opencode-skills-collection 4.0.68 → 4.0.70

package/bundled-skills/geo-content/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,383 @@
+---
+name: geo-content
+description: Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment for AI citability — evaluate experience,
+  expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and content structure
+category: seo
+risk: safe
+source: https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude
+source_repo: zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude
+source_type: community
+date_added: '2026-09-20'
+license: MIT
+license_source: https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude/blob/main/LICENSE
+compatibility: Docs-only; upstream helper scripts and templates are not bundled. Site
+  audits need network access to the target site; PDF reports need pandoc and headless
+  Chrome.
+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), which per Google's December 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines update now applies to **ALL competitive queries**, not just YMYL (Your Money Your Life) topics. Content that scores high on E-E-A-T is dramatically more likely to be cited by AI platforms.
+
+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 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 **floors, not targets**. More words does not mean better content. The benchmark is the minimum length to adequately cover a topic for AI citability.
+
+| 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) as long as it demonstrates genuine E-E-A-T signals and has human oversight. The concern is not HOW content is created but WHETHER it provides value.
+
+### Signs of Low-Quality AI Content (flag these)
+
+| Signal | Description |
+|---|---|
+| Generic phrasing | "In today's fast-paced world...", "It's important to note that...", "At the end of the day..." |
+| No original insight | Content that only rephrases widely available information |
+| Lack of first-hand experience | No personal anecdotes, case studies, or specific examples |
+| Perfect but empty structure | Well-formatted headings with shallow content beneath them |
+| No specific examples | Uses abstract explanations without concrete instances |
+| Repetitive conclusions | Each section ends with a variation of the same point |
+| Hedging overload | "Generally speaking", "In most cases", "It depends on various factors" without specifying which factors |
+| Missing human voice | No opinions, preferences, or professional judgment expressed |
+| Filler content | Paragraphs that could be deleted without losing information |
+| No data or sources | Claims presented as facts without attribution or evidence |
+
+### High-Quality Content Signals (regardless of production method)
+
+| Signal | Description |
+|---|---|
+| Original data | Surveys, experiments, benchmarks, proprietary analysis |
+| Specific examples | Named products, companies, dates, numbers |
+| Contrarian or nuanced views | Disagreement with conventional wisdom, backed by reasoning |
+| First-person experience | "When I tested this..." or "Our team found..." |
+| Updated information | References to recent events, current data |
+| Expert opinion | Clear professional judgment, not just facts |
+| Practical recommendations | Specific, actionable advice, not vague guidance |
+| Trade-offs acknowledged | "This approach works well for X but not for Y because..." |
+
+---
+
+## Content Freshness Assessment
+
+### Publication Dates
+- Check for visible `datePublished` and `dateModified` in both the content and structured data
+- Content without dates is treated as less trustworthy by AI platforms
+- Dates should be specific (January 15, 2026) not vague ("recently")
+
+### Freshness Scoring
+
+| Criterion | Score |
+|---|---|
+| Updated within 3 months | Excellent — current and relevant |
+| Updated within 6 months | Good — still reasonably current |
+| Updated within 12 months | Acceptable — may need refresh |
+| Updated 12-24 months ago | Warning — review for accuracy |
+| No date or 24+ months old | Critical — AI platforms may deprioritize |
+
+### Evergreen Indicators
+Some content remains relevant regardless of age. Flag content as evergreen if:
+- It covers fundamental concepts that do not change (physics, basic math, legal definitions)
+- It is clearly labeled as a reference/guide for lasting concepts
+- It does not contain time-dependent claims ("the latest", "currently", "in 2024")
+
+---
+
+## Topical Authority Assessment
+
+### What It Is
+Topical authority measures whether a site comprehensively covers a topic rather than touching on it superficially. AI platforms prefer citing sites that are recognized authorities on their topics.
+
+### How to Assess
+1. **Content breadth**: Does the site have multiple pages covering different aspects of its core topic?
+2. **Content depth**: Do individual pages go deep into subtopics?
+3. **Topic clustering**: Are pages organized into logical groups with internal linking?
+4. **Content gaps**: Are there obvious subtopics that the site should cover but does not?
+5. **Competitor comparison**: Do competitors cover subtopics that this site misses?
