# GEO content quality & e-e-a-t assessment Human Guide

## What This Is For
Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment for AI citability — evaluate experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and content structure It gives the agent a clearer input/output frame for search and SEO workflows: what context to ask for, what decisions to make, and what usable artifact to return.

Use this as a human-readable version of the GEO content quality & e-e-a-t assessment agent skill. It is meant for marketers, operators, founders, and other non-coders who want the workflow without reading agent-specific implementation instructions.

## When To Use This
- Use this when you need a repeatable process for GEO content quality & e-e-a-t assessment.
- Use this when the task needs judgment, examples, constraints, or a clear output format rather than a one-off prompt.
- Use this when you want to hand an AI assistant enough context to produce a usable marketing artifact.

## When Not To Use This
- Do not use this when you only need a quick factual answer.
- Do not use this when the work depends on private data you cannot share with the assistant.
- Do not use this as a replacement for legal, compliance, financial, or medical review.

## What You Need Before Starting
- The goal or business outcome you want.
- The audience, customer segment, or market context.
- Any source material the assistant should respect, such as notes, briefs, examples, URLs, or brand guidance.
- Constraints such as tone, length, channel, deadline, region, or approval requirements.
- A clear definition of what a good final answer should look like.

## Step-By-Step Workflow
1. State the job clearly: "Use the GEO content quality & e-e-a-t assessment guide to help me with..."
2. Add context: audience, goal, offer, channel, source material, and constraints.
3. Ask the assistant to identify missing inputs before producing the final output.
4. Have the assistant follow the skill-specific guidance below.
5. Review the result against the final checklist and ask for revisions where needed.

## Skill-Specific Guidance
- **E-E-A-T signals** — does the content demonstrate real expertise and trust?
- **AI citability** — is the content structured so AI platforms can extract and cite specific claims?
- Fetch the target page(s) — homepage, key blog posts, service/product pages
- Evaluate E-E-A-T across the 4 dimensions (25% each)
- Assess content quality metrics (structure, readability, depth)
- Check for AI content quality signals
- Evaluate topical authority across the site
- Score and generate GEO-CONTENT-ANALYSIS.md
- Content that only summarizes what other sources say without adding new perspective
- Generic advice that could apply to any situation ("It depends on your needs")
- No mention of actual usage, testing, or direct involvement
- Hedging language that suggests lack of direct knowledge ("reportedly", "supposedly", "some say")

## Decision Points And Nuance
The original skill emphasizes: Purpose, How to Use This Skill, E-E-A-T Framework (100 points total), Experience — 25 points, Expertise — 25 points, Authoritativeness — 25 points, Trustworthiness — 25 points, Content Quality Metrics, Word Count Benchmarks, Readability Assessment.

Use these questions to steer the work:
- What is the intended audience or buyer?
- What source material must be preserved?
- What should the assistant optimize for: clarity, persuasion, accuracy, speed, creativity, or conversion?
- What examples represent the desired quality bar?
- What should the assistant avoid?

## Common Mistakes
- **One idea per paragraph** — do not mix topics within a paragraph
- **No skipped levels** — do not go from H1 to H3 without an H2
- | Generic phrasing | "In today's fast-paced world...", "It's important to note that...", "At the end of the day..." |
- | Updated 12-24 months ago | Warning — review for accuracy |
- It covers fundamental concepts that do not change (physics, basic math, legal definitions)

## Copy-And-Paste Prompt
```text
Use the GEO content quality & e-e-a-t assessment human guide.

My goal:
[Describe the business outcome]

Audience:
[Describe who this is for]

Context and source material:
[Paste notes, examples, links, or existing copy]

Constraints:
[Tone, length, channel, timeline, must-include items, must-avoid items]

Before producing the final output, ask me for any missing information that would materially improve the result.
```

## Final Checklist
- [ ] The output matches the original goal.
- [ ] The audience and context are reflected in the answer.
- [ ] Important constraints and source material were preserved.
- [ ] The assistant made the relevant decisions explicit.
- [ ] The final artifact is ready to use, review, or hand to the next person.

## Source
This guide was generated from the zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude skill entry for `geo-content`.

## Source Skill Notes
These notes preserve the nuance from the original skill. Use them as supporting reference when the workflow above feels too generic.

