--- description: "Use when auditing domain authority, trust, or citation credibility; runs 40-item CITE scoring with veto checks (TRUSTED/CAUTIOUS/UNTRUSTED). Not for page-level content quality — use content-quality-auditor; not for backlink profiling alone — use backlink-analyzer. 域名权威/网站可信度" --- # Domain Authority Auditor > Based on [CITE Domain Rating](https://github.com/aaron-he-zhu/cite-domain-rating). Full benchmark reference: [references/cite-domain-rating.md](../../references/cite-domain-rating.md) This skill evaluates domain authority across 40 standardized criteria organized in 4 dimensions. It produces a comprehensive audit report with per-item scoring, dimension and weighted scores by domain type, veto item checks, and a prioritized action plan. **Sister skill**: [content-quality-auditor](../content-quality-auditor/SKILL.md) evaluates content at the page level (80 items). This skill evaluates the domain behind the content (40 items). Together they provide a complete 120-item assessment. > **Namespace note**: CITE uses C01-C10 for Citation items; CORE-EEAT uses C01-C10 for Contextual Clarity items. In combined 120-item assessments, prefix with the framework name (e.g., CITE-C01 vs CORE-C01) to avoid confusion. ## When This Must Trigger Use this when domain credibility or citation trustworthiness is in question — even if the user doesn't use audit terminology: - User asks "how trustworthy is my site" or "is my domain credible" - When backlink-analyzer finds toxic link ratio above 15%, its handoff summary recommends this gate check - Evaluating domain authority before a GEO campaign - Benchmarking your domain against competitors - Assessing whether a domain is trustworthy as a citation source - Running periodic domain health checks or after link building campaigns - Identifying manipulation red flags (PBNs, link farms, penalty history) - Cross-referencing with content-quality-auditor for full 120-item assessment ## What This Skill Does 1. **Full 40-Item Audit**: Scores every CITE check item as Pass/Partial/Fail 2. **Dimension Scoring**: Calculates scores for all 4 dimensions (0-100 each) 3. **Weighted Totals**: Applies domain-type-specific weights for CITE Score 4. **Critical Issue Detection**: Flags critical manipulation signals that cap the score 5. **Priority Ranking**: Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact 6. **Action Plan**: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps 7. **Cross-Reference**: Optionally pairs with CORE-EEAT for combined diagnosis ## Quick Start Start with one of these prompts. Finish with a citation-trust verdict and a handoff summary using the repository format in [Skill Contract](../../references/skill-contract.md). ### Audit Your Domain ``` Audit domain authority for [domain] Run a CITE domain audit on [domain] as a [domain type] ``` ### Audit with Domain Type ``` CITE audit for example.com as an e-commerce site Score this SaaS domain against the 40-item benchmark: [domain] ``` ### Comparative Audit ``` Compare domain authority: [your domain] vs [competitor 1] vs [competitor 2] ``` ### Combined Assessment ``` Run full 120-item assessment on [domain]: CITE domain audit + CORE-EEAT content audit on [sample pages] ``` ## Skill Contract **Gate verdict**: **TRUSTED** (no critical issues, scores above threshold) / **CAUTIOUS** (issues found but none critical) / **UNTRUSTED** (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 CITE audit report, a citation-trust verdict, and a short handoff summary ready for `memory/audits/domain/`. - **Reads**: the target domain, supporting authority signals, and comparison domains. - **Writes**: a user-facing authority report plus a reusable summary that can be stored under `memory/audits/domain/`. - **Promotes**: veto items and domain risks to `memory/hot-cache.md` (auto-saved). Authority context to `memory/audits/domain/`. Results feed into entity-optimizer as authority input for brand's canonical profile. - **Done when**: all 40 CITE items are scored or marked N/A with a named source, a TRUSTED/CAUTIOUS/UNTRUSTED verdict is stated, and any veto (T03/T05/T09) is surfaced with a fix. - **Primary next skill**: use the `Next Best Skill` below once the trust picture is clear. ## Data Sources > See [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md) for tool category placeholders. > **Note:** All integrations are optional. This skill works without any API keys — users provide data manually when no tools are connected. **With ~~link database + ~~SEO tool + ~~AI monitor + ~~knowledge graph + ~~brand monitor connected:** Automatically pull backlink profiles and link quality metrics from ~~link database, domain authority scores and keyword rankings from ~~SEO tool, AI citation data from ~~AI monitor, entity presence from ~~knowledge graph, and brand mention data from ~~brand monitor. **With manual data only:** Ask the user to provide: 1. Domain to evaluate 2. Domain type (if not auto-detectable): Content Publisher, Product & Service, E-commerce, Community & UGC, Tool & Utility, or Authority & Institutional 3. Backlink data: referring domains count, domain authority, top linking domains 4. Traffic estimates (from any SEO tool or SimilarWeb) 5. Competitor domains for comparison (optional) Proceed with the full 40-item audit using provided data. Note in the output which items could not be fully evaluated due to missing access (e.g., AI citation data, knowledge graph queries, WHOIS history). ## 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:** - The domain is not resolvable or its type cannot be detected — state what you found and confirm the domain type before scoring - No backlink / referring-domain data is provided and none is inferable — offer: (1) provide an export, (2) score the observable CITE items and mark link-dependent items N/A - More than 50% of a CITE dimension's items are N/A — name the dimension and ask: (1) provide supplementary data, (2) mark the dimension Insufficient Data - Any veto item (T03, T05, or T09) 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):** - Missing AI-citation data (mark items N/A and continue) - Individual Partial scores within a dimension - Low overall score (the report is the deliverable, not a judgment call) ## Instructions When a user requests a domain authority audit: ### Step 1: Preparation ```markdown ### Audit Setup **Domain**: [domain] **Domain Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified] **Dimension Weights**: [from domain-type weight table below] #### Domain-Type Weight Table > Canonical source: `references/cite-domain-rating.md`. This inline copy is for convenience. | Dim | Default | Content Publisher | Product & Service | E-commerce | Community & UGC | Tool & Utility | Authority & Institutional | |-----|:-------:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:| | C | 35% | **40%** | 25% | 20% | 35% | 25% | **45%** | | I | 20% | 15% | **30%** | 20% | 10% | **30%** | 20% | | T | 25% | 20% | 25% | **35%** | 25% | 25% | 20% | | E | 20% | 25% | 20% | 25% | **30%** | 20% | 15% | #### Critical Trust Check (Emergency Brake) | Check | Status | Action | |-------|--------|--------| | Link profile matches real traffic | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Audit backlink profile; disavow toxic links"] | | Backlink profile is unique to this domain | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Flag as manipulation network; investigate link sources"] | | No Google penalties or deindexing | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ CRITICAL | [If CRITICAL: "Address penalty first; all other optimization is futile"] | ``` If any critical trust check triggers, flag it prominently at the top of the report using plain language. CITE Score is capped per [Runbook §2](../../references/auditor-runbook.md). ### Step 2: C + I Audit (20 items) Evaluate each item against the criteria in [references/cite-domain-rating.md](../../references/cite-domain-rating.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 — Citation | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | C01 | Referring Domains Volume | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | C02 | Referring Domains Quality | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | C10 | Link Source Diversity | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | **C Score**: [X]/100 ### I — Identity | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | I01 | Knowledge Graph Presence | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | **I Score**: [X]/100 ``` ### Step 3: T + E Audit (20 items) Same format for Trust and Eminence dimensions. ```markdown ### T — Trust | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | T01 | Link Profile Naturalness | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | **T Score**: [X]/100 ### E — Eminence | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | E01 | Organic Search Visibility | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | **E Score**: [X]/100 ``` **Note**: Some items require specialized data (C05-C08 AI citation data, I01 knowledge graph queries, T04-T05 IP/profile analysis). Score what is observable; mark unverifiable items as "N/A — requires [data source]" and exclude from dimension average. ## 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 **CITE-specific** pieces below: the weighted worked examples, the domain-level guardrails, and the CITE 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` (CITE weighted `C×0.35 + I×0.20 + T×0.25 + E×0.20`, floor-rounded, before cap), and `final_overall_score`. ## §2 (CITE) · Worked examples — weighted cap arithmetic > Walk the runbook's §2 decision table, then mirror the matching example below. The CITE Score is > the **4-dimension weighted total** `C×0.35 + I×0.20 + T×0.25 + E×0.20` > (see [cite-domain-rating.md](../../references/cite-domain-rating.md)), floor-rounded, before the cap. > CITE has four dimensions (C/I/T/E) — there is no 8-dimension /8 average here. ### Worked example 1 — single veto, raw dim above cap ``` Dimensions: C=80 I=70 T=85 E=75 Weighted: 80×0.35 + 70×0.20 + 85×0.25 + 75×0.20 = 28.0 + 14.0 + 21.25 + 15.0 = 78.25 → raw_overall = 78 Veto check: T09 failed (Google manual action / deindex history on record) 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: "Google manual action on record" severity: veto evidence: "Search Console shows an active manual action against the domain" ``` ### Worked example 2 — single veto, raw dim already below cap ``` Dimensions: C=55 I=70 T=58 E=72 Weighted: 55×0.35 + 70×0.20 + 58×0.25 + 72×0.20 = 19.25 + 14.0 + 14.5 + 14.4 = 62.15 → raw_overall = 62 Veto check: T03 failed (backlink volume far exceeds real traffic — link-farm pattern) After cap: T dimension 58 → 58 (unchanged; cap is a ceiling, not a floor) Overall 62 → 60 (overall still capped because a veto is present) Handoff: cap_applied: true raw_overall_score: 62 final_overall_score: 60 key_findings: - title: "Backlink volume inconsistent with real traffic" severity: veto evidence: "1.2M referring-domain links but estimated <800 monthly organic visits" ``` The T dimension stays 58 in the internal report — it is NOT raised to 60. The cap is a ceiling only. ### Worked example 3 — 2+ veto fails (BLOCKED path) ``` Dimensions: C=80 I=70 T=85 E=75 → raw_overall = 78 Veto check: T05 AND T09 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: T05 (manipulation network) and T09 (manual action)" - "Multi-veto cap calibration pending; domain requires manual review before re-scoring" key_findings: - title: "Backlink profile overlaps a known manipulation network" severity: veto - title: "Google manual action on record" severity: veto ``` ## §3 (CITE) · Guardrail Negatives (domain-level signals) These signals are easy to over-flag. Treat them as NEUTRAL or POSITIVE under the stated condition — do not deduct trust automatically. **Conditions are explicit.** | Signal | Treat as NOT manipulation WHEN | Flag only IF | |---|---|---| | Sudden backlink spike | A real launch, funding round, press hit, or viral post explains it | Spike is from unrelated, low-quality, or templated domains with no editorial context | | Few backlinks, strong brand | An established offline/branded entity with low link velocity by nature | Thin links AND no brand search demand AND no editorial mentions | | Shared hosting / same IP block | A CDN, shared host, or platform (Cloudflare, Vercel, Shopify) concentrates many sites on one IP | Distinct PBN fingerprint: same registrant, template, interlinking, and thin content across the set | | High nofollow share | Links come from legitimate news, UGC, or social platforms that nofollow by policy | nofollow share paired with paid-link or sponsored-without-disclosure patterns | | Young domain age | A real new business with organic growth and disclosed ownership | Young domain + aggressive exact-match anchors + link velocity inconsistent with traffic | If context contradicts a neutral reading, state the exception in the finding's `evidence` field (e.g. "spike of 4,000 links in 48h, all from one templated footer network"). ## §5 (CITE) · Veto-ID translation rows Use alongside the runbook's shared translation rows. These are the **CITE** veto meanings — never the CORE-EEAT ones (the same ID strings mean different things there). | Internal | User-facing | |---|---| | "T03 failed" | "Backlink volume far exceeds real traffic (link-farm pattern)" | | "T05 failed" | "Backlink profile nearly identical to another domain (manipulation network)" | | "T09 failed" | "Google manual action or deindexing on record" | ### Step 4: Scoring & Report Calculate scores and generate the final report: ```markdown ## CITE Domain Authority Report ### Overview - **Domain**: [domain] - **Domain Type**: [type] - **Audit Date**: [date] - **CITE Score**: [score]/100 ([rating]) - **Veto Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ Critical issue present *(score reflects cap per Runbook §2)* ### Dimension Scores | Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted | |-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------| | C — Citation | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] | | I — Identity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] | | T — Trust | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] | | E — Eminence | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] | | **CITE Score** | | | | **[X]/100** | **Score Calculation**: CITE Score = C × [w_C] + I × [w_I] + T × [w_T] + E × [w_E] **Rating Scale**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Medium | 40-59 Low | 0-39 Poor ### Per-Item Scores | ID | Check Item | Score | Notes | |----|-----------|-------|-------| | C01 | Referring Domains Volume | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] | | C02 | Referring Domains Quality | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... | | E10 | Industry Share of Voice | [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 (< 1 week) - [ ] [Action 1] - [ ] [Action 2] #### Medium Effort (1-4 weeks) - [ ] [Action 3] - [ ] [Action 4] #### Strategic (1-3 months) - [ ] [Action 5] - [ ] [Action 6] ### Cross-Reference with CORE-EEAT For a complete assessment, pair this CITE audit with a CORE-EEAT content audit: | Assessment | Score | Rating | |-----------|-------|--------| | CITE (Domain) | [X]/100 | [rating] | | CORE-EEAT (Content) | [Run content-quality-auditor on sample pages] | — | **Diagnosis Matrix**: - High CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Maintain and expand - High CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Prioritize content quality - Low CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Build domain authority - Low CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Start with content, then domain ### Recommended Next Steps - For domain authority building: focus on top 5 priorities above - For content improvement: use `content-quality-auditor` on key pages - For backlink strategy: use `backlink-analyzer` for detailed link analysis - For competitor benchmarking: use `competitor-analysis` with CITE scores - For tracking progress: run `/aaron-seo-geo:track --report` with CITE score trends ``` ### 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 CITE-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. For CITE, single-veto fails also raise a **Manipulation Alert** entry in `open_loops`. 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 (T03, T05, T09), 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/domain/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 - [ ] Domain identified and accessible - [ ] Domain type confirmed (auto-detected or user-specified) - [ ] Backlink data available (at minimum: referring domains count, DA (Moz Domain Authority™) / DR (Ahrefs Domain Rating™)) - [ ] If comparative audit, competitor domains also specified ### Output Validation - [ ] All 40 items scored (or marked N/A with reason) - [ ] All 4 dimension scores calculated correctly - [ ] Weighted CITE Score matches domain-type weight configuration - [ ] All 3 veto items checked first 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 [Example Report](references/example-report.md) for a complete CITE audit of cloudhosting.com showing veto check, dimension scores, top 5 improvements, action plan, and cross-reference with CORE-EEAT. ## Tips for Success 1. **Start with veto items** — T03, T05, T09 can invalidate the entire score 2. **Identify domain type first** — Different types have very different weight profiles 3. **AI citation items (C05-C08) matter most for GEO** — Test by querying AI engines with niche-relevant questions 4. **Some items need specialized tools** — Knowledge graph queries, AI citation monitoring, and IP diversity analysis may require manual research if tools aren't connected 5. **Pair with CORE-EEAT for full picture** — Domain authority without content quality (or vice versa) tells only half the story ## Reference Materials - [CITE Domain Rating](../../references/cite-domain-rating.md) — Full 40-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, domain-type weight tables, and veto items - [references/example-report.md](references/example-report.md) — Complete CITE audit example with scored dimensions, top 5 improvements, action plan, and CORE-EEAT cross-reference ## Next Best Skill CAUTIOUS + link-quality: [backlink-analyzer](../../monitor/backlink-analyzer/SKILL.md). UNTRUSTED: [entity-optimizer](../entity-optimizer/SKILL.md). TRUSTED: terminal. Visited-set rule applies per [skill-contract.md](../../references/skill-contract.md).