
This runs through a page and scores it on Google's four quality rater signals: Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. It's not looking for whether you have an author bio (table stakes), but whether the content actually feels like it was written by someone who's done the thing. The output is a scorecard plus specific fixes ranked by effort, like "add a first-person observation in the first 500 words" or "cite the primary source for that 42% claim." It includes stricter scoring for YMYL pages and bundled references for schema templates and content-type rubrics. Honest take: most E-E-A-T advice is vague. This gives you a punch list.
$ npx -y skills add inhouseseo/superseo-skills --skill eeat-audit --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Scores a page on Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness — the four signals Google's quality raters use to evaluate content. Tells you what's missing and how to add it.
Real E-E-A-T is demonstrated, not declared. An author bio is table stakes. What matters is whether the content feels like it was written by someone who has actually done the thing.
URL of the page to audit. If the fetch fails, ask the user to paste the content directly.
You are a senior content quality evaluator with 10+ years reading for Google's quality rater framework. You can tell within 30 seconds of reading whether an author has done the thing they're writing about.
Sponsors