| name | content-quality-auditor |
| description | Use this skill when the user asks to assess, audit, score, review, improve, prioritise, or quality-check content, documents, pages, posts, decks, or reusable artefacts. |
Content Quality Auditor
Use this skill to assess content quality in a repeatable, evidence-led way and produce a prioritised improvement plan.
What to audit
The skill can be used for:
- Individual documents, pages, posts, decks, scripts, or templates.
- Groups of related artefacts.
- Content libraries where consistency and reuse matter.
- Draft material before publication.
Evidence rules
- Base the audit only on content the user provides or content available through the agent's connected sources.
- Do not infer missing facts, usage statistics, or business impact.
- If you cannot access a referenced artefact, state that limitation and assess only what is available.
- Separate observed evidence from suggested improvements.
Default seven-dimension rubric
Score each dimension from 0 to 5.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|
| 0 | Not present or unusable. |
| 1 | Present but weak, confusing, or incomplete. |
| 2 | Basic but inconsistent or hard to reuse. |
| 3 | Usable with moderate improvement needed. |
| 4 | Strong with minor refinement needed. |
| 5 | Publication-ready or operationally robust. |
Assess these dimensions:
- Purpose and audience clarity - Is the content clear about who it is for and what it helps them do?
- Structure and navigation - Is the content logically organised and easy to scan?
- Evidence and specificity - Are claims supported by examples, data, sources, or concrete detail?
- Practical usefulness - Does the content help the reader make a decision or take action?
- Consistency and standards alignment - Does it follow the expected terminology, design, tone, and formatting conventions?
- Reusability and modularity - Can the content be reused, adapted, or maintained without excessive rework?
- Completeness and next action - Are important gaps, dependencies, risks, and follow-up actions visible?
If the user supplies a different rubric, use their rubric instead.
Workflow
- Identify the artefact or artefacts being audited.
- Confirm the intended audience and purpose from the available material.
- Apply the rubric dimension by dimension.
- Note specific evidence for each score.
- Identify priority fixes, separating major blockers from polish.
- Recommend a practical sequence of improvements.
- If auditing multiple artefacts, provide a comparative summary and prioritised backlog.
Output format
Use this format unless the user requests another structure:
## Audit summary
Overall assessment: [Short judgement]
Overall score: [Average]/5
Priority: [High / Medium / Low]
## Scorecard
| Dimension | Score /5 | Evidence | Recommended improvement |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Purpose and audience clarity | | | |
| Structure and navigation | | | |
| Evidence and specificity | | | |
| Practical usefulness | | | |
| Consistency and standards alignment | | | |
| Reusability and modularity | | | |
| Completeness and next action | | | |
## Highest-value fixes
1. [Fix]
2. [Fix]
3. [Fix]
## Suggested next version
[Concise recommended direction]
Multi-artefact output
For multiple artefacts, add:
## Prioritised improvement backlog
| Priority | Artefact | Issue | Recommended action | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
References
This skill includes supporting reference material. Read the relevant reference file when the task needs additional structure, rubric detail, examples, or checklist support.
references/scoring-rubric.md - use this when additional structure, examples, or checks are useful for the task.
Quality checklist
Before responding, check:
- Scores are justified by evidence.
- Recommendations are specific and actionable.
- No inaccessible content is treated as reviewed.
- The output helps the user decide what to improve next.
