--- description: "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" --- # Content Quality Auditor > Based on [CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/core-eeat-content-benchmark). Full benchmark reference: [references/core-eeat-benchmark.md](../../references/core-eeat-benchmark.md) 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 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 ## Quick Start Start with one of these prompts. Finish with a publish verdict and a handoff summary using the repository format in [Skill Contract](../../references/skill-contract.md). ### 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. ## Data Sources > See [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md) for tool category placeholders. **With ~~web crawler + ~~SEO tool connected:** Fetch only user-provided or authorized URLs after [SECURITY.md §Scraping Boundaries](../../SECURITY.md); then extract HTML, schema, links, and competitor content. **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). ## 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 ```markdown ### 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. ### Step 2: CORE Audit (40 items) Evaluate each item against the criteria in [references/core-eeat-benchmark.md](../../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) ```markdown ### 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 ``` Repeat the same table format for **O** (Organization), **R** (Referenceability), and **E** (Exclusivity), scoring all 10 items per dimension. ### Step 3: EEAT Audit (40 items) ```markdown ### Exp — Experience | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | **Exp Score**: [X]/100 ``` Repeat the same table format for **Ept** (Expertise), **A** (Authority), and **T** (Trust), scoring all 10 items per dimension. See [references/item-reference.md](references/item-reference.md) for the complete 80-item ID lookup table and site-level item handling notes. ## 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 **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](../../references/auditor-runbook.md): `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](../../references/core-eeat-benchmark.md)), > 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 ``` ## §3 (CORE-EEAT) · Guardrail Negatives (content / page reframes) 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 | | Numbered list ("5 best", "Top 10", "3 steps") | Always | CTR positive, counts toward O-dimension structure | | Qualifier ("Open-Source", "Self-Hosted", "Free", "Local-First") | Always | Narrow intent, counts toward E-dimension exclusivity | | Short acronym ("SEO", "AI", "CRM", "API") | Always | 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: ```markdown ## 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. 1. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion] - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points - Action: [concrete step] 2. **[ID] [Name]** — [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 `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).