跳至主要内容
小龙虾小龙虾AI
🤖

Content Quality Auditor

This skill should be used when the user asks to "audit content quality", "EEAT score", "E-E-A-T audit", "content quality check", "CORE-EEAT audit", "helpful...

下载1.5k
星标0
版本3.0.0
营销推广
安全通过
💬Prompt

技能说明


name: content-quality-auditor version: "3.0.0" description: 'This skill should be used when the user asks to "audit content quality", "EEAT score", "E-E-A-T audit", "content quality check", "CORE-EEAT audit", "helpful content assessment", "experience expertise authoritativeness trust", "how good is my content", "is my content AI-citation worthy", "content improvement plan", "helpful content update impact", or "GEO quality score". Runs the full 80-item CORE-EEAT audit across 8 dimensions: Contextual Clarity, Organization, Referenceability, Exclusivity (CORE, GEO-focused) plus Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trust (EEAT, SEO-focused). Produces a GEO Score, SEO Score, content-type weighted total, per-item pass/partial/fail, and prioritized fix plan with veto item checks. For SEO page element audits, see on-page-seo-auditor. For domain-level authority, see domain-authority-auditor.' license: Apache-2.0 allowed-tools: WebFetch compatibility: "Claude Code ≥1.0, skills.sh marketplace, ClawHub marketplace, Vercel Labs skills ecosystem. No system packages required. Optional: MCP network access for SEO tool integrations." metadata: author: aaron-he-zhu version: "3.0.0" geo-relevance: "high" tags: - seo - geo - e-e-a-t - helpful-content - content-quality - content-scoring - ai-quality - core-eeat - experience-expertise-authoritativeness-trust - helpful-content-update triggers: - "audit content quality" - "EEAT score" - "content quality check" - "CORE-EEAT audit" - "how good is my content" - "content assessment" - "quality score" - "is my content good enough to rank" - "EEAT check" - "rate my content quality"

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

<details> <summary>Browse all 20 skills</summary>

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

</details>

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

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:

  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

### 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](../../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

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

  1. 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.

  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
  7. 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

Related Skills

如何使用「Content Quality Auditor」?

  1. 打开小龙虾AI(Web 或 iOS App)
  2. 点击上方「立即使用」按钮,或在对话框中输入任务描述
  3. 小龙虾AI 会自动匹配并调用「Content Quality Auditor」技能完成任务
  4. 结果即时呈现,支持继续对话优化

相关技能