eeat-content-quality-audit

Systematic content quality audit based on 80 CORE-EEAT standards, evaluating content's GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) and SEO (Search Engine Optimizati...

Security Scan

This is an instruction-only EEAT/GEO content-audit skill whose declared requirements, instructions, and artifacts are consistent with its stated purpose and do not request credentials, installs, or unexplained privileges.

Purpose & Capability

The skill name and description match the SKILL.md and included reference files: it defines an 80-item CORE-EEAT audit, scoring rules, veto items, and content-type weights. There are no extra environment variables, binaries, or config paths declared that would be unnecessary for a content audit.

Instruction Scope

The runtime instructions are narrowly scoped to requesting content text/URL or file path, running the 80-item scoring procedure (using the included reference docs), and marking site-level items as N/A when not accessible. The SKILL.md explicitly recommends manual input and notes which checks require site-level data, and it does not instruct the agent to read local secrets, arbitrary system files, or contact hidden endpoints.

Install Mechanism

There is no install spec and no code files to be written or executed; this is instruction-only, so nothing will be downloaded or installed during skill use.

Credentials

The skill declares no required environment variables, credentials, or config paths. The audit workflow acknowledges that some Authority/Trust items require site-level data and instructs marking them as N/A when unavailable, which is proportionate.

Persistence & Privilege

The skill is not forced-always (always:false) and does not request persistent or elevated privileges. Autonomous invocation is allowed by default on the platform but poses no additional risk here because the skill has no install or secret requirements.

Assessment

This skill appears coherent and low-risk: it is instruction-only, ships the audit criteria, and requests no secrets or installs. Before using it, avoid pasting sensitive content into the audit prompt (do not include private API keys or PII embedded in content). If you provide a URL, confirm whether your agent will fetch the page itself or you will paste the page text—the SKILL.md recommends manual input and flags site-level checks as N/A when the agent can't access them. Lastly, remember that 'benign' here means the skill's scope is coherent — validate any audit recommendations manually before acting, since judgments about credibility and legal claims still require human review.

This skill is developed based on the CORE-EEAT Content Benchmark, providing 80 standardized content quality audit criteria.

Skill Overview

This skill evaluates content quality through 80 standardized criteria across 8 core dimensions. It generates comprehensive audit reports including item-level scores, dimension scores, system scores (GEO/SEO), content-type weighted total scores, veto item detection, and priority action plans.

Applicable Scenarios

Use this skill when users request the following:

• Content quality check or audit
• EEAT scoring or E-E-A-T audit
• Content quality assessment
• CORE-EEAT audit
• GEO quality scoring
• Content improvement recommendations
• AI citation potential assessment
• Content optimization plan
• "How good is my content"
• "Can my content be cited by AI"

Core Capabilities

This skill can:

1. Complete 80-Item Audit: Score each CORE-EEAT item as Pass/Partial/Fail
2. Dimension Scoring: Calculate scores for all 8 dimensions (0-100 points each)
3. System Scoring: Calculate GEO score (CORE) and SEO score (EEAT)
4. Weighted Total Score: Calculate final score based on content-type specific weights
5. Veto Item Detection: Flag critical credibility violations (T04, C01, R10)
6. Priority Ranking: Identify top 5 improvement recommendations by impact
7. Action Plan: Generate specific, actionable improvement steps

Content Types

This skill supports the following content types, each with different dimension weights:

• Product Review
• How-To Guide
• Comparison Review
• Landing Page
• Blog Post
• FAQ
• Alternative Recommendation
• Best Recommendation
• User Review

Usage

Basic Audit

Please audit the quality of the following content: [Content text or URL]

Perform content quality audit on [URL]

Specify Content Type

Audit this content as a product review: [Content]

Score this tutorial based on 80 criteria: [Content]

Comparison Audit

Audit the differences between my content and competitor's: [Your content] vs [Competitor content]

Data Input Requirements

Manual Data Input (Currently recommended):

Request users to provide:

1. Content text, URL, or file path
2. Content type (if cannot auto-detect): Product Review, How-To Guide, Comparison Review, Landing Page, Blog Post, FAQ, Alternative Recommendation, Best Recommendation, User Review
3. Optional: Competitor content for comparative assessment

Note: Explicitly mark in the output which items cannot be fully evaluated due to lack of access (e.g., backlink data, Schema markup, site-level signals).

Execution Steps

When users request content quality audit, follow these steps:

Step 1: Audit Preparation

### Audit Preparation

**Content**: [Title or URL]
**Content Type**: [Auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [Load from content type weight table]

#### Veto Item Check (Emergency Brake)

| Veto Item | Status | Action |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| T04: Disclosure Statement | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ Triggered | [If triggered: "Immediately add disclosure banner at top of page"] |
| C01: Intent Alignment | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ Triggered | [If triggered: "Rewrite title and first paragraph"] |
| R10: Content Consistency | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ Triggered | [If triggered: "Verify all data before publication"] |

If any veto item is triggered, prominently mark it at the top of the report and recommend immediate action before continuing with the full audit.

Step 2: CORE Audit (40 Items)

Evaluate each item according to standards in references/core-eeat-benchmark.md.

