agentsclimarketplace

Seo eeat audit

Skill lionkiii/claude-seo-skills/skills/seo-eeat-audit

42 SEO commands for Claude Code — site audits, Ahrefs backlinks, GSC analytics, SERP research, content briefs, technical SEO, schema validation, and more

Install
npx -y skills add lionkiii/claude-seo-skills --skill seo-eeat-audit

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 20 stars20 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Standalone E-E-A-T scoring rubric for a URL or content draft. Scores Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust 0-5 each using concrete detectable signals, framed per Google's creating-helpful-content doc. Use when user says "E-E-A-T", "EEAT", "experience expertise", "trust signals", or "author authority".

SKILL.md

6.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

E-E-A-T Audit & Scoring

<!-- Updated: 2026-06-10 -->

Framing (state this in every report — from Google's helpful-content doc)

  • E-E-A-T is NOT a specific ranking factor. Google's systems use a mix of factors that can identify content with good E-E-A-T.
  • Quality raters use E-E-A-T to evaluate whether ranking systems are working; rater data is not used directly in ranking ("feedback cards from diners"). Rater guidelines: https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/hsw-sqrg.pdf
  • Trust is the most important member. The others contribute to trust; content doesn't have to demonstrate all four.
  • YMYL gets extra weight: topics affecting health, financial stability, safety, or societal welfare are held to stronger E-E-A-T. Detect YMYL and raise the pass bar one point per dimension.

Inputs

  • URL — fetch with WebFetch (fallback curl -sL), or
  • Local draft — Read tool (markdown/HTML). For drafts, score content-side signals only and mark site-level signals (HTTPS, about page) as N/A.

Execution

  1. Fetch the page HTML; also fetch the homepage, /about, and /contact (HEAD or GET) to verify site-level trust pages exist.
  2. Detect signals per dimension using the rubric below (HTML parsing heuristics: bylines, rel=author, Person/ProfilePage JSON-LD, <time> elements, outbound citation links, first-person experience markers).
  3. Score each dimension 0-5 with a verbatim evidence quote from the page for every point awarded or withheld.
  4. Run the "Who, How, Why" questions (below).
  5. Recommend the 3 highest-impact improvements (lowest-scoring dimension first; Trust outranks ties).

Scoring Rubric (0-5 per dimension)

Experience — first-hand use or involvement

Detectable signals:

  • First-person evidence markers: "we tested", "I used", "after 6 months of..."
  • Original photos/screenshots/video clearly taken by the author (not stock)
  • Concrete specifics only a participant would know (test counts, settings, prices paid, dates visited)
  • Before/after results, process documentation, original data
  • For reviews: evidence of the work involved, per Google's product reviews guidance (https://developers.google.com/search/docs/specialty/ecommerce/write-high-quality-reviews)

Score guide: 0 = pure summary of other sources; 3 = some first-hand detail; 5 = thoroughly documented first-hand experience with evidence.

Expertise — demonstrable knowledge

Detectable signals:

  • Author byline present where readers would expect one
  • Byline links to a bio/profile page with relevant credentials, background, and areas covered (ProfilePage/Person markup is a plus)
  • Expert review attribution ("Medically reviewed by...") on YMYL content
  • Technical depth appropriate to audience; claims sourced; no easily-verified factual errors

Score guide: 0 = anonymous, unsourced; 3 = named author with bio; 5 = credentialed expert (or demonstrable enthusiast) with linked, verifiable background.

Authoritativeness — recognized go-to source

Detectable signals:

  • Citations TO authoritative external sources (and being cited — check via Ahrefs//seo-ahrefs-backlinks if available)
  • Site has a clear primary topic/purpose and topical depth (related content)
  • Brand/author presence beyond the site (sameAs links, recognized outlets)
  • "If someone researched this site, would they find it widely recognized as an authority on its topic?" (Google's expertise question)

Score guide: 0 = no sourcing, no topical focus; 3 = well-sourced within a focused site; 5 = demonstrably recognized authority on the topic.

Trust — the most important dimension

Detectable signals:

  • HTTPS with valid certificate
  • About page, contact page with real contact info (address/email/phone)
  • Visible datePublished / dateModified stamps that aren't gamed
  • Editorial/review/corrections policy (especially news/YMYL)
  • Privacy policy and terms; clear ad/affiliate disclosure
  • Headline matches content (no exaggeration or shock framing)
  • No spelling/production sloppiness; functioning links

Score guide: 0 = anonymous site, no policies, mismatched claims; 3 = HTTPS + about/contact + dates; 5 = full transparency stack incl. corrections policy and disclosures.

"Who, How, Why" Check (from creating-helpful-content)

  • Who: Is it self-evident who authored the content? Are there bylines where expected? Do bylines lead to author background?
  • How: Is the production method shown where it builds trust (testing methodology, evidence of work)? If automation/AI substantially generated the content: is that self-evident through disclosure, with background on how and why AI was used?
  • Why: Created primarily to help people who arrive at the site — or primarily to attract search visits? (If the latter, route to /seo-helpful-content for the full self-assessment.)

Output

## E-E-A-T Audit — <URL or draft>

> Framing: E-E-A-T is not a direct ranking factor; raters use it to validate
> Google's systems. Trust is the most important dimension.
YMYL topic: YES/NO (bar adjusted accordingly)

| Dimension | Score | Key evidence (quoted) |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | X/5 | "..." |
| Expertise | X/5 | "..." |
| Authoritativeness | X/5 | "..." |
| Trust | X/5 | "..." |
| **Overall** | XX/20 | weakest: <dimension> |

### Who / How / Why
- Who: ...
- How: ...
- Why: ...

### Top 3 Highest-Impact Improvements
1. <fix on weakest dimension, Trust prioritized on ties>
2. ...
3. ...

Cross-references

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.