content-quality-auditor

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 · ClawHub · skills.sh
> System Mode: This cross-cutting skill is part of the protocol layer and follows the shared Skill Contract and State Model.

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.

System role: Publish Readiness Gate. It decides whether content is ready to ship, what blocks publication, and what should be promoted into durable project memory.

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 auto-triggers: after content is written or substantially edited, the hook recommends 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

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

Quick Start

Start with one of these prompts. Finish with a publish verdict and a handoff summary using the repository format in Skill Contract.

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 veto items, dimension scores above threshold) / FIX (issues found but no veto) / BLOCK (veto item T04, C01, or R10 failed). Always state the verdict prominently at the top of the report.

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, supporting evidence, and any prior decisions from CLAUDE.md and the shared State Model when available.

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.

Next handoff: use the Next Best Skill below once the verdict is clear.

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).

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

### 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.

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)

### 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)

### 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 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

### 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` 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

Save Results

After delivering findings to the user, ask:

> "Save these results for future sessions?"

If yes, write a dated summary to the appropriate memory/ path using filename YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md containing:

One-line verdict or headline finding

Top 3-5 actionable items

Open loops or blockers

Source data references

If any veto-level issue was found (CORE-EEAT T04, C01, R10 or CITE T03, T05, T09), also append a one-liner to memory/hot-cache.md without asking.

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

Next Best Skill

Primary: content-refresher — turn failed checks into a concrete rewrite plan.

content-quality-auditor

Author

Category

Install