plus a reusable summary that can be stored under
memory/audits/domain/.
- Promotes: veto items and domain risks to
memory/hot-cache.md (auto-saved). Authority context to memory/audits/domain/. Results feed into entity-optimizer as authority input for brand's canonical profile.
- Done when: all 40 CITE items are scored or marked N/A with a named source, a TRUSTED/CAUTIOUS/UNTRUSTED verdict is stated, and any veto (T03/T05/T09) is surfaced with a fix.
- Primary next skill: use the
Next Best Skill below once the trust picture is clear.
Data Sources
See CONNECTORS.md for tool category placeholders.
Note: All integrations are optional. This skill works without any API keys — users provide data manually when no tools are connected.
With ~~link database + ~~SEO tool + ~~AI monitor + ~~knowledge graph + ~~brand monitor connected:
Automatically pull backlink profiles and link quality metrics from ~~link database, domain authority scores and keyword rankings from ~~SEO tool, AI citation data from ~~AI monitor, entity presence from ~~knowledge graph, and brand mention data from ~~brand monitor.
With manual data only:
Ask the user to provide:
- Domain to evaluate
- Domain type (if not auto-detectable): Content Publisher, Product & Service, E-commerce, Community & UGC, Tool & Utility, or Authority & Institutional
- Backlink data: referring domains count, domain authority, top linking domains
- Traffic estimates (from any SEO tool or SimilarWeb)
- Competitor domains for comparison (optional)
Proceed with the full 40-item audit using provided data. Note in the output which items could not be fully evaluated due to missing access (e.g., AI citation data, knowledge graph queries, WHOIS history).
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:
- The domain is not resolvable or its type cannot be detected — state what you found and confirm the domain type before scoring
- No backlink / referring-domain data is provided and none is inferable — offer: (1) provide an export, (2) score the observable CITE items and mark link-dependent items N/A
- More than 50% of a CITE dimension's items are N/A — name the dimension and ask: (1) provide supplementary data, (2) mark the dimension Insufficient Data
- Any veto item (T03, T05, or T09) 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):
- Missing AI-citation data (mark items N/A and continue)
- Individual Partial scores within a dimension
- Low overall score (the report is the deliverable, not a judgment call)
Instructions
When a user requests a domain authority audit:
Step 1: Preparation
### Audit Setup
**Domain**: [domain]
**Domain Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [from domain-type weight table below]
#### Domain-Type Weight Table
> Canonical source: `references/cite-domain-rating.md`. This inline copy is for convenience.
| Dim | Default | Content Publisher | Product & Service | E-commerce | Community & UGC | Tool & Utility | Authority & Institutional |
|-----|:-------:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
| C | 35% | **40%** | 25% | 20% | 35% | 25% | **45%** |
| I | 20% | 15% | **30%** | 20% | 10% | **30%** | 20% |
| T | 25% | 20% | 25% | **35%** | 25% | 25% | 20% |
| E | 20% | 25% | 20% | 25% | **30%** | 20% | 15% |
#### Critical Trust Check (Emergency Brake)
| Check | Status | Action |
|-------|--------|--------|
| Link profile matches real traffic | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Audit backlink profile; disavow toxic links"] |
| Backlink profile is unique to this domain | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Flag as manipulation network; investigate link sources"] |
| No Google penalties or deindexing | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Address penalty first; all other optimization is futile"] |
If any critical trust check triggers, flag it prominently at the top of the report using plain language. CITE Score is capped per Runbook §2.
Step 2: C + I Audit (20 items)
Evaluate each item against the criteria in references/cite-domain-rating.md.
Score each item:
- Pass = 10 points (fully meets criteria)
- Partial = 5 points (partially meets criteria)
- Fail = 0 points (does not meet criteria)
### C — Citation
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Referring Domains Volume | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| C02 | Referring Domains Quality | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| C10 | Link Source Diversity | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
**C Score**: [X]/100
### I — Identity
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| I01 | Knowledge Graph Presence | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
**I Score**: [X]/100
Step 3: T + E Audit (20 items)
Same format for Trust and Eminence dimensions.
