AgentSkillsCN

content-quality-auditor

执行一次完整的 CORE-EEAT 80 项内容质量审核，依据内容类型设定加权评分，从八个维度对内容进行综合评估。生成一份详尽的报告，包含逐项得分、维度分析，以及优先级分明的行动方案。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: content-quality-auditor
description: Runs a full CORE-EEAT 80-item content quality audit, scoring content across 8 dimensions with weighted scoring by content type. Produces a detailed report with per-item scores, dimension analysis, and a prioritized action plan.

Content Quality Auditor

Based on CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark. Full benchmark reference: 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 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

  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

How to Use

Audit Content

code
Audit this content against CORE-EEAT: [content text or URL]
code
Run a content quality audit on [URL] as a [content type]

Audit with Content Type

code
CORE-EEAT audit for this product review: [content]
code
Score this how-to guide against the 80-item benchmark: [content]

Comparative Audit

code
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:

  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).

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]

#### 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)
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

### 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]/100

Step 3: EEAT Audit (40 items)

Same format for Exp, Ept, A, T dimensions.

markdown
### 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]

Note: Some EEAT items (A01 Backlink Profile, A05 Brand Recognition, A07 Knowledge Graph Presence, etc.) may require site-level data not available from content alone. Score what is observable; mark unverifiable items as "N/A — requires site-level data" and exclude from dimension average.

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

### 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 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

User: "Audit this article about email marketing best practices for CORE-EEAT quality"

Output: [Full audit report following the structure above, with all 80 items scored, dimension and total scores calculated using Blog Post weights (C:25%, O:10%, R:10%, E:20%, Exp:10%, Ept:10%, A:5%, T:10%), Top 5 improvements identified, and action plan generated]

Tips for Success

  1. •Start with veto items — T04, C01, R10 are deal-breakers regardless of total 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

Related Skills