content-quality-auditorRuns a full CORE-EEAT 80-item content quality audit, scoring content across 8 dimensions with weighted scoring by content type. Produces a detailed report wi...
Install via ClawdBot CLI:
clawdbot install aaron-he-zhu/content-quality-auditorBased 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.
Audit this content against CORE-EEAT: [content text or URL]Run a content quality audit on [URL] as a [content type]CORE-EEAT audit for this product review: [content]Score this how-to guide against the 80-item benchmark: [content]Audit my content vs competitor: [your content] vs [competitor content]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:
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).
When a user requests a content quality audit:
### Audit Setup
**Content**: [title or URL]
**Content Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [loaded from content-type weight table]
#### Veto Check (Emergency Brake)
| Veto Item | Status | Action |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| 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.
Evaluate each item against the criteria in references/core-eeat-benchmark.md.
Score each item:
### 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
### O — Organization
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| O01 | Heading Hierarchy | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
**O Score**: [X]/100
### R — Referenceability
[Same format]
**R Score**: [X]/100
### E — Exclusivity
[Same format]
**E Score**: [X]/100Same format for Exp, Ept, A, T dimensions.
### Exp — Experience
| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| Exp01 | First-Person Narrative | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
**Exp Score**: [X]/100
### Ept — Expertise
[Same format]
### A — Authority
[Same format]
### T — Trust
[Same format]| ID | Item | ID | Item |
|----|------|----|------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | Exp01 | First-Person Narrative |
| C02 | Direct Answer | Exp02 | Sensory Details |
| C03 | Query Coverage | Exp03 | Process Documentation |
| C04 | Definition First | Exp04 | Tangible Proof |
| C05 | Topic Scope | Exp05 | Usage Duration |
| C06 | Audience Targeting | Exp06 | Problems Encountered |
| C07 | Semantic Coherence | Exp07 | Before/After Comparison |
| C08 | Use Case Mapping | Exp08 | Quantified Metrics |
| C09 | FAQ Coverage | Exp09 | Repeated Testing |
| C10 | Semantic Closure | Exp10 | Limitations Acknowledged |
| O01 | Heading Hierarchy | Ept01 | Author Identity |
| O02 | Summary Box | Ept02 | Credentials Display |
| O03 | Data Tables | Ept03 | Professional Vocabulary |
| O04 | List Formatting | Ept04 | Technical Depth |
| O05 | Schema Markup | Ept05 | Methodology Rigor |
| O06 | Section Chunking | Ept06 | Edge Case Awareness |
| O07 | Visual Hierarchy | Ept07 | Historical Context |
| O08 | Anchor Navigation | Ept08 | Reasoning Transparency |
| O09 | Information Density | Ept09 | Cross-domain Integration |
| O10 | Multimedia Structure | Ept10 | Editorial Process |
| R01 | Data Precision | A01 | Backlink Profile |
| R02 | Citation Density | A02 | Media Mentions |
| R03 | Source Hierarchy | A03 | Industry Awards |
| R04 | Evidence-Claim Mapping | A04 | Publishing Record |
| R05 | Methodology Transparency | A05 | Brand Recognition |
| R06 | Timestamp & Versioning | A06 | Social Proof |
| R07 | Entity Precision | A07 | Knowledge Graph Presence |
| R08 | Internal Link Graph | A08 | Entity Consistency |
| R09 | HTML Semantics | A09 | Partnership Signals |
| R10 | Content Consistency | A10 | Community Standing |
| E01 | Original Data | T01 | Legal Compliance |
| E02 | Novel Framework | T02 | Contact Transparency |
| E03 | Primary Research | T03 | Security Standards |
| E04 | Contrarian View | T04 | Disclosure Statements |
| E05 | Proprietary Visuals | T05 | Editorial Policy |
| E06 | Gap Filling | T06 | Correction & Update Policy |
| E07 | Practical Tools | T07 | Ad Experience |
| E08 | Depth Advantage | T08 | Risk Disclaimers |
| E09 | Synthesis Value | T09 | Review Authenticity |
| E10 | Forward Insights | T10 | Customer Support |
Note on site-level items: Most Authority items (A01-A10) and several Trust items (T01-T03, T05, T07, T10) require site-level or organization-level data that may not be observable from a single page. When auditing a standalone page without site context, mark these as "N/A — requires site-level data" and exclude from the dimension average.