### T — Trust
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| T01 | Link Profile Naturalness | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
**T Score**: [X]/100
### E — Eminence
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| E01 | Organic Search Visibility | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
**E Score**: [X]/100
Note: Some items require specialized data (C05-C08 AI citation data, I01 knowledge graph queries, T04-T05 IP/profile analysis). Score what is observable; mark unverifiable items as "N/A — requires [data source]" and exclude from dimension average.
Auditor Runbook — read this first
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 CITE-specific pieces below: the weighted worked examples, the domain-level
guardrails, and the CITE 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 (CITE weighted C×0.35 + I×0.20 + T×0.25 + E×0.20, floor-rounded, before cap),
and final_overall_score.
§2 (CITE) · Worked examples — weighted cap arithmetic
Walk the runbook's §2 decision table, then mirror the matching example below. The CITE Score is
the 4-dimension weighted total C×0.35 + I×0.20 + T×0.25 + E×0.20
(see cite-domain-rating.md), floor-rounded, before the cap.
CITE has four dimensions (C/I/T/E) — there is no 8-dimension /8 average here.
Worked example 1 — single veto, raw dim above cap
Dimensions: C=80 I=70 T=85 E=75
Weighted: 80×0.35 + 70×0.20 + 85×0.25 + 75×0.20
= 28.0 + 14.0 + 21.25 + 15.0 = 78.25 → raw_overall = 78
Veto check: T09 failed (Google manual action / deindex history on record)
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: "Google manual action on record"
severity: veto
evidence: "Search Console shows an active manual action against the domain"
Worked example 2 — single veto, raw dim already below cap
Dimensions: C=55 I=70 T=58 E=72
Weighted: 55×0.35 + 70×0.20 + 58×0.25 + 72×0.20
= 19.25 + 14.0 + 14.5 + 14.4 = 62.15 → raw_overall = 62
Veto check: T03 failed (backlink volume far exceeds real traffic — link-farm pattern)
After cap: T dimension 58 → 58 (unchanged; cap is a ceiling, not a floor)
Overall 62 → 60 (overall still capped because a veto is present)
Handoff: cap_applied: true raw_overall_score: 62 final_overall_score: 60
key_findings:
- title: "Backlink volume inconsistent with real traffic"
severity: veto
evidence: "1.2M referring-domain links but estimated <800 monthly organic visits"
The T dimension stays 58 in the internal report — it is NOT raised to 60. The cap is a ceiling only.
Worked example 3 — 2+ veto fails (BLOCKED path)
Dimensions: C=80 I=70 T=85 E=75 → raw_overall = 78
Veto check: T05 AND T09 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: T05 (manipulation network) and T09 (manual action)"
- "Multi-veto cap calibration pending; domain requires manual review before re-scoring"
key_findings:
- title: "Backlink profile overlaps a known manipulation network"
severity: veto
- title: "Google manual action on record"
severity: veto
§3 (CITE) · Guardrail Negatives (domain-level signals)
These signals are easy to over-flag. Treat them as NEUTRAL or POSITIVE under the stated condition —
do not deduct trust automatically. Conditions are explicit.
| Signal | Treat as NOT manipulation WHEN | Flag only IF |
|---|
| Sudden backlink spike | A real launch, funding round, press hit, or viral post explains it | Spike is from unrelated, low-quality, or templated domains with no editorial context |
| Few backlinks, strong brand | An established offline/branded entity with low link velocity by nature | Thin links AND no brand search demand AND no editorial mentions |
| Shared hosting / same IP block | A CDN, shared host, or platform (Cloudflare, Vercel, Shopify) concentrates many sites on one IP | Distinct PBN fingerprint: same registrant, template, interlinking, and thin content across the set |
| High nofollow share | Links come from legitimate news, UGC, or social platforms that nofollow by policy | nofollow share paired with paid-link or sponsored-without-disclosure patterns |
| Young domain age | A real new business with organic growth and disclosed ownership | Young domain + aggressive exact-match anchors + link velocity inconsistent with traffic |
If context contradicts a neutral reading, state the exception in the finding's evidence field
(e.g. "spike of 4,000 links in 48h, all from one templated footer network").
