Content and On-Page SEO skill 10 of 13
E-E-A-T and Content Quality SKILL.md
The E-E-A-T and Content Quality skill makes Claude, Codex or another AI agent review pages and sites against Google’s own questions about helpful content. It checks experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust, first-hand evidence, author and reviewer credentials, sourcing, accuracy, freshness, site transparency and YMYL care, flags scaled low-value patterns, and turns gaps into real improvements rather than badges.
eeat-content-quality/SKILL.md, version 1.0.0, 1,210 words.
By Afeez Adebayo, Marketing, SEO & Growth Expert with 10+ years of experience.
Created 10 October 2026. Updated 10 October 2026. Free to use under CC BY 4.0.
E-E-A-T stands for experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust. It comes from Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines, which human raters use to evaluate results. It isn't a single ranking factor or score. Google's ranking systems look for signals that align with it, and trust matters most, especially for topics that affect health, money, safety or rights ("your money or your life", YMYL).
This skill reviews pages and sites against Google's own questions about helpful content and turns gaps into specific improvements.
Operating principles
- People first. Content exists to help a reader, not mainly to attract search traffic.
- Show, don't claim. Experience appears as evidence: photos, data, test results, case details, named people.
- Trust is the base. Accuracy, sources, transparency about who is behind the site and honest commercial intent.
- Scale your care to the stakes. YMYL topics need qualified authors or reviewers and stronger sourcing.
- No fake signals. Invented authors, credentials or reviews damage trust when found.
The four parts
| Part | Question | Evidence on the page |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | Has the creator used, done or seen this first-hand? | Original photos, screenshots, test results, case studies, "what happened when" detail |
| Expertise | Does the creator have the knowledge or skill needed? | Author bio with relevant credentials, depth and accuracy of the content |
| Authoritativeness | Is the creator or site a recognised source on this topic? | Mentions and links from respected sources, citations, awards, professional memberships |
| Trust | Is the page accurate, honest, safe and transparent? | Sources, dates, clear ownership, contact details, editorial policy, secure checkout, honest reviews |
When to use, and when not to
Use it after core update drops, for YMYL sites, for programmes with many AI-assisted or freelance pages, when building author pages, and before scaling content.
Don't use it for technical faults (Technical SEO skills) or as a checklist to add badges and bios without improving the content itself.
Inputs to ask for, in one message
- Sample URLs from each content type, including top and weak performers.
- Who writes and reviews content, and their real credentials.
- The About, contact, editorial policy and author pages.
- Search Console trends around core update dates (checked on Google's Search Status Dashboard).
- How content is produced: in-house, freelance, AI-assisted, and the editing process.
Raw SKILL.md file
This is the exact file agents read, including the credit header and licence notice. Save it as eeat-content-quality/SKILL.md.
---
name: eeat-content-quality
description: "Assess and improve content quality and E-E-A-T (experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust) the way Google describes it: people-first purpose, first-hand experience and original evidence, author and reviewer credentials, sourcing, accuracy and freshness, About and contact transparency, YMYL care, and patterns that look like scaled or low-value content. Use whenever someone mentions E-E-A-T, EEAT, helpful content, content quality, author pages, author bio, expert review, YMYL, trust signals, a traffic drop after a core update, or AI-written content that isn't ranking."
license: CC-BY-4.0
metadata:
author: Afeez Adebayo
author_url: https://afeezadebayo.com
author_linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afeez-adebayo/
author_x: https://x.com/za_icon
source: https://afeezadebayo.com/skills-md/marketing/content-seo/eeat-content-quality/
category: marketing
subcategory: content-seo
version: "1.0.0"
created: "2026-10-10"
updated: "2026-10-10"
---
# E-E-A-T and Content Quality
E-E-A-T stands for experience, expertise, authoritativeness and trust. It comes from Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines, which human raters use to evaluate results. It isn't a single ranking factor or score. Google's ranking systems look for signals that align with it, and trust matters most, especially for topics that affect health, money, safety or rights ("your money or your life", YMYL).
This skill reviews pages and sites against Google's own questions about helpful content and turns gaps into specific improvements.
## Operating principles
1. **People first.** Content exists to help a reader, not mainly to attract search traffic.
2. **Show, don't claim.** Experience appears as evidence: photos, data, test results, case details, named people.
3. **Trust is the base.** Accuracy, sources, transparency about who is behind the site and honest commercial intent.
4. **Scale your care to the stakes.** YMYL topics need qualified authors or reviewers and stronger sourcing.
5. **No fake signals.** Invented authors, credentials or reviews damage trust when found.
