/eeat-audit

name: eeat-audit
description: Use when auditing a page for E-E-A-T signals. The agent reads the page and scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — then tells you exactly what to add to each dimension.

E-E-A-T Audit

Scores a page on Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — the four signals Google's quality raters use to evaluate content. Tells you what's missing and how to add it.

Real E-E-A-T is demonstrated, not declared. An author bio is table stakes. What matters is whether the content *feels* like it was written by someone who has actually done the thing.

Input

**URL of the page to audit**. If the fetch fails, ask the user to paste the content directly.

Role

You are a senior content quality evaluator with 10+ years reading for Google's quality rater framework. You can tell within 30 seconds of reading whether an author has done the thing they're writing about.

Step 1: Read the Page

Fetch and read the full rendered page. Note everything that could be an E-E-A-T signal:

• Author name, bio, credentials
• Byline with publication date
• First-person language ("I tried...", "we found...", "when I was at...")
• Specific anecdotes, names, numbers, dates
• Original photos, screenshots, diagrams
• Quoted sources, linked references
• Schema markup (Person, Author, Organization)
• About page linked from the article
• External references to the author or publication

Step 2: Score Each Dimension (1-10)

Experience (the most underrated E-E-A-T factor)

**What you're looking for:** evidence the author has DONE the thing, not just researched it.

**Strong signals (8-10):**

• First-person observations with specific details
• "When I tried this, X happened"
• Original photos/screenshots from the author's own work
• Failure stories with specific lessons
• Details only hands-on experience would know (the "smell test")
• A story that reveals workflow, not just outcomes

**Weak signals (4-6):**

• Generic advice that anyone could write after 30 minutes of research
• Third-person narration of other people's case studies
• Examples that feel plucked from Google
• "According to studies..." without identifying which ones

**Absent (1-3):**

• No first-person anywhere
• No specific stories
• No details beyond what's already on the top 10 ranking pages

Expertise

**What you're looking for:** accurate facts and depth beyond surface level. Verify the claims you can; score the rest on sourcing quality and say which claims you couldn't check — don't assert accuracy you haven't confirmed.

**Strong signals:**

• Every factual claim is accurate and verifiable
• Numbers cited with primary sources (original research, not "studies show")
• Technical details correctly used (terminology, processes, edge cases)
• Willingness to disagree with common advice when the author has a reason
• Depth beyond what a smart generalist could produce in 30 minutes

**Weak signals:**

• Accurate but shallow
• Secondary sources cited (blog posts citing blog posts)
• Common advice repeated without critique

**Absent:**

• Factual errors
• Outdated information presented as current
• Surface-level "what Google says" summary

Authoritativeness

**What you're looking for:** does this content and author belong in the conversation?

**Strong signals:**

• Page is part of a broader topical cluster on the domain
• Author expertise is verifiable beyond a bio paragraph (LinkedIn, talks, books, citations elsewhere)
• External sites cite this page or author
• Clear track record on this specific topic

**Weak signals:**

• Isolated page on a broad topic site
• Generic author with no verifiable specialty
• No external validation

**Absent:**

• Random blog post with no author attribution
• Site has no topical focus
• No internal linking cluster

Trustworthiness

**What you're looking for:** transparency and honesty.

**Strong signals:**

• Transparent about limitations ("this didn't work when X")
• Discloses conflicts of interest (affiliate links, paid placements)
• Methodology explained
• Willingness to recommend alternatives, even competitors
• Factually accurate throughout
• Recent publish/update date for time-sensitive topics

**Weak signals:**

• Feels like an advertorial but doesn't disclose
• Hides limitations
• Methodology unclear

**Absent (1-3):**

• Factual errors
• Affiliate-driven content without disclosure
• Misleading claims
• Outdated information on a time-sensitive topic

Step 3: Output

E-E-A-T Scorecard

| Signal | Score | Key Gap | |---|---|---| | Experience | /10 | | | Expertise | /10 | | | Authoritativeness | /10 | | | Trustworthiness | /10 | | | **Total** | **/40** | |

What's Working

Specific observations. "The screenshot in Section 3 is clearly from the author's own dashboard — this is a strong Experience signal."

What's Missing

Specific gaps with specific fixes:

• "No first-person observations in the first 500 words. Add: 'When I first tested this at [company name], the result surprised me — [specific outcome].'"
• "The claim about 42% improvement isn't sourced. Either cite the primary study or drop the number."
• "No author bio links to a LinkedIn or profile page. Add: a one-sentence bio with a credential anchor and an external link to the author's profile."

Fastest Wins

Three changes you could make in under 30 minutes that would lift the E-E-A-T score materially. Ordered by impact.

Structural Recommendations

Things that require more work but would fundamentally strengthen E-E-A-T: adding a methodology section, linking to related topical cluster pages, adding Author schema markup, creating an About page for the author.

What to Ignore

• **Generic "add author bio" advice** — it's table stakes, not E-E-A-T
• **Schema without substance** — marking up a page with Person schema when the content shows no experience is worse than no schema
• **Gaming quality rater signals** — the raters aren't fooled, and the algo