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
### 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] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
### 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](../../build/seo-content-writer/) with CORE-EEAT constraints
- For GEO optimization: use [geo-content-optimizer](../../build/geo-content-optimizer/) targeting failed GEO-First items
- For content refresh: use [content-refresher](../../optimize/content-refresher/) with weak dimensions as focus
- For technical fixes: run `/seo:check-technical` for site-level issuesUser: "Audit this blog post against CORE-EEAT: [paste of 'Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025']"
Output (partial -- showing one dimension to demonstrate format):
## CORE-EEAT Audit Report
### Overview
- **Content**: "Best Project Management Tools for Remote Teams 2025"
- **Content Type**: Blog Post / Comparison
- **Audit Date**: 2025-06-15
- **Veto Status**: No triggers
### C -- Contextual Clarity (scored dimension example)
| ID | Check Item | Score | Points | Notes |
|-----|--------------------|---------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------|
| C01 | Intent Alignment | Pass | 10 | Matches "best X" comparison intent; title and body aligned |
| C02 | Direct Answer | Partial | 5 | Answer appears in first 300 words but no summary box |
| C03 | Query Coverage | Pass | 10 | Covers "project management tools", "remote team software", "best PM tools" |
| C04 | Definition First | Pass | 10 | Key terms ("PM tool", "async collaboration") defined on first use |
| C05 | Topic Scope | Partial | 5 | States what's covered but not what's excluded |
| C06 | Audience Targeting | Pass | 10 | Explicitly targets "remote team leads and managers" |
| C07 | Semantic Coherence | Pass | 10 | Logical flow: intro > criteria > tools > comparison > verdict |
| C08 | Use Case Mapping | Pass | 10 | Decision matrix for team size, budget, and features |
| C09 | FAQ Coverage | Fail | 0 | No FAQ section despite long-tail potential ("free PM tools for small teams") |
| C10 | Semantic Closure | Partial | 5 | Conclusion present but doesn't loop back to opening promise |
**C Dimension Score**: 75/100 (Good)
**Blog Post weight for C**: 25%
**Weighted contribution**: 18.75
#### Priority Improvements from C Dimension
1. **C09 FAQ Coverage** -- Add FAQ section with 3-5 long-tail questions
- Current: Fail (0) | Potential gain: 2.5 weighted points
- Action: Add FAQ with "Are there free PM tools for small remote teams?", "How to migrate between PM tools?", etc.
2. **C02 Direct Answer** -- Add a summary box above the fold
- Current: Partial (5) | Potential gain: 1.25 weighted points
- Action: Insert a "Top 3 Picks" callout box in the first 150 words
[... remaining 7 dimensions (O, R, E, Exp, Ept, A, T) follow the same per-item format ...]
[... then: Dimension Scores table, Top 5 Priority Improvements, Action Plan, Recommended Next Steps ...]> These veto items are consistent with the CORE-EEAT benchmark (Section 3), which defines them as items that can override the overall score.
Generated Mar 1, 2026
An online retailer wants to audit product descriptions before a seasonal launch to ensure they meet EEAT standards for expertise and trust, helping improve conversion rates and SEO rankings. The audit checks for clear product details, accurate specifications, and proper disclosure of affiliate links.
A plumbing company audits its service pages and blog posts to enhance local SEO and build authority in its geographic area. The audit evaluates content for local relevance, customer testimonials, and clear contact information to attract more local leads.
A health blog runs an audit on its articles to ensure compliance with medical accuracy and trust guidelines, avoiding penalties from search engines. The audit scores content for expertise citations, up-to-date information, and clear disclaimers.
A software-as-a-service provider audits its landing pages to improve clarity and trust signals for potential customers. The audit assesses value proposition, feature explanations, and user testimonials to boost sign-up rates.
A travel agency reviews its destination guides to ensure they are comprehensive and trustworthy for travelers. The audit checks for accurate pricing, local insights, and safety information to enhance user experience and search visibility.
Platforms like news sites or educational portals use this skill to regularly audit content quality, maintaining subscriber trust and reducing churn. High-quality audits help justify subscription fees and improve retention through reliable information.
Affiliate sites audit product reviews and recommendations to ensure transparency and compliance with FTC guidelines, avoiding penalties and building audience trust. This leads to higher click-through rates and commission earnings.
Agencies offer content auditing as a service to clients, using detailed reports to justify SEO strategies and upsell optimization packages. This skill helps agencies demonstrate value and secure long-term contracts.
💬 Integration Tip
Connect this skill with a web crawler to automatically fetch page content and schema data, reducing manual input and speeding up audits for large sites.
Marketing Mode combines 23 comprehensive marketing skills covering strategy, psychology, content, SEO, conversion optimization, and paid growth. Use when users need marketing strategy, copywriting, SEO help, conversion optimization, paid advertising, or any marketing tactic.
Access 23 marketing modules offering checklists, frameworks, and ready-to-use deliverables for CRO, SEO, copywriting, analytics, launches, ads, and social me...
SEO specialist agent with site audits, content writing, keyword research, technical fixes, link building, and ranking strategies.
Perform deep SEO competitor analysis, including keyword research, backlink checking, and content strategy mapping. Use when the user wants to analyze a website's competitors or improve their own SEO ranking by studying the competition.
Query Google Search Console for SEO data - search queries, top pages, CTR opportunities, URL inspection, and sitemaps. Use when analyzing search performance,...
Run local SEO autopilot for boll-koll.se or hyresbyte.se and return PR link plus summary.