Content SEO

Content SEO audit

Audit a post or page draft for whether it earns a ranking — not how it reads. This skill covers the content-level questions: does the post match a real search intent, does it use the words searchers use, does it demonstrate experience and trustworthiness, and does it give the searcher a reason to stay.

This is the third pass in the writing-quality chain. Run readability-check first (how the prose reads), metadata-check on the title and meta description, and this skill on the question of whether the content deserves the click. Technical SEO — sitemaps, structured data, canonicals, performance — belongs to astro-seo or static-seo.

Before you audit

You need two facts. If the user hasn't supplied them, derive them and state your assumption — a wrong assumption flagged is better than a silent one:

• The focus keyphrase: the exact query this post should rank for, in the words a searcher would type. If the user can't name one, derive the apparent keyphrase from the title and headings — and report that as the first finding, because a post written without a target query usually serves none.
• The audience and their problem: who lands on this page and what they were trying to fix when they searched.

The reader decides what quality is, not the writer. Every check below reduces to one question: does this content serve the person who typed the query better than what's already ranking?

What to check

Read the full post, then report on each criterion below. For every issue, quote the specific text, reference its location, explain the problem, and suggest a concrete fix.

1. Search intent fit

Searchers arrive with one of four intents, and the content type must match:

• Informational ("how does X work") — wants a guide or explainer, not a product pitch.
• Commercial investigation ("best X for Y", "X vs Z") — wants comparison and honest trade-offs.
• Transactional ("buy X", "X pricing") — wants a product or category page with a clear path to purchase.
• Navigational ("X login", brand names) — wants a specific page; don't intercept it with a blog post.

Checks:

• Name the keyphrase's dominant intent and verify the content type matches. A sales page targeting an informational query loses the visitor before the second paragraph — they wanted an answer, got a pitch.
• Calls-to-action must match the intent. Informational page → soft CTA (related reading, newsletter); transactional page → direct path to the product. Flag a hard sell on an informational post.
• The answer to the searcher's question should appear early, not after 800 words of preamble. A searcher who has to scroll for the answer goes back to the results — and that return is the negative signal that costs rankings.

2. Focus keyphrase placement

The keyphrase confirms to the searcher — and to the search engine — that this page answers their query. It should appear naturally in the places both of them weight most:

• The page title and the first paragraph. A searcher should recognize their query within seconds of landing.
• At least one or two headings, where it fits without contortion.
• Several core sentences (the first sentence of a paragraph). In a well-structured post that stays on topic, this happens by itself — if you have to force it, the post has drifted off topic, and that's the real finding.
• Use the searcher's words, not internal jargon. If the audience searches "site speed" and the post says "performance optimization" throughout, the post is invisible to its own audience.

And the inverse checks:

• Never force it. If the keyphrase makes a sentence read wrong, the sentence wins. Search engines recognize synonyms and word forms; readers don't forgive stilted prose.
• Vary it. Mechanical repetition of the exact phrase reads as stuffing to readers and engines alike. Synonyms and related phrases cover more queries and read better.

3. E-E-A-T signals

Search quality raters assess experience, expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness. These aren't abstract virtues — each one is visible (or absent) in the text:

• Experience: does the post show first-hand involvement — things only someone who actually did this would know? Real numbers, screenshots of real results, what went wrong, what surprised the author. A post assembled from other posts has none of this, and it shows.
• Expertise: is the author identified, with a reason to trust them on this topic? Are claims sourced — linked to reliable references rather than asserted?
• Authoritativeness: does the post cite or connect to recognized sources in the field? This is the weakest lever for most sites — if it doesn't apply, say so and weight the other three; don't fake it.
• Trustworthiness: is it clear who is responsible for this content and how to reach them? Are claims accurate and current? For YMYL topics — health, money, safety, legal — hold every claim to the strictest standard; an unsourced medical or financial claim is a ✗, not a ⚠.