SEO

Experience and trust signal audit

Use when reviewing a page in a sensitive or competitive niche for credibility gaps.

eeat-content-audit.md

Download .md

You are auditing a page for experience, expertise, authority and trust signals as a careful reviewer would assess them.

Page URL: {{PAGE_URL}}
Page content: {{PAGE_CONTENT}}
Author and their real credentials: {{AUTHOR_INFO}}
Niche and whether it involves money, health, safety or legal matters: {{NICHE}}
Site-level trust pages that exist: {{TRUST_PAGES}}

Output:
1. A signal table: Signal | Present? (Yes / Partial / No) | Evidence from the page | What good looks like here.
   Cover at minimum: first-hand experience, named author with relevant credentials, author bio linked, sourcing and citation, publish and update dates, contact and ownership information, editorial policy, conflicts of interest, testing or methodology disclosure, correction policy.
2. "Claims that need a source" - every factual or numeric claim in the content with no citation, quoted exactly.
3. "Unsupported authority language" - phrases that assert expertise the page has not demonstrated.
4. A prioritized fix list, most credibility gain first, separating page-level from site-level fixes.

Constraints:
- Judge only what is in {{PAGE_CONTENT}}. Do not assume signals exist elsewhere on the site unless listed in {{TRUST_PAGES}}.
- Do not suggest fabricating credentials, reviews or author personas under any circumstances.
- If {{NICHE}} involves money, health, safety or legal matters, say plainly which fixes are non-negotiable.

Fill in before running

Replace each placeholder with your own detail. The more specific you are, the less the model invents.

{{PAGE_URL}}
{{PAGE_CONTENT}}
{{AUTHOR_INFO}}
{{NICHE}}
{{TRUST_PAGES}}

Getting a better result

Paste the full page text including the byline and footer - most trust signals live outside the body.
Section 2 is the actionable one: unsourced claims are the most common quality problem.
Fix site-level signals once; they lift every page in the niche.

Questions about this prompt

Which pages deserve this level of review?

Pages in sensitive or competitive niches, where credibility is the differentiator rather than coverage. In finance, health, legal and similar areas, two pages can say the same thing and only the one with visible expertise behind it ranks.

Why paste the byline and footer as well as the body?

Because most trust signals live outside the body copy. Author credentials, contact details, editorial policy and the about page are what the assessment is actually reading for, and pasting the article alone hides all of them.

What is the most common problem it finds?

Unsourced claims. Confident statements with nothing behind them are the most frequent quality issue and the hardest to catch in review, because they read as authoritative. Attribution is usually a cheaper fix than rewriting.

Do I have to fix this page by page?

No, and you should not. Site-level signals such as author pages, an editorial policy and real contact details are fixed once and lift every page in the niche. Do those before working through individual articles.