Score each item:

• Pass = 10 points (Fully meets standard)
• Partial = 5 points (Partially meets standard)
• Fail = 0 points (Does not meet standard)

### 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 Dimension Score**: [X]/100

Evaluate O (Organization), R (Referenceability), and E (Exclusivity) in the same table format, 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 Dimension Score**: [X]/100

Evaluate Ept (Expertise), A (Authority), and T (Trust) in the same table format, 10 items per dimension.

For detailed 80-item ID lookup table and site-level item handling instructions, see references/item-reference.md.

Step 4: Scoring and Reporting

Calculate scores and generate 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 Item Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ [Item] triggered

### Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted Score |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------------|
| 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 Score** | | | | **[X]/100** |

**Score Calculation Formulas**:
- GEO Score = (C + O + R + E) / 4
- SEO Score = (Exp + Ept + A + T) / 4
- Weighted Score = Σ (Dimension Score × Content Type Weight)

**Rating Standards**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Fair | 40-59 Poor | 0-39 Very Poor

### Unavailable Item Handling

When an item cannot be evaluated (e.g., A01 backlink profile requires site-level data, inaccessible):

1. Mark the item as "N/A" and note the reason
2. Exclude N/A items from dimension score calculation
3. Dimension Score = (Sum of scored items) / (Number of scored items × 10) × 100
4. If a dimension has >50% items as N/A, mark that dimension as "Insufficient Data" and exclude from weighted total score
5. Recalculate weighted total score using only dimensions with sufficient data, renormalizing weights to total 100%

**Example**: Authority dimension has 8 N/A items and 2 scored items (A05=8, A07=5):
- Dimension Score = (8+5) / (2 × 10) × 100 = 65
- But 8/10 items are N/A (>50%), so mark as "Insufficient Data -- Authority"
- Exclude A dimension from weighted total; redistribute its weight proportionally to remaining dimensions

### Item-Level 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 (by impact from high to low)

1. **[ID] [Name]** — [Specific improvement suggestion]
   - Current Status: [Fail/Partial] | Potential Gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [Specific steps]

2. **[ID] [Name]** — [Specific improvement suggestion]
   - Current Status: [Fail/Partial] | Potential Gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [Specific steps]

3–5. [Same format]

### Action Plan

#### Quick Wins (Less than 30 minutes each)
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]

#### Medium Investment (1-2 hours)
- [ ] [Action 3]
- [ ] [Action 4]

#### Strategic (Requires Planning)
- [ ] [Action 5]
- [ ] [Action 6]

### Recommended Next Steps

- Complete content rewrite: Rewrite with CORE-EEAT constraints
- GEO optimization: Optimize for failed GEO-First items
- Content refresh: Focus on weak dimensions
- Technical fixes: Check site-level issues

Validation Checkpoints

Input Validation

• Content source identified (text, URL, or file path)
• Content type confirmed (auto-detected or user-specified)
• Content sufficient 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 score matches content type weight configuration
• Veto items checked and marked if triggered
• Top 5 improvements sorted by weighted impact, not arbitrary order
• Each recommendation specific and actionable (not generic)
• Action plan includes specific steps and investment estimates

Success Points

1. Start with Veto Items — T04, C01, R10 are one-vote veto items; they affect overall evaluation regardless of total score

2. Focus on High-Weight Dimensions — Different content types prioritize different dimensions

3. GEO-First Items are Critical for AI Visibility — If goal is AI citation, prioritize items marked with GEO 🎯

4. Some EEAT Items Require Site-Level Data — Don't penalize content for things only observable at site level (backlinks, brand recognition)

5. Use Weighted Scores, Not Just Raw Averages — Product reviews with strong exclusivity are more important than strong authority

6. Re-Audit After Improvements — Run again to verify score improvements and catch regressions

Terminology

CORE (Content Quality)

• C (Contextual Clarity): Contextual Clarity — Whether content is clear, accurate, and directly answers user questions
• O (Organization): Organization — Whether content has good structure, hierarchy, and navigation
• R (Referenceability): Referenceability — Whether content has sufficient data, evidence, and citations
• E (Exclusivity): Exclusivity — Whether content offers unique insights, data, and perspectives

EEAT (Source Credibility)

• Exp (Experience): Experience — Whether author demonstrates actual usage experience
• Ept (Expertise): Expertise — Whether author demonstrates professional knowledge and skills
• A (Authority): Authority — Whether content source possesses authority and industry status
• T (Trust): Trust — Whether content is trustworthy

GEO (Generative Engine Optimization)

• Content optimization for AI search engines (e.g., Google SGE, Bing Chat)
• Emphasizes direct answer capability, referenceability, and exclusivity

Reference Documents

• references/core-eeat-benchmark.md — Complete 80-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring standards, and GEO-First item markers
• references/item-reference.md — Compact lookup table for all 80 item IDs + site-level item handling instructions + sample scored report

Notes

• Read reference documents only when needed to maintain context conciseness
• When operations are fragile or require strong consistency, prioritize script execution with result validation
• Fully leverage the agent's language understanding and generation capabilities; avoid writing scripts for simple tasks
• This skill primarily serves Chinese users but retains industry terminology (CORE, EEAT, GEO) for alignment with international standards