## The four parts
| Part | Question | Evidence on the page |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | Has the creator used, done or seen this first-hand? | Original photos, screenshots, test results, case studies, "what happened when" detail |
| Expertise | Does the creator have the knowledge or skill needed? | Author bio with relevant credentials, depth and accuracy of the content |
| Authoritativeness | Is the creator or site a recognised source on this topic? | Mentions and links from respected sources, citations, awards, professional memberships |
| Trust | Is the page accurate, honest, safe and transparent? | Sources, dates, clear ownership, contact details, editorial policy, secure checkout, honest reviews |
## When to use, and when not to
Use it after core update drops, for YMYL sites, for programmes with many AI-assisted or freelance pages, when building author pages, and before scaling content.
Don't use it for technical faults (Technical SEO skills) or as a checklist to add badges and bios without improving the content itself.
## Inputs to ask for, in one message
1. Sample URLs from each content type, including top and weak performers.
2. Who writes and reviews content, and their real credentials.
3. The About, contact, editorial policy and author pages.
4. Search Console trends around core update dates (checked on Google's Search Status Dashboard).
5. How content is produced: in-house, freelance, AI-assisted, and the editing process.
## Workflow
### Step 1. Confirm purpose
For each sample page, ask: who is it for, would they find it useful if they arrived directly, and does it leave them needing to search again?
### Step 2. Review with Google's questions
Use the self-assessment questions from Google's helpful content guidance: original information or analysis, substantial and complete description, insight beyond the obvious, clear sourcing, no exaggerated headlines, written or reviewed by someone who knows the topic, and no signs of being made mainly for search.
### Step 3. Check experience and expertise
Is there first-hand evidence? Is the author named, with a bio that shows relevant experience and links to their profiles? For YMYL, is there a qualified reviewer with the review date shown?
### Step 4. Check trust at site level
About page with real people and company details, contact options, editorial and corrections policy, affiliate and sponsorship disclosure, privacy and terms, secure pages, and consistent business details across the web.
### Step 5. Check accuracy and freshness
Verify facts and numbers against primary sources. Flag outdated information, broken examples and dates that changed without real updates.
### Step 6. Look for scaled-content patterns
Many near-identical pages, thin rewrites of other sources, AI text with no editing or evidence, or pages on topics the site has no connection to. Google's spam policies treat scaled content made mainly to manipulate rankings as abuse, however it is produced.
### Step 7. Plan improvements
For each content type: add evidence, add or upgrade authors and reviewers, add sources and dates, merge or remove weak pages, and fix site-level trust pages.
## Author pages that work
- Real name, photo and role.
- Relevant experience in plain facts: years, employers, qualifications, notable work.
- Links to profiles elsewhere (LinkedIn, professional bodies, published work) and `Person` structured data with `sameAs`.
- A list of articles written or reviewed.
## Worked example
A personal finance site lost about 40% of organic clicks after a core update (Search Console, 28 days before and after). Sampling 60 pages showed most were written by "Editorial Team", cited no sources and repeated advice from bank websites. The plan named real authors with finance backgrounds, added review by a chartered accountant on tax and pension pages with dates, cited official sources for every rate and threshold, added worked examples from the editors' own budgeting, merged 120 thin pages, and published an editorial policy. Recovery came gradually over the following updates; the site now publishes fewer, stronger pages.
## Output format
```
# Content quality and E-E-A-T review: <site>, <date>
## Summary (main risks, YMYL exposure, priority fixes)
## Page sample scores
| URL | Purpose | Experience | Expertise | Authority | Trust | Key gaps | Action |
## Site-level trust checklist
## Improvement plan by content type, with owners
```
## Evidence types by topic
| Topic type | Strongest evidence | Who should write or review |
|---|---|---|
| Health and medicine | Clinical sources, qualified reviewer, dates | Qualified clinician |
| Money, tax and investing | Official rules, worked examples, current rates | Qualified accountant or adviser |
| Legal | Statutes and official guidance, jurisdiction stated | Qualified lawyer |
| Product reviews | Hands-on testing, photos, measurements, comparisons | Someone who used the products |
| Software how-to | Screenshots with dates, tested steps | Practitioner who uses the tool |
| Opinion and analysis | Data, reasoning, named author with track record | Recognised practitioner |
## Edge cases and judgement calls
| Situation | What to do |
|---|---|
| Small team with no credentialed experts | Show real experience: projects, results, photos; partner with experts for YMYL topics |
| Ghostwritten content for executives | The named author must review and stand behind it |
| Guest posts and contributors | Vet expertise, show bios, edit to the same standard |
| Large archive of old content | Prioritise YMYL and high-traffic pages for review first |
| AI-assisted drafts | Require expert editing, fact checks and first-hand additions before publishing |
| Reviews and affiliate content | Disclose relationships; show testing, not specs copied from manufacturers |
## Site-level trust checklist
- About page naming real people and the company behind the site.
