content-quality-auditor

name	content-quality-auditor
description	Use when the user asks to "audit content quality", "EEAT score", "content quality check", "CORE-EEAT audit", "how good is my content", "is my content good enough to rank", "EEAT check", or "rate my content quality". Runs a full CORE-EEAT 80-item content quality audit, scoring content across 8 dimensions with weighted scoring by content type. Produces a detailed report with per-item scores, dimension analysis, and a prioritized action plan. For SEO-specific page checks, see on-page-seo-auditor. For domain-level assessment, see domain-authority-auditor.
license	Apache-2.0
metadata	{"author":"aaron-he-zhu","version":"2.0.0","geo-relevance":"high","tags":["seo","geo","content audit","eeat","content quality","content scoring","quality assessment","expertise","authority","trust"],"triggers":["audit content quality","EEAT score","content quality check","CORE-EEAT audit","how good is my content","content assessment","quality score","is my content good enough to rank","EEAT check","rate my content quality"]}

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

Browse all 20 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 · · ·

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

1. Full 80-Item Audit: Scores every CORE-EEAT check item as Pass/Partial/Fail
2. Dimension Scoring: Calculates scores for all 8 dimensions (0-100 each)
3. System Scoring: Computes GEO Score (CORE) and SEO Score (EEAT)
4. Weighted Totals: Applies content-type-specific weights for final score
5. Veto Detection: Flags critical trust violations (T04, C01, R10)
6. Priority Ranking: Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact
7. Action Plan: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps

How to Use

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:

1. Content text, URL, or file path
2. Content type (if not auto-detectable): Product Review, How-to Guide, Comparison, Landing Page, Blog Post, FAQ Page, Alternative, Best-of, or Testimonial
3. 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

### O — Organization

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| O01 | Heading Hierarchy | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**O Score**: [X]/100

### R — Referenceability

[Same format]

**R Score**: [X]/100

### E — Exclusivity

[Same format]

**E Score**: [X]/100

Step 3: EEAT Audit (40 items)

Same format for Exp, Ept, A, T dimensions.

### Exp — Experience

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Exp Score**: [X]/100

### Ept — Expertise
[Same format]

### A — Authority
[Same format]

### T — Trust
[Same format]

Complete Item Reference

ID	Item	ID	Item
C01	Intent Alignment	Exp01	First-Person Narrative
C02	Direct Answer	Exp02	Sensory Details
C03	Query Coverage	Exp03	Process Documentation
C04	Definition First	Exp04	Tangible Proof
C05	Topic Scope	Exp05	Usage Duration
C06	Audience Targeting	Exp06	Problems Encountered
C07	Semantic Coherence	Exp07	Before/After Comparison
C08	Use Case Mapping	Exp08	Quantified Metrics
C09	FAQ Coverage	Exp09	Repeated Testing
C10	Semantic Closure	Exp10	Limitations Acknowledged
O01	Heading Hierarchy	Ept01	Author Identity
O02	Summary Box	Ept02	Credentials Display
O03	Data Tables	Ept03	Professional Vocabulary
O04	List Formatting	Ept04	Technical Depth
O05	Schema Markup	Ept05	Methodology Rigor
O06	Section Chunking	Ept06	Edge Case Awareness
O07	Visual Hierarchy	Ept07	Historical Context
O08	Anchor Navigation	Ept08	Reasoning Transparency
O09	Information Density	Ept09	Cross-domain Integration
O10	Multimedia Structure	Ept10	Editorial Process
R01	Data Precision	A01	Backlink Profile
R02	Citation Density	A02	Media Mentions

Note on site-level items: Most Authority items (A01-A10) and several Trust items (T01-T03, T05, T07, T10) require site-level or organization-level data that may not be observable from a single page. When auditing a standalone page without site context, mark these as "N/A — requires site-level data" and exclude from the dimension average.

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.  — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]

2.  — [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 []() with CORE-EEAT constraints
- For GEO optimization: use []() targeting failed GEO-First items
- For content refresh: use []() with weak dimensions as focus
- For technical fixes: run `/seo:check-technical` for site-level issues

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
• 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

User: "Audit this blog post against CORE-EEAT: [paste of 'Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025']"

Output (partial -- showing one dimension to demonstrate format):

## CORE-EEAT Audit Report

### Overview

- **Content**: "Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025"
- **Content Type**: Blog Post / Comparison
- **Audit Date**: 2025-06-15
- **Veto Status**: No triggers

### C -- Contextual Clarity (scored dimension example)

| ID  | Check Item         | Score   | Points | Notes                                                       |
|-----|--------------------|---------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment   | Pass    | 10     | Matches "best X" comparison intent; title and body aligned  |
| C02 | Direct Answer      | Partial | 5      | Answer appears in first 300 words but no summary box        |
| C03 | Query Coverage     | Pass    | 10     | Covers "project management tools", "remote team software", "best PM tools" |
| C04 | Definition First   | Pass    | 10     | Key terms ("PM tool", "async collaboration") defined on first use |
| C05 | Topic Scope        | Partial | 5      | States what's covered but not what's excluded               |
| C06 | Audience Targeting | Pass    | 10     | Explicitly targets "remote team leads and managers"         |
| C07 | Semantic Coherence | Pass    | 10     | Logical flow: intro > criteria > tools > comparison > verdict |
| C08 | Use Case Mapping   | Pass    | 10     | Decision matrix for team size, budget, and features         |
| C09 | FAQ Coverage       | Fail    | 0      | No FAQ section despite long-tail potential ("free PM tools for small teams") |
| C10 | Semantic Closure   | Partial | 5      | Conclusion present but doesn't loop back to opening promise |

**C Dimension Score**: 75/100 (Good)
**Blog Post weight for C**: 25%
**Weighted contribution**: 18.75

#### Priority Improvements from C Dimension

1. **C09 FAQ Coverage** -- Add FAQ section with 3-5 long-tail questions
   - Current: Fail (0) | Potential gain: 2.5 weighted points
   - Action: Add FAQ with "Are there free PM tools for small remote teams?", "How to migrate between PM tools?", etc.

2. **C02 Direct Answer** -- Add a summary box above the fold
   - Current: Partial (5) | Potential gain: 1.25 weighted points
 Action: Insert a "Top 3 Picks" callout box in the first 150 words

[... remaining 7 dimensions (O, R, E, Exp, Ept, A, T) follow the same per-item format ...]
[... then: Dimension Scores table, Top 5 Priority Improvements, Action Plan, Recommended Next Steps ...]

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 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

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)
• technical-seo-checker — Technical signals contributing to trust dimension
• internal-linking-optimizer — Linking quality signals for content audit
• memory-management — Store audit results for tracking over time
• entity-optimizer — Entity presence audit across Knowledge Graph and AI systems
• performance-reporter — Track content quality trends over time