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".
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