- Contact options that work.
- Editorial policy, corrections policy and review process.
- Affiliate and sponsorship disclosures.
- Author pages with credentials and links.
- Secure, working checkout and clear policies for e-commerce.
## Handoffs to related skills
- Weak but valuable pages: `content-refresh`
- Thin and duplicate pages: `content-pruning`
- Evidence standards in briefs and writing: `content-brief`, `seo-content-writing`
- Author and organisation markup: the Technical SEO `structured-data` skill
- Entity clarity for AI answers: the AEO & GEO `entity-optimisation` skill
## Common mistakes
- Adding author boxes to weak content and expecting a change.
- Fake or inflated credentials.
- Treating E-E-A-T as a score that tools can measure.
- Updating dates without updating content.
- Publishing AI drafts at scale without expert input.
## Questions to ask before you recommend changes
- Who are the real experts in the business, and will they put their name to content?
- Which topics are YMYL for this site?
- What first-hand evidence can the team produce regularly?
## Self-check before you answer
- Did I use Google's own questions and guidelines, not invented scores?
- Did I separate page-level and site-level issues?
- Are recommendations about real improvements, not badges?
- Did I avoid any suggestion of fake authors or reviews?
## Official documentation
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
- Search Quality Rater Guidelines: https://guidelines.raterhub.com/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
- Spam policies for Google web search: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies
- Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content
- Google Search Status Dashboard: https://status.search.google.com/
---
Created by Afeez Adebayo, Marketing, SEO & Growth Expert
Website: https://afeezadebayo.com
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/afeez-adebayo/
X: https://x.com/za_icon
Source: https://afeezadebayo.com/skills-md/marketing/content-seo/eeat-content-quality/
Licence: CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). You may copy, share and adapt this skill, including for commercial use, as long as you credit Afeez Adebayo and link to the source URL above. Keep this notice in any copy or adapted version.
Workflow
Step 1. Confirm purpose
For each sample page, ask: who is it for, would they find it useful if they arrived directly, and does it leave them needing to search again?
Step 2. Review with Google's questions
Use the self-assessment questions from Google's helpful content guidance: original information or analysis, substantial and complete description, insight beyond the obvious, clear sourcing, no exaggerated headlines, written or reviewed by someone who knows the topic, and no signs of being made mainly for search.
Step 3. Check experience and expertise
Is there first-hand evidence? Is the author named, with a bio that shows relevant experience and links to their profiles? For YMYL, is there a qualified reviewer with the review date shown?
Step 4. Check trust at site level
About page with real people and company details, contact options, editorial and corrections policy, affiliate and sponsorship disclosure, privacy and terms, secure pages, and consistent business details across the web.
Step 5. Check accuracy and freshness
Verify facts and numbers against primary sources. Flag outdated information, broken examples and dates that changed without real updates.
Step 6. Look for scaled-content patterns
Many near-identical pages, thin rewrites of other sources, AI text with no editing or evidence, or pages on topics the site has no connection to. Google's spam policies treat scaled content made mainly to manipulate rankings as abuse, however it is produced.
Step 7. Plan improvements
For each content type: add evidence, add or upgrade authors and reviewers, add sources and dates, merge or remove weak pages, and fix site-level trust pages.
Author pages that work
- Real name, photo and role.
- Relevant experience in plain facts: years, employers, qualifications, notable work.
- Links to profiles elsewhere (LinkedIn, professional bodies, published work) and
Personstructured data withsameAs. - A list of articles written or reviewed.
Worked example
A personal finance site lost about 40% of organic clicks after a core update (Search Console, 28 days before and after). Sampling 60 pages showed most were written by "Editorial Team", cited no sources and repeated advice from bank websites. The plan named real authors with finance backgrounds, added review by a chartered accountant on tax and pension pages with dates, cited official sources for every rate and threshold, added worked examples from the editors' own budgeting, merged 120 thin pages, and published an editorial policy. Recovery came gradually over the following updates; the site now publishes fewer, stronger pages.
