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
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
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).
