geo-content – Writing & Content skill for AI agents

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

Purpose

Use this as a local editorial assessment of evidence, accuracy and useful content.

[Google's people-first guidance](https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content)

describes E-E-A-T, emphasizes trust and YMYL, and says E-E-A-T is not a single

ranking factor. This guide's equal 25-point weights and citation labels are not

Google's scoring system or evidence of how other AI platforms rank sources.

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
• Unattributed or evasive claims; accurate qualified language is appropriate when evidence is uncertain

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 disclosures, 1 if some, 0 if none |

| Reviews and testimonials from real customers | 3 | 3 if verified reviews, 1 if testimonials, 0 if none |

| Accurate claims (no misinformation detected) | 4 | 4 if all claims accurate, 2 if mostly accurate, 0 if errors found |

| Clear affiliate/sponsorship disclosures | 3 | 3 if properly disclosed, 0 if undisclosed or absent |

What to flag as weak Trustworthiness:

• No contact information or physical address
• Missing privacy policy or terms
• Undisclosed affiliate links or sponsored content
• Claims that are verifiably false or misleading
• No way to contact the publisher for corrections

---

Content Quality Metrics

Word Count Benchmarks

These are optional planning examples, not minimums or measured citation requirements. Answer the reader’s question completely at an appropriate length; Google specifies no preferred word count.

| Page Type | Minimum Words | Ideal Range | Notes |

|---|---|---|---|

| Homepage | 500 | 500-1,500 | Clear value proposition, not a wall of text |

| Blog post | 1,500 | 1,500-3,000 | Thorough but focused |

| Pillar content / Ultimate guide | 2,000 | 2,500-5,000 | Comprehensive topic coverage |

| Product page | 300 | 500-1,500 | Descriptions, specs, use cases |

| Service page | 500 | 800-2,000 | What, how, why, for whom |

| About page | 300 | 500-1,000 | Company/person story and credentials |

| FAQ page | 500 | 1,000-2,500 | Thorough answers, not one-liners |

Readability Assessment

• Target Flesch Reading Ease: 60-70 (8th-9th grade level)
• This is NOT a direct ranking factor but affects citability — AI platforms prefer content that is clear and unambiguous
• Overly academic writing (score < 30) reduces citability for general queries
• Overly simple writing (score > 80) may lack the depth needed for expertise signals

How to estimate without a tool:

• Average sentence length: 15-20 words is ideal
• Average paragraph length: 2-4 sentences
• Presence of jargon: should be defined when first used
• Passive voice: < 15% of sentences

Paragraph Structure for AI Parsing

AI platforms extract content at the paragraph level. Each paragraph should be a self-contained unit of meaning.

Optimal paragraph structure:

• 2-4 sentences per paragraph (1-sentence paragraphs are weak; 5+ sentences are hard to extract)
• One idea per paragraph — do not mix topics within a paragraph
• Lead with the key claim — first sentence should contain the main point
• Support with evidence — remaining sentences provide data, examples, or context
• Quotable standalone — each paragraph should make sense if extracted in isolation

Heading Structure

• One H1 per page — the primary topic/title
• H2 for major sections — should represent distinct subtopics
• H3 for subsections — nested under relevant H2
• No skipped levels — do not go from H1 to H3 without an H2
• Descriptive headings — "How to Optimize for AI Search" not "Section 2"
• Question-based headings where appropriate — these map directly to AI queries

Internal Linking

• Every content page should link to 3-5 related pages on the same site
• Links should use descriptive anchor text (not "click here")
• Create a topic cluster structure: pillar page linked to/from all related subtopic pages
• Orphan pages (no internal links pointing to them) are rarely cited by AI

---

AI Content Assessment

AI-Generated Content Policy

AI-generated content is acceptable per Google's guidance (March 2024 clarification

… (full content is in the download package)