Output format
# Content quality and E-E-A-T review: <site>, <date>
## Summary (main risks, YMYL exposure, priority fixes)
## Page sample scores
| URL | Purpose | Experience | Expertise | Authority | Trust | Key gaps | Action |
## Site-level trust checklist
## Improvement plan by content type, with ownersEvidence types by topic
| Topic type | Strongest evidence | Who should write or review |
|---|---|---|
| Health and medicine | Clinical sources, qualified reviewer, dates | Qualified clinician |
| Money, tax and investing | Official rules, worked examples, current rates | Qualified accountant or adviser |
| Legal | Statutes and official guidance, jurisdiction stated | Qualified lawyer |
| Product reviews | Hands-on testing, photos, measurements, comparisons | Someone who used the products |
| Software how-to | Screenshots with dates, tested steps | Practitioner who uses the tool |
| Opinion and analysis | Data, reasoning, named author with track record | Recognised practitioner |
Edge cases and judgement calls
| Situation | What to do |
|---|---|
| Small team with no credentialed experts | Show real experience: projects, results, photos; partner with experts for YMYL topics |
| Ghostwritten content for executives | The named author must review and stand behind it |
| Guest posts and contributors | Vet expertise, show bios, edit to the same standard |
| Large archive of old content | Prioritise YMYL and high-traffic pages for review first |
| AI-assisted drafts | Require expert editing, fact checks and first-hand additions before publishing |
| Reviews and affiliate content | Disclose relationships; show testing, not specs copied from manufacturers |
Site-level trust checklist
- About page naming real people and the company behind the site.
- Contact options that work.
- Editorial policy, corrections policy and review process.
- Affiliate and sponsorship disclosures.
- Author pages with credentials and links.
- Secure, working checkout and clear policies for e-commerce.
Handoffs to related skills
- Weak but valuable pages:
content-refresh - Thin and duplicate pages:
content-pruning - Evidence standards in briefs and writing:
content-brief,seo-content-writing - Author and organisation markup: the Technical SEO
structured-dataskill - Entity clarity for AI answers: the AEO & GEO
entity-optimisationskill
Common mistakes
- Adding author boxes to weak content and expecting a change.
- Fake or inflated credentials.
- Treating E-E-A-T as a score that tools can measure.
- Updating dates without updating content.
- Publishing AI drafts at scale without expert input.
Questions to ask before you recommend changes
- Who are the real experts in the business, and will they put their name to content?
- Which topics are YMYL for this site?
- What first-hand evidence can the team produce regularly?
Self-check before you answer
- Did I use Google's own questions and guidelines, not invented scores?
- Did I separate page-level and site-level issues?
- Are recommendations about real improvements, not badges?
- Did I avoid any suggestion of fake authors or reviews?
Official documentation
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content
- Search Quality Rater Guidelines: https://guidelines.raterhub.com/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf
- Spam policies for Google web search: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies
- Google Search's guidance about AI-generated content: https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2023/02/google-search-and-ai-content
- Google Search Status Dashboard: https://status.search.google.com/
On this page
- When to use this skill, and when not to
- Example prompts
- Example output
- What the agent needs from you
- How this skill hands off to related skills
- How to run the E-E-A-T and Content Quality skill step by step
- Situations this skill handles
- What makes this skill different
- Practical tips from real projects
- Frequently asked questions
- Changelog
When to use this skill, and when not to
Use it after a drop that lines up with a core update, for sites on health, money, legal or safety topics, for programmes with many freelance or AI-assisted pages, when building author pages, and before scaling content production.
Don’t use it for technical faults (use the Technical SEO Audit) or as a reason to add author boxes to weak content without improving the content itself.
Example prompts
- “We dropped after the core update. Review these 30 pages for E-E-A-T and helpfulness.”
- “Design author and reviewer pages for our finance blog.”
- “Our content is AI-assisted. What do we need to change so it is useful to readers?”
- “Check our About, contact and editorial policy pages for trust gaps.”
- “Which of our topics count as YMYL, and what extra care do they need?”
Example output
The skill returns a fixed structure. A shortened example for an imaginary site:
# Content quality and E-E-A-T review: example.com, 10 October 2026 ## Summary Main risk: YMYL tax and pension pages written by 'Editorial Team' with no sources. ## Page sample (extract) | URL | Experience | Expertise | Authority | Trust | Key gap | Action | | /guides/pension-tax-relief/ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | No author, no sources | Named author + chartered reviewer, cite HMRC | ## Site-level trust No editorial policy; About page has no people; affiliate links not disclosed.
The skill uses Google’s published questions and guidelines, never invented E-E-A-T scores, and never suggests fake authors or reviews.
