# Geo Content

> Content quality and E-E-A-T assessment for AI citability — evaluate experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness, and content structure

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-techhorizonlabs-thl-open-geo-content`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [techhorizonlabs](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/techhorizonlabs)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [AI & ML](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/ai-and-ml)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [techhorizonlabs](https://github.com/techhorizonlabs)
- **Source:** https://github.com/techhorizonlabs/thl-open/tree/main/skills/geo-content
- **Website:** https://techhorizonlabs.com

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-techhorizonlabs-thl-open-geo-content
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# 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), from Google's Search Quality Rater Guidelines. E-E-A-T began as a YMYL (Your Money Your Life) lens but is now widely applied by raters well beyond YMYL topics; treat strong E-E-A-T as table stakes for any competitive query. Content that scores high on E-E-A-T is materially more likely to be cited by AI platforms. (See [`docs/SOURCES.md`](../../docs/SOURCES.md) for the guidelines reference and dates.)

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  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:  **Provenance (THL):** tag the score `[scan]` (data fetched this run), `[partial-scan]`, `[heuristic]` (judgement, no data), or `[unmeasured]` — and emit `—` instead of a number when `[unmeasured]` or pure `[heuristic]`. A number with weak provenance still reads as hard data. See [the GEO Method](../../docs/THL-GEO-METHOD.md).

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]
```

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [techhorizonlabs](https://github.com/techhorizonlabs)
- **Source:** [techhorizonlabs/thl-open](https://github.com/techhorizonlabs/thl-open)
- **License:** MIT
- **Homepage:** https://techhorizonlabs.com

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-techhorizonlabs-thl-open-geo-content
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/techhorizonlabs
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.