eeat-content-quality-audit

# EEAT Content Quality Audit > 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 ```markdown ### 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) ```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 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) ```markdown ### 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: ```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 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