What the agent needs from you
The skill asks for sample URLs from each content type, including strong and weak performers, who writes and reviews content and their real credentials, the About, contact, editorial policy and author pages, Search Console trends around core update dates checked on Google’s Search Status Dashboard, and how content is produced and edited.
How this skill hands off to related skills
Quality findings lead to specific work. Weak but valuable pages go to Content Refresh, thin and duplicate pages to Content Pruning, new evidence standards into SEO Content Briefs and SEO Content Writing, and author and organisation markup to Structured Data. For a full inventory, it works alongside the Content SEO Audit.
How to run the E-E-A-T and Content Quality skill step by step
- Install the skill as
eeat-content-quality/SKILL.md. - Share sample URLs from each content type, including your strongest and weakest pages.
- List who writes and reviews content and their real credentials.
- Link your trust pages: About, contact, editorial policy, author pages and disclosures.
- Add Search Console trends around core update dates, checked against Google’s Search Status Dashboard.
- Apply the plan by content type: evidence to add, authors and reviewers to name, pages to merge or remove, and site-level trust fixes.
Situations this skill handles
Quality problems look different on different sites. The skill handles these situations:
| Situation | What the skill does |
|---|---|
| Drop after a core update | Samples pages against Google’s helpful content questions and finds the patterns behind the drop |
| Finance, health or legal site | Adds qualified reviewers, review dates and primary sources to YMYL pages first |
| Content written by “Editorial Team” | Names real authors with bios that show relevant experience |
| AI-assisted content at scale | Requires expert editing, fact checks and first-hand additions before publishing |
| Product reviews copied from specs | Requires hands-on testing, photos and measurements |
| Weak About and contact pages | Rebuilds trust pages with real people, company details and policies |
What makes this skill different
Most E-E-A-T advice is a checklist of author boxes and trust badges. This skill uses Google’s own published questions about helpful content and its rater guidelines, never invented E-E-A-T scores, and focuses on what actually changes a page: first-hand evidence, real expertise, accurate sources and honest commercial intent.
It separates page-level problems from site-level ones, scales its care to the stakes of the topic and never suggests fake authors, inflated credentials or planted reviews, which damage trust permanently when found.
Practical tips from real projects
- Show, don’t claim. A photo of the test, a screenshot of the result and a named author do more than “expert-written” labels.
- Trust comes first. Accuracy, sources and transparency matter most, especially on YMYL topics.
- Dates must mean something. Update them only when content meaningfully changes.
- Fewer, stronger pages usually beat many thin ones.
A worked example: a personal finance site lost about 40% of organic clicks after a core update. A sample of 60 pages showed most were credited to an “Editorial Team”, cited no sources and repeated advice from bank websites. The plan named real authors with finance backgrounds, added chartered accountant review with dates on tax and pension pages, cited official sources for every rate, added worked examples from the editors’ own budgeting, merged 120 thin pages and published an editorial policy. Recovery came gradually over later updates, and the site now publishes fewer, stronger pages.
E-E-A-T also shapes AI search. Google says its AI features rely on the same quality systems as Search and favour unique, non-commodity content. Pages that show real experience and cite their sources are the ones AI answers are most likely to trust and credit, which makes this skill a foundation for the AEO and GEO set as well.
Strong author pages carry a lot of this work. They show a real name, photo and role, relevant experience in plain facts (years, employers, qualifications, notable work), links to profiles elsewhere and a list of articles written or reviewed. Paired with Person markup and sameAs links, they help readers, search engines and AI systems understand who stands behind the content.
Frequently asked questions
Is E-E-A-T a ranking factor?
Not as a single score. It comes from Google’s Search Quality Rater Guidelines; Google’s ranking systems look for signals that align with it, with trust the most important, especially on YMYL topics.
What does "experience" add to E-A-T?
Evidence that the creator has used, done or seen the thing first-hand: original photos, test results, case details. Google added it to the guidelines in December 2022.
Do author bios help rankings?
A bio alone changes little. Real authors with relevant experience, linked profiles and content that shows their expertise help readers trust the page, which is what matters.
What is YMYL?
“Your money or your life”: topics that could affect someone’s health, finances, safety or rights. They need qualified authors or reviewers and stronger sourcing.
Can AI-assisted content meet E-E-A-T?
Yes, if it is edited by people with real expertise, checked for accuracy and enriched with first-hand evidence. Unedited AI text at scale is a common pattern behind quality problems.
Changelog
- 1.0.0, 10 October 2026: first release.
Use, adapt and share this skill under CC BY 4.0: credit Afeez Adebayo and link to this page.
All Content and On-Page SEO skills
