seo-content-audit
Skill16 starsChanged 10 months agoMITView on GitHub
Comprehensive on-page SEO and content quality audit covering title tags, meta descriptions, header structure, keyword optimization, E-E-A-T signals, readability, and content scoring. Use when evaluating content for SEO performance, reviewing articles before publication, or creating content improvement recommendations.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- bismillahinspiringquotes-eng/claude-code-kittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- seranking/seo-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- rampstackco/claude-skills-seotheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- megandmartin/agent-skills-repotheir own version, first seen Jul 24, 2026
- amirjahfar1/automate-seo-with-claudetheir own version, first seen Jun 9, 2026
- tifetola/claude-skills-contenttheir own version, first seen May 27, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- seranking/seo-skills★ 201same name
- bismillahinspiringquotes-eng/claude-code-kit★ 14same name
- Muvon/octomind-tap★ 6same name
- rampstackco/claude-skills-seo★ 5same name
- megandmartin/agent-skills-repo★ 3same name
- amirjahfar1/automate-seo-with-claude★ 2same name
- tifetola/claude-skills-content★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository8 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- geo-aeo-optimizationSkill
- install-skillSkill
- linkedin-personal-brandingSkill
- linkedin-roastSkill
- seo-technical-auditSkill
- solidity-auditorSkill
- suno-music-creatorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
1 rule. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 6 edited versions we read keep these.
1
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 328
When comparing against competitors:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 6 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
SEO Content Audit Framework
Professional methodology for comprehensive on-page SEO and content quality analysis.
When to Use This Skill
- Auditing existing content for SEO performance
- Reviewing new content before publication
- Identifying optimization opportunities
- Evaluating E-E-A-T signals
- Scoring content quality
- Competitive content analysis
- Creating content improvement plans
Audit Workflow
Phase 1: On-Page SEO Elements
Title Tag Analysis:
□ Length: 50-60 characters
□ Primary keyword near beginning (first 30 chars)
□ Unique across site
□ Compelling for CTR
□ Brand included (if space)
□ No keyword stuffing
□ Matches search intentMeta Description Analysis:
□ Length: 150-160 characters
□ Contains primary keyword
□ Includes call-to-action
□ Unique across site
□ Accurately describes content
□ Compelling for clicksHeader Structure (H1-H6):
Requirements:
□ Single H1 matching topic
□ H1 contains primary keyword
□ Logical hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3)
□ No skipped levels
□ Keywords in H2s naturally
□ Descriptive, not genericURL Structure:
□ Clean, descriptive
□ Contains primary keyword
□ Under 60 characters
□ Lowercase with hyphens
□ No parameters or IDs
□ Matches content hierarchyPhase 2: Content Quality Assessment
Content Completeness Scoring:
| Factor | Check | Score |
| Topic coverage | Comprehensive vs. shallow | /10 |
| Unique value | Original insights vs. rehash | /10 |
| Accuracy | Factual, verifiable | /10 |
| Freshness | Current information | /10 |
| Depth | Expert-level detail | /10 |
The C.R.E.A.T.E. Framework:
| Factor | Question | Score 1-4 |
| Comprehensiveness | Does it fully answer the query? | |
| Relevance | Does it match search intent? | |
| Expertise | Does it demonstrate deep knowledge? | |
| Actionability | Can readers apply this immediately? | |
| Trustworthiness | Are claims supported by evidence? | |
| Engagement | Is it interesting to read? |
Readability Standards:
Target reading level: Grade 8-10 (Flesch-Kincaid)
Paragraph length: 2-4 sentences ideal
Sentence variety: Mix short and medium
Scannable formatting: Headers, bullets, bold
Visual aids: Images, tables, diagrams where helpfulPhase 3: Keyword Optimization
Primary Keyword Checklist:
□ In title tag (first 30 chars)
□ In H1
□ In first 100 words
□ In at least one H2
□ In meta description
□ In URL
□ Natural density: 0.5-1.5%
□ In image alt text (if relevant)Semantic Coverage:
□ LSI keywords present
□ Related entities mentioned
□ Question variations addressed
□ Synonyms used naturally
□ Topic cluster alignment
□ Search intent fully matchedKeyword Density Guidelines:
Primary keyword: 0.5-1.5% density (natural)