+
+### Scoring
+
+| Level | Description | Score Impact |
+|---|---|---|
+| Authority | 20+ pages covering topic comprehensively, strong clustering | +10 bonus |
+| Developing | 10-20 pages with some clustering | +5 bonus |
+| Emerging | 5-10 pages on topic, limited clustering | +0 |
+| Thin | < 5 pages, no clustering | -5 penalty |
+
+---
+
+## Overall Scoring (0-100)
+
+### Score Composition
+| Component | Weight | Max Points |
+|---|---|---|
+| Experience | 25% | 25 |
+| Expertise | 25% | 25 |
+| Authoritativeness | 25% | 25 |
+| Trustworthiness | 25% | 25 |
+| **Subtotal** | | **100** |
+| Topical Authority Modifier | | +10 to -5 |
+| **Final Score** | | **Capped at 100** |
+
+### Score Interpretation
+- **85-100**: Exceptional — strong AI citation candidate across platforms
+- **70-84**: Good — solid foundation, specific improvements will increase citability
+- **55-69**: Average — multiple E-E-A-T gaps reducing AI visibility
+- **40-54**: Below Average — significant content quality and trust issues
+- **0-39**: Poor — fundamental content strategy overhaul needed
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+Generate **GEO-CONTENT-ANALYSIS.md** with:
+
+```markdown
+# GEO Content Quality & E-E-A-T Analysis — [Domain]
+Date: [Date]
+
+## Content Score: XX/100
+
+## E-E-A-T Breakdown
+| Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
+|---|---|---|
+| Experience | XX/25 | [One-line summary] |
+| Expertise | XX/25 | [One-line summary] |
+| Authoritativeness | XX/25 | [One-line summary] |
+| Trustworthiness | XX/25 | [One-line summary] |
+
+## Topical Authority Modifier: [+10 to -5]
+
+## Pages Analyzed
+| Page | Word Count | Readability | Heading Structure | Citability Rating |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| [URL] | [Count] | [Score] | [Pass/Warn/Fail] | [High/Medium/Low] |
+
+## E-E-A-T Detailed Findings
+
+### Experience
+[Specific passages and pages with strong/weak experience signals]
+
+### Expertise
+[Author credentials found, technical depth assessment, specific gaps]
+
+### Authoritativeness
+[External validation found, topical authority assessment, gaps]
+
+### Trustworthiness
+[Trust signals present/missing, accuracy concerns if any]
+
+## Content Quality Issues
+[Specific passages flagged with reasons and rewrite suggestions]
+
+## AI Content Concerns
+[Any low-quality AI content patterns detected, with specific examples]
+
+## Freshness Assessment
+| Page | Published | Last Updated | Status |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| [URL] | [Date] | [Date] | [Current/Stale/No Date] |
+
+## Citability Assessment
+### Most Citable Passages
+[Top 5 passages that AI platforms are most likely to cite, with reasons]
+
+### Least Citable Pages
+[Pages with lowest citability, with specific improvement recommendations]
+
+## Improvement Recommendations
+### Quick Wins
+[Specific content changes that can be made immediately]
+
+### Content Gaps
+[Topics the site should cover to strengthen topical authority]
+
+### Author/E-E-A-T Improvements
+[Specific steps to strengthen E-E-A-T signals]
+```
+
+## When to Use
+
+- You need a Generative Engine Optimization task for a website: audit, citability, crawlers, schema, llms.txt, content, platform tuning, or client reporting.
+- Run read-only analysis first; propose site changes before making any.
+
+## Limitations
+
+- Audits are read-only analysis; never publish, deploy, or modify the target site without explicit approval.
+- Scores and citation likelihoods are heuristics, not guarantees from AI search platforms.
+- Docs-only import: upstream scripts, agents, hooks, and schema templates are not bundled.
+
+### Example
+
+```bash
+curl -s https://example.com/robots.txt
+curl -s https://example.com/llms.txt
+```
+
+> Adapted from [zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude](https://github.com/zubair-trabzada/geo-seo-claude) (MIT); frontmatter, When to Use/Limitations, and safety boundaries added for upstream compliance. Docs-only import: upstream runtime helpers not bundled.