/geo-content

name: geo-content
description: "Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment for AI citability: evaluate experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and content structure"
version: 1.0.0
author: geo-seo-claude
tags: [geo, content-quality, eeat, citability, ai-content, topical-authority]
allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, WebFetch, Write

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), from Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines. E-E-A-T began as a YMYL (Your Money Your Life) lens but is now widely applied by raters well beyond YMYL topics; treat strong E-E-A-T as table stakes for any competitive query. Content that scores high on E-E-A-T is materially more likely to be cited by AI platforms. (See [`docs/SOURCES.md`](../../docs/SOURCES.md) for the guidelines reference and dates.)

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:**

• Single-topic site with no depth of coverage
• No external validation of expertise claims
• No backlinks from authoritative sources
• Claims of authority without evidence (self-proclaimed "expert")

Trustworthiness: 25 points

Signals that the content and its publisher are reliable and transparent.

**Signals to evaluate:**

| Signal | Points | How to Score | |---|---|---| | Contact information visible (address, phone, email) | 4 | 4 if full contact info, 2 if email only, 0 if none | | Privacy policy present and linked | 2 | 2 if present, 0 if absent | | Terms of service present | 1 | 1 if present, 0 if absent | | HTTPS with valid certificate | 2 | 2 if valid HTTPS, 0 if not | | Editorial standards or corrections policy | 3 | 3 if documented, 1 if implicit, 0 if none | | Transparent about business model and conflicts | 3 | 3 if clear d