Content Quality Auditor

Based on

CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark

. Full benchmark reference:

references/core-eeat-benchmark.md

SEO & GEO Skills Library

· 20 skills for SEO + GEO · Install all:

npx skills add aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills

Research

·

keyword-research

·

competitor-analysis

·

serp-analysis

·

content-gap-analysis

Build

·

seo-content-writer

·

geo-content-optimizer

·

meta-tags-optimizer

·

schema-markup-generator

Optimize

·

on-page-seo-auditor

·

technical-seo-checker

·

internal-linking-optimizer

·

content-refresher

Monitor

·

rank-tracker

·

backlink-analyzer

·

performance-reporter

·

alert-manager

Cross-cutting

·

content-quality-auditor

·

domain-authority-auditor

·

entity-optimizer

·

memory-management

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 to Use This Skill

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

Veto Detection

Flags critical trust violations (T04, C01, R10)

Priority Ranking

Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact
Action Plan: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps How to Use 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] Data Sources See CONNECTORS.md for tool category placeholders. With ~~web crawler + ~~SEO tool connected: Automatically fetch page content, extract HTML structure, check schema markup, verify internal/external links, and pull competitor content for comparison. 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). 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]

|

| | T04: Disclosure Statements | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Add disclosure banner at page top immediately"] | | C01: Intent Alignment | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Rewrite title and first paragraph"] | | R10: Content Consistency | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "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 . Score each item: Pass = 10 points (fully meets criteria) Partial = 5 points (partially meets criteria) Fail = 0 points (does not meet criteria)

|

|
|
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)

|

|
|
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 for the complete 80-item ID lookup table and site-level item handling notes. 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

|

|
|
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

|

| | C01 | Intent Alignment | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] | | C02 | Direct Answer | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... |

|

| | Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] | | ... | ... | ... | ... |

Top 5 Priority Improvements Sorted by: weight × points lost (highest impact first) 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 /seo:check-technical for site-level issues 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 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 Example See 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 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. Focus on high-weight dimensions — Different content types prioritize different dimensions GEO-First items matter most for AI visibility — Prioritize items tagged GEO 🎯 if AI citation is the goal Some EEAT items need site-level data — Don't penalize content for things only observable at the site level (backlinks, brand recognition) Use the weighted score, not just the raw average — A product review with strong Exclusivity matters more than strong Authority Re-audit after improvements — Run again to verify score improvements and catch regressions 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 for the full 120-item picture Reference Materials CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark — Full 80-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, and GEO-First item markers references/item-reference.md — All 80 item IDs in a compact lookup table + site-level item handling notes + scored example report

安装

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Overview

[title]

[type]

[date]

[score]/100 ([rating])

[score]/100

|

|

|

|

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"

|

|

|

|

|

|

Quick Wins (< 30 minutes each)

Medium Effort (1-2 hours)

Strategic (Requires planning)

Recommended Next Steps