# GEO Content Quality & E-E-A-T Assessment

## Purpose

AI search platforms do not just find content — they evaluate whether content deserves to be cited. The primary framework for this evaluation is **E-E-A-T** (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness), which per Google's December 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines update now applies to **ALL competitive queries**, not just YMYL (Your Money Your Life) topics. Content that scores high on E-E-A-T is dramatically more likely to be cited by AI platforms.

This skill evaluates content through two lenses:
1. **E-E-A-T signals** — does the content demonstrate real expertise and trust?
2. **AI citability** — is the content structured so AI platforms can extract and cite specific claims?

## How to Use This Skill

1. Fetch the target page(s) — homepage, key blog posts, service/product pages
2. Evaluate E-E-A-T across the 4 dimensions (25% each)
3. Assess content quality metrics (structure, readability, depth)
4. Check for AI content quality signals
5. Evaluate topical authority across the site
6. Score and generate GEO-CONTENT-ANALYSIS.md

---

## E-E-A-T Framework (100 points total)

### Experience — 25 points
First-hand knowledge and direct involvement with the topic. AI platforms increasingly distinguish between content that reports on a topic and content from someone who has DONE it.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score |
|---|---|---|
| First-person accounts ("I tested...", "We implemented...") | 5 | 5 if present and specific, 3 if generic, 0 if absent |
| Original research or data not available elsewhere | 5 | 5 if original data, 3 if references original work, 0 if none |
| Case studies with specific results | 4 | 4 if detailed with numbers, 2 if general, 0 if none |
| Screenshots, photos, or evidence of direct use | 3 | 3 if authentic evidence, 1 if stock/generic, 0 if none |
| Specific examples from personal experience | 4 | 4 if specific and unique, 2 if somewhat specific, 0 if generic |
| Demonstrations of process (not just outcome) | 4 | 4 if step-by-step from experience, 2 if partial, 0 if none |

**What to flag as weak Experience:**
- Content that only summarizes what other sources say without adding new perspective
- Generic advice that could apply to any situation ("It depends on your needs")
- No mention of actual usage, testing, or direct involvement
- Hedging language that suggests lack of direct knowledge ("reportedly", "supposedly", "some say")

### Expertise — 25 points
Demonstrated knowledge depth and professional competence in the subject matter.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score |
|---|---|---|
| Author credentials visible (bio, degrees, certifications) | 5 | 5 if full credentials, 3 if basic bio, 0 if no author |
| Technical depth appropriate to topic | 5 | 5 if thorough technical treatment, 3 if adequate, 0 if superficial |
| Methodology explanation (how conclusions were reached) | 4 | 4 if clear methodology, 2 if some explanation, 0 if none |
| Data-backed claims (statistics, research citations) | 4 | 4 if well-sourced, 2 if some data, 0 if unsupported claims |
| Industry-specific terminology used correctly | 3 | 3 if accurate specialized language, 1 if basic, 0 if errors |
| Author page with detailed professional background | 4 | 4 if dedicated author page, 2 if brief bio, 0 if none |

**What to flag as weak Expertise:**
- Claims without supporting evidence or sources
- Surface-level coverage of complex topics
- Misuse of technical terminology
- No visible author or author without relevant credentials
- Content that is broad and generic rather than deep and specific

### Authoritativeness — 25 points
Recognition by others as a credible source on the topic.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score |
|---|---|---|
| Inbound citations from authoritative sources | 5 | 5 if cited by major sources, 3 if some citations, 0 if none |
| Author quoted or cited in press/media | 4 | 4 if media mentions, 2 if industry mentions, 0 if none |
| Industry awards or recognition mentioned | 3 | 3 if relevant awards, 1 if tangential, 0 if none |
| Speaker credentials (conferences, events) | 3 | 3 if listed, 0 if none |
| Published in peer-reviewed or respected outlets | 4 | 4 if tier-1 publications, 2 if industry outlets, 0 if none |
| Comprehensive topic coverage (topical authority) | 3 | 3 if site covers topic thoroughly, 1 if some coverage, 0 if isolated |
| Brand mentioned on Wikipedia or authoritative references | 3 | 3 if Wikipedia, 2 if other encyclopedic refs, 0 if none |

**What to flag as weak Authoritativeness:**