Secondary keywords: 0.3-0.8% each
LSI/Related terms: Natural inclusion
Avoid: Keyword stuffing (>2%)Phase 4: E-E-A-T Evaluation
Experience Signals:
□ First-hand experience indicated
□ Case studies/examples included
□ Original data or research
□ Process documentation
□ Real-world applications shown
□ Personal insights sharedExpertise Signals:
□ Author credentials visible
□ Author bio with qualifications
□ Technical accuracy verified
□ Comprehensive coverage
□ Expert quotes/interviews
□ Specialized terminology used correctlyAuthority Signals:
□ Authoritative external citations
□ Links to primary sources
□ Industry recognition mentioned
□ Published research referenced
□ Brand authority established
□ Backlink profile (if available)Trust Signals:
□ Contact information accessible
□ Privacy policy linked
□ Editorial guidelines visible
□ Sources cited inline
□ Last updated date shown
□ Author photo and bio
□ Secure site (HTTPS)Phase 5: Internal Linking
Best Practices:
□ 3-10 internal links per 1000 words
□ Descriptive anchor text (not "click here")
□ Links to related content
□ Links from high-authority pages
□ Logical link hierarchy
□ No orphan pages
□ Breadcrumb navigationPhase 6: Performance Signals
Metrics to Evaluate (if available):
□ Organic traffic trend
□ Average position for target keywords
□ Click-through rate (CTR)
□ Bounce rate
□ Time on page
□ Pages per session
□ Conversion rateBenchmarks:
| Metric | Poor | Average | Good |
| CTR (pos 1-3) | <3% | 3-8% | >8% |
| Bounce rate | >70% | 50-70% | <50% |
| Time on page | <1min | 1-3min | >3min |
Output Format
# SEO Content Audit Report
**Page:** [URL or filename]
**Date:** [Date]
**Overall Score:** X/100
## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence overview of findings]
## Scores by Category
| Category | Score | Status |
|----------|-------|--------|
| On-Page SEO | X/20 | [Good/Needs Work/Critical] |
| Content Quality | X/25 | [Good/Needs Work/Critical] |
| Keyword Optimization | X/15 | [Good/Needs Work/Critical] |
| E-E-A-T Signals | X/20 | [Good/Needs Work/Critical] |
| AI/GEO Readiness | X/20 | [Good/Needs Work/Critical] |
## Priority Issues (Fix First)
1. **[Issue]** - [Impact] - [Fix]
2. **[Issue]** - [Impact] - [Fix]
3. **[Issue]** - [Impact] - [Fix]
## On-Page SEO Findings
- Title: [Current] → [Recommended]
- Meta: [Current] → [Recommended]
- Headers: [Analysis]
- URL: [Analysis]
## Content Quality Findings
- C.R.E.A.T.E. Score: X/24
- Word count: [X] (Recommended: [Y])
- Readability: Grade [X]
- Gaps: [List]
## Keyword Analysis
- Primary: [Keyword] - Density: X%
- Missing opportunities: [List]
- Over-optimized: [List if any]
## E-E-A-T Assessment
- Strengths: [List]
- Gaps: [List]
- Recommendations: [List]
## Action Plan
**Immediate (This Week):**
- [ ] Action 1
- [ ] Action 2
**Short-term (This Month):**
- [ ] Action 1
- [ ] Action 2
**Ongoing:**
- [ ] Action 1
- [ ] Action 2Quick Audit (5-Point Check)
- Title & Meta - Optimized, compelling, <60 chars?
- H1 & Structure - Clear hierarchy, keyword in H1?
- Content Depth - Comprehensive, >1500 words for guides?
- E-E-A-T - Author credentials, trust signals visible?
- AI Ready - TL;DR present, extractable format?
Scoring Guide
- 90-100: Excellent - Minor optimizations only
- 70-89: Good - Some improvements needed
- 50-69: Needs Work - Significant gaps to address
- Below 50: Critical - Major overhaul required
Scoring Rubric (Detailed)
On-Page SEO (20 points):
- Title tag optimized: 5 pts
- Meta description optimized: 4 pts
- Header structure correct: 4 pts
- URL optimized: 3 pts
- Image alt text: 2 pts
- Internal links: 2 pts
Content Quality (25 points):
- Comprehensiveness: 5 pts
- Accuracy: 5 pts
- Originality: 5 pts
- Readability: 5 pts
- Engagement: 5 pts
Keyword Optimization (15 points):
- Primary keyword placement: 6 pts
- Semantic coverage: 5 pts
- Natural density: 4 pts
E-E-A-T (20 points):
- Experience signals: 5 pts
- Expertise signals: 5 pts
- Authority signals: 5 pts
- Trust signals: 5 pts
AI/GEO Readiness (20 points):
- TL;DR/Summary: 4 pts
- Extractable structure: 4 pts
- FAQ section: 4 pts
- Schema markup: 4 pts
- Fact density: 4 pts
Competitor Analysis Framework
When comparing against competitors:
- Identify top 3-5 ranking competitors for target keyword
- Analyze their content:
- Word count
- Header structure
- Topics covered
- Unique angles
- E-E-A-T signals
- Find gaps:
- Topics they miss
- Questions unanswered
- Data not included
- Create differentiation plan:
- Original research
- Better visuals
- More comprehensive coverage
- Stronger E-E-A-T
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

