seo-content-audit Checked

plied floor, and the actual word count in evidence/01-content-snapshot.md. If the actual word count is materially below the floor, flag it for the depth E-E-A-T items (auto ✗ unless the auditor justifies the exception).

• **Firecrawl second** — recovers what WebFetch's markdown loses:
• From metadata: canonical URL, robots, lang, og:title.
• From the returned html: every <script type="application/ld+json"> block. Parse for Article / BlogPosting schema and extract author (name, @type: Person, optional url + sameAs), datePublished / dateModified (ISO 8601), publisher, mainEntityOfPage. Detect Person schema standalone if present.
• DOM-level byline detection: locate the structural byline (<a rel="author">, <meta name="author">, <span class="byline">, [itemprop="author"]). Distinguish a real byline element from prose mentions ("Written by Jane in collaboration..." in body text is not a byline; <a rel="author">Jane Doe</a> is).
• **If Firecrawl unavailable:** WebFetch portion runs unchanged. Mark schema-type detection and structural byline detection as (skipped — Firecrawl required) in evidence/01-content-snapshot.md. Step 4's veto checks #1 and #4 fall back to prose-level inspection (less reliable) — surface that caveat in VERDICT.md.

2. **AIO context** DATA_getAiOverview and DATA_getAiOverviewLeaderboard

• For the target keyword: is there an AIO?
• Who is cited in the AIO?
• Is the candidate URL cited?
• What patterns characterise the cited sources (publication tier, freshness, structure)?

3. **AIO prompt sampling** DATA_getAiPromptsByTarget

• Sample LLM prompts where the target URL's domain appears as a source.
• Cross-reference with the candidate URL — does it show up in any sampled prompts?

3b. **GA4 organic traffic on the audited URL** *(only if google-api.json is present, tier ≥ 2)*

• Replaces the implicit traffic estimation with actual measured organic sessions for the audited URL.
• Pull the top organic landing pages (last 28 days):

python3 scripts/ga4_report.py --report top-pages --days 28 --json

• Filter the result client-side for the audited URL's path. Surface in VERDICT.md "## Snapshot" alongside the existing AIO citation cross-check:
• GA4 organic last 28d: {sessions} sessions / {users} users / avg engagement {n}s
• If the URL doesn't appear in the top-100 organic landing pages: "GA4: not in top-100 organic landing pages last 28d — low or zero traffic."
• **This is a signal, not a veto.** Low GA4 traffic on a YMYL page with high E-E-A-T is informative ("we're not earning the visibility our content quality should support") but doesn't change the publish decision.
• See skills/seo-google/references/cross-skill-integration.md § "seo-content-audit" for the full recipe.

4. **Score E-E-A-T** using references/core-eeat.md

• 60-item rubric across 4 dimensions (15 items each).
• Per-item: yes/no/partial. Compute dimension scores (0–100% each).
• Score the 8-item **AI-content markers** subsection (see references/core-eeat.md → "AI-content markers"). Mark each fired/not-fired.
• Apply 4 veto checks. Any veto = no-publish.

1. Anonymous author on YMYL topic. (High-confidence with Firecrawl-recovered author schema + DOM byline; medium-confidence with prose-only inspection.)

2. Factual claims with no sources cited.

3. Undisclosed affiliate / sponsored relationships.

4. AI-generated YMYL content with no human-review markers (≥4 AI-content markers fired AND YMYL topic AND no editor byline / "reviewed by" credit / "last reviewed" or "fact-checked on" date). The "editor byline / reviewed by" check uses Firecrawl-recovered DOM byline + Article-schema author when available; falls back to prose-level pattern match if Firecrawl is absent (lower confidence — note in VERDICT.md).

5. **Score CITE** using references/cite.md

• 30-item CITE rubric (Clear answer in 1st 200 words, Include primary stats, Timestamp freshness, Entity authority).
• Per-item: yes/no/partial. Compute dimension scores.
• Apply 3 veto checks (no answer in first 300 words / no datestamp on time-sensitive content / no entity disambiguation for proper-noun queries).

6. **Cross-check against AIO winners**

• For the patterns characteristic of cited sources (from step 2), evaluate the candidate against each: does it have what the cited sources have?
• Surface specific gaps.

7. **Synthesise verdict** using templates/verdict.md

• **Publish:** E-E-A-T ≥ 75%, CITE ≥ 70%, no vetoes triggered.
• **Publish with fixes:** E-E-A-T 60–74% OR CITE 55–69%, no vetoes. Top 5 fixes specified.
• **No publish:** any veto triggered, OR E-E-A-T < 60%, OR CITE < 55%. Substantial rewrite needed.

Output format

Create a folder seo-content-audit-{target-slug}-{YYYYMMDD}/ with:

seo-content-audit-{target-slug}-{YYYYMMDD}/
├── VERDICT.md                       (publish / publish-with-fixes / no-publish — primary deliverable; inlines content snapshot + AIO context)
├── 03-eeat-scoring.md               (60-item rubric scored — load-bearing reference an editor consults item-by-item)
├── 04-cite-scoring.md               (30-item rubric scored — load-bearing reference)
├── 05-aio-winner-comparison.md      (gap vs cited sources — must remain top-level; live AIO competitive evidence per EVAL_RESULT_v2.md §9)
└── evidence/
    ├── 01-content-snapshot.md       (HTML extracts + page metadata — raw step output)
    └── 02-aio-context.md            (AIO presen