§5 (CITE) · Veto-ID translation rows
Use alongside the runbook's shared translation rows. These are the CITE veto meanings —
never the CORE-EEAT ones (the same ID strings mean different things there).
| Internal | User-facing |
|---|
| "T03 failed" | "Backlink volume far exceeds real traffic (link-farm pattern)" |
| "T05 failed" | "Backlink profile nearly identical to another domain (manipulation network)" |
| "T09 failed" | "Google manual action or deindexing on record" |
Step 4: Scoring & Report
Calculate scores and generate the final report:
## CITE Domain Authority Report
### Overview
- **Domain**: [domain]
- **Domain Type**: [type]
- **Audit Date**: [date]
- **CITE Score**: [score]/100 ([rating])
- **Veto Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ Critical issue present *(score reflects cap per Runbook §2)*
### Dimension Scores
| Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| C — Citation | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| I — Identity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| T — Trust | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| E — Eminence | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| **CITE Score** | | | | **[X]/100** |
**Score Calculation**: CITE Score = C × [w_C] + I × [w_I] + T × [w_T] + E × [w_E]
**Rating Scale**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Medium | 40-59 Low | 0-39 Poor
### Per-Item Scores
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Referring Domains Volume | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| C02 | Referring Domains Quality | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| E10 | Industry Share of Voice | [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 or literals in user output. Omit empty-tier headers.
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.
- [ID] [Name] — [specific modification suggestion]
- Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
- Action: [concrete step]
- [ID] [Name] — [specific modification suggestion]
- Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
- Action: [concrete step]
3–5. [Same format]
Action Plan
Quick Wins (< 1 week)
Medium Effort (1-4 weeks)
Strategic (1-3 months)
Cross-Reference with CORE-EEAT
For a complete assessment, pair this CITE audit with a CORE-EEAT content audit:
| Assessment | Score | Rating |
|---|
| CITE (Domain) | [X]/100 | [rating] |
| CORE-EEAT (Content) | [Run content-quality-auditor on sample pages] | — |
Diagnosis Matrix:
- High CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Maintain and expand
- High CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Prioritize content quality
- Low CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Build domain authority
- Low CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Start with content, then domain
Recommended Next Steps
- For domain authority building: focus on top 5 priorities above
- For content improvement: use
content-quality-auditor on key pages
- For backlink strategy: use
backlink-analyzer for detailed link analysis
- For competitor benchmarking: use
competitor-analysis with CITE scores
- For tracking progress: run
/aaron-seo-geo:track --report with CITE score trends
### 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 CITE-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. For CITE, single-veto fails also raise a **Manipulation Alert** entry in `open_loops`.
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 (T03, T05, T09), 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/domain/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
- [ ] Domain identified and accessible
- [ ] Domain type confirmed (auto-detected or user-specified)
- [ ] Backlink data available (at minimum: referring domains count, DA (Moz Domain Authority™) / DR (Ahrefs Domain Rating™))
- [ ] If comparative audit, competitor domains also specified
### Output Validation
- [ ] All 40 items scored (or marked N/A with reason)
- [ ] All 4 dimension scores calculated correctly
- [ ] Weighted CITE Score matches domain-type weight configuration
- [ ] All 3 veto items checked first 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 [Example Report](references/example-report.md) for a complete CITE audit of cloudhosting.com showing veto check, dimension scores, top 5 improvements, action plan, and cross-reference with CORE-EEAT.
## Tips for Success
1. **Start with veto items** — T03, T05, T09 can invalidate the entire score
2. **Identify domain type first** — Different types have very different weight profiles
3. **AI citation items (C05-C08) matter most for GEO** — Test by querying AI engines with niche-relevant questions
4. **Some items need specialized tools** — Knowledge graph queries, AI citation monitoring, and IP diversity analysis may require manual research if tools aren't connected
5. **Pair with CORE-EEAT for full picture** — Domain authority without content quality (or vice versa) tells only half the story
## Reference Materials
- [CITE Domain Rating](../../references/cite-domain-rating.md) — Full 40-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, domain-type weight tables, and veto items
- [references/example-report.md](references/example-report.md) — Complete CITE audit example with scored dimensions, top 5 improvements, action plan, and CORE-EEAT cross-reference
## Next Best Skill
CAUTIOUS + link-quality: [backlink-analyzer](../../monitor/backlink-analyzer/SKILL.md). UNTRUSTED: [entity-optimizer](../entity-optimizer/SKILL.md). TRUSTED: terminal. Visited-set rule applies per [skill-contract.md](../../references/skill-contract.md).
