seo-content-auditor

Analyzes provided content for quality, E-E-A-T signals, and SEO best practices. Scores content and provides improvement recommendations based on established guidelines. Use PROACTIVELY for content review.

Quality

58%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/seo-content-auditor/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is well-structured and gives a usable output template, but the actual analysis method is vague — it tells Claude what to evaluate without how to score or judge each dimension. Strengthening the scoring criteria and trimming boilerplate would materially improve it.

Suggestions

Add a concrete scoring rubric for each category (e.g., what a 7/10 vs 3/10 Content Depth looks like) so audit results are reproducible rather than subjective.

Replace the generic 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' boilerplate with concrete trigger conditions or remove it, and merge the overlapping 'Focus Areas' and 'What I Can Analyze' lists.

Add a validation step to the Approach (e.g., 'Re-check that every recommendation maps to a specific issue found; confirm scores are justified by cited content evidence') to introduce a feedback checkpoint.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly skim-friendly bullets and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but the generic 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' boilerplate ('Working on seo content auditor tasks or workflows') and overlap between 'Focus Areas' and 'What I Can Analyze' add unnecessary tokens, fitting 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary... could be tightened'; not 4 because the boilerplate sections are clearly trimmable.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides a concrete output table template and a numbered Approach, but the analysis steps are abstract ('Evaluate content completeness', 'Check for E-E-A-T indicators') with no scoring criteria, rubric definitions, or specific method, fitting 'some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'; not 4 because the how-to for each category is unspecified.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The numbered Approach (steps 1-6) gives a clear sequence, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops and the steps are high-level, matching 'steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'; this is an analysis skill so the destructive-cap does not apply, but it still does not reach 4 without explicit verification of the audit output.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and is organized into clearly labeled sections (Focus Areas, What I Can/Cannot Do, Approach, Output), giving good structure and easy navigation; not 5 because the body exceeds 50 lines with minor organization gaps (redundant capability lists) that could be consolidated.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

62%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is clear and uses third person with an explicit proactive-use trigger, covering what and when adequately. Its main weakness is generic action language and limited trigger-term variety, which keep specificity and trigger quality at mid-range.

Suggestions

Enumerate concrete capabilities (e.g., 'evaluates content depth, E-E-A-T signals, keyword usage, and readability; scores each 1-10; recommends specific improvements') to lift specificity toward 4-5.

Expand the 'when' clause with natural trigger phrases users actually say, e.g., 'Use when reviewing articles, blog posts, or landing pages for SEO quality, E-E-A-T, or content optimization.'

Add common synonyms and file/content types ('blog posts', 'articles', 'keyword optimization', 'search ranking') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('SEO', 'E-E-A-T signals') and 1-2 concrete action categories ('Analyzes provided content', 'Scores content and provides improvement recommendations'), but the actions are generic rather than comprehensive, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor; it does not reach 4 because it lacks a fuller enumeration of specific capabilities.	3 / 5
Completeness	It answers 'what' (analyze, score, recommend) and provides an explicit 'when' clause ('Use PROACTIVELY for content review'), but the trigger is narrow and could be more specific, matching 'has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific'; not 5 because the when lacks concrete, varied trigger phrases.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes some relevant natural keywords ('content', 'SEO', 'content review', 'E-E-A-T') via 'Use PROACTIVELY for content review', but misses common variations users would say ('article', 'blog post', 'keyword optimization', 'rankings'), fitting the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations' anchor rather than the broader coverage of 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	SEO content auditing is a mostly distinct niche with 'content review' / 'E-E-A-T' triggers that have only minor overlap with general content or writing skills, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'; not 5 because 'content review' alone could collide with broader content-editing skills.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: rmyndharis/antigravity-skills
Path: skills/seo-content-auditor/SKILL.md
Commit: 3eff4af

Reviewed: 7 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.