audit-content-quality · git:20261009.0ae007b · 2026-10-09 · sha256 b4263f36354da90c
audit-content-quality git:20261009.0ae007bA
Immutable. This exact content never changes and is served at /api/v1/blob/b4263f36354da90c.
--- name: audit-content-quality description: Use when reviewing an article, guide, or landing page before publishing or republishing — scores it against a rubric (project's .claude/rubrics/content-quality.md, else the bundled default) with quoted evidence and fixes only the failed criteria. --- # Audit Content Quality Score first, then fix *only the gaps* — never rewrite what already passes. The procedure is generic; the law comes from a rubric file, so a team's own scorecard (points, knockouts, house rules) plugs in without changing the skill. ## 1. Gate — is this a public page? Run the gate from `../_shared/page-types.md`. Content quality scoring is for pages meant to be found and read; app surfaces are out of scope. ## 2. Load the rubric Per `../_shared/rubric-convention.md`: ```bash cat .claude/rubrics/content-quality.md 2>/dev/null # project law, if present ``` Present → it is the entire rubric (criteria, knockouts, any points/weights it defines). Present but empty — or with no `##` criterion headings — → malformed: report it and stop; do not fall through to the default (`../_shared/rubric-convention.md`). Absent → use `./default-rubric.md`, and offer the install at the end of the report. ## 3. Gather the page ```bash curl -s "$URL" -o /tmp/page.html # or the built file ``` Read the rendered text top to bottom — the audit quotes evidence, so skimming isn't enough. Identify the page's target question/intent first (from title + h1); several criteria score against it. ## 4. Score Walk the rubric criterion by criterion: - **Knockouts (`[K.O.]`) first.** Any knockout failure fails the page outright — report it, fix it, re-run before scoring the rest in detail. - Each criterion gets a verdict (pass/fail, or the rubric's own scale) **and quoted evidence** from the page. No verdict without a quote — evidence is what makes the audit repeatable. ## 5. Report ```markdown | Criterion | Verdict | Evidence | |---|---|---| | [K.O.] Content in served HTML | PASS | view-source: h1 + body text present | | Direct answer up front | FAIL | opening paragraph is a 140-word anecdote; answer arrives in §3 | | ... | ... | ... | ``` Close with: the failures in fix order (knockouts → cheapest wins → rest), and — if the bundled default was used — the offer to install it to `.claude/rubrics/content-quality.md`. ## 6. Fix only the failures Apply the smallest edit that turns each failed criterion green: move the answer paragraph up, add the byline/date block, add the two internal links. Touch nothing that passed. Re-run the audit; the page now passes, and a second run changes nothing — idempotence is the proof the audit is honest. ## References - ./default-rubric.md — the bundled scorecard (installable as the project's starting point). - ../_shared/rubric-convention.md — lookup order, the `[K.O.]` format, the install offer. - ../set-up-seo/SKILL.md — the technical baseline (crawlability, metadata, schema) this audit assumes.