content-creation-standards · git:20261001.a762959 · 2026-10-01 · sha256 97e39e3de06b4365
content-creation-standards git:20261001.a762959A
Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/97e39e3de06b4365.
--- name: content-creation-standards description: > Apply this pack's standards *while creating* new content, not just when auditing existing content. Use whenever a user is about to publish a new page, expand a site with new content, or asks "how do I make sure this new page is done right." This is the creation-time counterpart to the audit skills in this pack — the goal is for new pages to pass every other skill's bar on day one, instead of needing a later audit to catch problems. --- # Content Creation Standards A pre-publish checklist that pulls together this pack's other skills, applied at the moment of creating something new rather than after the fact. Catching an issue before publishing is always cheaper than finding it in a later audit. --- ## Step 0 — Ask before assuming 1. What kind of page is this (a data-driven tool, a comparison, a long-form guide, a hub page)? Different types have different bars for some of the checks below. 2. Does this fit an existing template/pattern on the site, or is it a genuinely new format? 3. Is this part of a batch (many similar pages at once), or a one-off? A batch multiplies any mistake made once across every page in it — worth extra care before the first one ships. 4. Per `seo-growth-stage-strategy` (this pack): is this site still in a coverage-building stage (where shipping more matters more) or a mature stage (where getting each page fully right matters more)? Calibrate how much scrutiny to apply before publishing accordingly. **If none of the above is answered:** run the full checklist below regardless — creation-time diligence is the one place where "unknown context" should default to *more* scrutiny, not less, since it's cheaper to fully check a page once before it ships than to find a problem after. --- ## Step 1 — Before writing: confirm it's not a duplicate Run the equivalent of `duplicate-intent-audit` (this pack) *before* creating the page: does this exact entity+content-type combination already exist under any naming convention? For comparison-style content, does the reversed pair already exist? Rejecting a duplicate before it's built is far cheaper than merging it later. --- ## Step 2 — While writing: factual and structural checklist - **Accuracy**: every checkable claim traced to its authoritative source before publishing (`verify-primary-source`, this pack) — not written from assumption. - **Non-commodity value**: at least one thing a reader can't get by going straight to the raw source data (`page-quality-audit`, this pack) — a worked example, an insight, a genuine analysis, not just a restated table. - **Honest attribution**: no fabricated expert byline; honest disclosure if AI assisted in production (`page-quality-audit`, this pack). - **Hedged, not overclaimed**: any projected/estimated figure states its assumptions plainly (`page-quality-audit`, this pack). - **Regulatory/legal check**: if the content touches a licensed-advice domain or includes affiliate links, the disclosure and disclaimer requirements are met *from the first publish*, not retrofitted later (`legal-regulatory-compliance`, this pack). --- ## Step 3 — Before publishing: technical and structural checklist - Title and meta description are unique, within current truncation limits, and the title/meta make a claim that the page body actually supports (`technical-seo-audit` + `protected-field- audit`, this pack) — checking this *before* publish avoids ever creating the "title says one thing, body says another" problem `protected-field-audit` exists to catch after the fact. - Structured data, if used, matches a currently-supported type and matches what's actually visible on the page (`technical-seo-audit`, this pack). - Heading hierarchy is correct and uses semantic variants, not repeated keyword stuffing (`technical-seo-audit`, this pack). --- ## Step 4 — At publish time: linking, both directions - **Outbound**: this new page links out to the other pages it should, from genuine body content with descriptive anchor text, not just a footer list. - **Inbound**: identify every *existing* page that should now link to this new one, and add those links as part of publishing it — not as a separate task to remember later (`internal-linking-audit`, this pack, covers the fuller audit version of this; at creation-time, do the version scoped to just this one new page). --- ## Output shape A pass/fail checklist against Steps 1–4 for the specific page (or, if a batch, a note on whether every item in the batch was checked or just a sample), with any failed item flagged as a blocker before publishing, not a "fix later" note.