/seo-content

name: seo-content
description: >
  Evaluate page content for usefulness, E-E-A-T, readability, thinness, and AI
  citation readiness, plus last-mile draft cleanup (AI-typical phrasing and
  invisible Unicode watermark characters). Use for content-only analysis, not
  full-page technical checks.
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "[url]"
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: AgriciDaniel
  version: "2.6.0"
  category: seo

Content Quality & E-E-A-T Analysis

Google's "Who / How / Why" Test (canonical heuristic)

Before scoring E-E-A-T sub-factors, every page audit should pass Google's own three-question heuristic from the helpful-content guide:

| Question | What to look for | |---|---| | **Who** created it? | Visible byline, author bio page, professional credentials. Required where readers expect it; non-negotiable for YMYL. | | **How** was it created? | Process disclosure where readers would reasonably ask, especially for AI-assisted content. Original research / first-hand evidence / lived experience. | | **Why** does it exist? | "To help people" rather than "to attract search clicks." Watch for niche entry without expertise, content churn for freshness signals, content written to a word-count target. |

Primary source: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content

When all three answers are weak, the page is at risk under the core ranking system's helpfulness signals (formerly the standalone Helpful Content System, merged into core during the March 2024 update).

E-E-A-T Framework (updated Sept 2025 QRG)

Read `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/seo/references/eeat-framework.md` for full criteria and `${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/seo/references/eeat-scoring-guide.md` for score bands.

Experience (first-hand signals)

• Original research, case studies, before/after results
• Personal anecdotes, process documentation
• Unique data, proprietary insights
• Photos/videos from direct experience

Expertise

• Author credentials, certifications, bio
• Professional background relevant to topic
• Technical depth appropriate for audience
• Accurate, well-sourced claims

Authoritativeness

• External citations, backlinks from authoritative sources
• Brand mentions, industry recognition
• Published in recognized outlets
• Cited by other experts

Trustworthiness

• Contact information, physical address
• Privacy policy, terms of service
• Customer testimonials, reviews
• Date stamps, transparent corrections
• Secure site (HTTPS)

Content Metrics

Word Count Analysis

Compare against page type minimums: | Page Type | Minimum | |-----------|---------| | Homepage | 500 | | Service page | 800 | | Blog post | 1,500 | | Product page | 300+ (400+ for complex products) | | Location page | 500-600 |

> **Important:** These are **topical coverage floors**, not targets. Google has confirmed word count is NOT a direct ranking factor. The goal is comprehensive topical coverage; a 500-word page that thoroughly answers the query will outrank a 2,000-word page that doesn't. Use these as guidelines for adequate coverage depth, not rigid requirements.

Readability

• Flesch Reading Ease: target 60-70 for general audience

> **Note:** Flesch Reading Ease is a useful proxy for content accessibility but is NOT a direct Google ranking factor. John Mueller has confirmed Google does not use basic readability scores for ranking. Yoast deprioritized Flesch scores in v19.3. Use readability analysis as a content quality indicator, not as an SEO metric to optimize directly.

• Grade level: match target audience
• Sentence length: average 15-20 words
• Paragraph length: 2-4 sentences

Keyword Optimization

• Primary keyword in title, H1, first 100 words
• Natural use of the topic, entities, and close variations (no target percentage; Google publishes none and treats unnatural repetition as keyword stuffing)
• Semantic variations present
• No keyword stuffing

Content Structure

• Logical heading hierarchy (H1 -> H2 -> H3)
• Scannable sections with descriptive headings
• Bullet/numbered lists where appropriate
• Table of contents for long-form content

Multimedia

• Relevant images with proper alt text
• Videos where appropriate
• Infographics for complex data
• Charts/graphs for statistics

Internal Linking

• 3-5 relevant internal links per 1000 words
• Descriptive anchor text
• Links to related content
• No orphan pages

External Linking

• Cite authoritative sources
• Open in new tab for user experience
• Reasonable count (not excessive)

AI Content Assessment (QRG: generative-AI guidance added January 2025; current version September 11, 2025)

Google's raters assess low-quality, scaled, copied, or AI-generated main content patterns rather than AI authorship as a standalone issue.

Acceptable AI Content

• Demonstrates genuine E-E-A-T
• Provides unique value
• Has human oversight and editing
• Contains original insights

Low-Quality AI Content Markers

• Generic phrasing, lack of specificity
• No original insight
• Repetitive structure across pages
• No author attribution
• Factual inaccuracies

> **Helpful Content System (March 2024):** The Helpful Content System was merged into Google's core ranking algorithm during the March 2024 core update. It no longer operates as a standalone classifier. Helpfulness signals are now weighted within every core update. The same principles apply (people-first content, demonstrating E-E-A-T, satisfying user intent), but enforcement is continuous rather than through separate HCU updates. Google now also documents **continuous, smaller unannounced core updates** between major ones (changelog 2025-12-09).

> **Gen-AI optimization is SEO (Google docs, published 2026-05-15, last updated 2026-07-10):** the official "optimizing for generative AI features" guide states you do **not** need new AI files, markup, Markdown, content chunking, or AI-specific rewrites; chasing inauthentic "mentions" is unhelpful. AEO/GEO