SEO Blog Post Review & Audit

Score a blog post draft against a 100-point SEO rubric. Identifies specific issues per category and provides actionable fix recommendations.

References

Read these for evaluation criteria (relative to this skill's base directory):

• ../../references/on-page-seo-checklist.md
• ../../references/eeat-signals.md
• ../../references/schema-markup-templates.md

Inputs

1. Draft — docs/seo/<slug>/draft.md (required)
2. Outline — docs/seo/<slug>/outline.md (required — used to verify structure compliance)
3. Keyword data — docs/seo/<slug>/keyword-data.md (required — used to verify keyword usage)
4. Article directory — user specifies docs/seo/<slug>/ or skill finds the directory containing draft.md

Article Directory Convention

All per-article files live in docs/seo/<slug>/. The user provides the slug, or the skill finds it by looking for the directory containing draft.md.

Scoring Rubric (100 points)

Category 1: Keyword Optimization (20 points)

Check	Points	Pass Criteria
Primary keyword in title tag	3	Present in first 60 chars
Primary keyword in H1	3	Present, naturally phrased
Primary keyword in first 100 words	3	Present in opening paragraph
Primary keyword in meta description	2	Present in 150-160 char description
Primary keyword in URL slug	2	Present in slug
Secondary keywords in H2 headings	4	Each H2 maps to a secondary keyword per outline
LSI terms distributed	3	At least 5 LSI terms from keyword data used in body

Scoring: Each check is pass/fail for its point value. Partial credit if keyword is present but awkwardly placed.

Category 2: Content Structure (20 points)

Check	Points	Pass Criteria
Word count target met	4	Within ±10% of outline total
Heading hierarchy correct	4	Follows outline exactly, no skipped levels
FAQ section present	3	3-7 Q&A pairs with snippet-optimized answers
Schema markup valid	3	Article + BreadcrumbList minimum, valid JSON-LD
Scannable formatting	3	Bullets, bold terms, tables used; no wall-of-text sections
Section word counts	3	Each section within ±15% of outline target

Category 3: E-E-A-T Signals (20 points)

Check	Points	Pass Criteria
Author attribution	4	Name, title/credentials in frontmatter or body
Experience signals	5	At least 2 concrete examples (case study, real data, process)
Expert citations	4	At least 2 cited experts/sources with attribution
Methodology shown	4	Reasoning/framework explained, not just conclusions
Trust signals	3	Sources cited, dates present, factual claims verifiable

Category 4: Readability (15 points)

Check	Points	Pass Criteria
Paragraph length	4	No paragraph exceeds 4 sentences
Sentence variety	3	Mix of short (< 15 words) and medium (15-25 words) sentences
Scannable elements	3	At least 3 different formats used (bullets, tables, bold, lists)
Grade level	3	Approximately grade 8-10 (accessible but not oversimplified)
No filler phrases	2	No "In today's world", "It goes without saying", "As we all know"

Category 5: On-Page SEO (15 points)

Check	Points	Pass Criteria
Title tag length	2	50-60 characters
Meta description length	2	150-160 characters
URL slug format	2	3-5 words, lowercase, hyphenated, no dates
Image alt text	3	Every image has descriptive, keyword-relevant alt text
Internal links	3	3-5 links with descriptive anchor text
External links	3	1-2 links to authoritative sources

Category 6: Brand Voice (10 points)

Check	Points	Pass Criteria
Tone match	4	Matches brand voice document (professional/casual/technical)
Terminology correct	3	Uses brand-specific terms consistently
Audience alignment	3	Complexity level matches target ICP

Process

Step 1 — Read All Inputs

Read draft, outline, and keyword data files.

Step 2 — Score Each Category

Evaluate every check in the rubric. For each:

• Pass: Award full points
• Partial: Award half points, note what's missing
• Fail: Award 0 points, provide specific fix

Step 3 — Generate Report

Output Format

Present the review directly in the conversation (do NOT write to a file):

# SEO Review: {{Post Title}}

## Score: {{N}}/100 — {{PASS ✅ / NEEDS WORK ⚠️ / FAIL ❌}}

(Pass = 80+, Needs Work = 60-79, Fail = <60)

---

### Keyword Optimization: {{N}}/20

| Check                      | Score   | Status   | Note              |
| -------------------------- | ------- | -------- | ----------------- |
| Primary in title           | {{N}}/3 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{specific note}} |
| Primary in H1              | {{N}}/3 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{note}}          |
| Primary in first 100 words | {{N}}/3 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{note}}          |
| Primary in meta            | {{N}}/2 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{note}}          |
| Primary in URL             | {{N}}/2 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{note}}          |
| Secondaries in H2s         | {{N}}/4 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{note}}          |
| LSI distribution           | {{N}}/3 | ✅/⚠️/❌ | {{note}}          |

### Content Structure: {{N}}/20

(same table format)

### E-E-A-T Signals: {{N}}/20

(same table format)

### Readability: {{N}}/15

(same table format)

### On-Page SEO: {{N}}/15

(same table format)

### Brand Voice: {{N}}/10

(same table format)

---

## Priority Fixes

(List only items that lost points, ordered by point value — highest impact first)

### 1. {{Issue name}} ({{N}} points at stake)

**Problem**: {{What's wrong, with specific text quote from draft}}
**Fix**: {{Exact recommendation — what to change and where}}

### 2. {{Issue name}} ({{N}} points at stake)

...

---

## Strengths

- {{What the draft does well — be specific}}
- {{Another strength}}

## Verdict

{{If score >= 80}}: Ready to publish. Apply the minor fixes above for a perfect score.
{{If score 60-79}}: Needs revision. Apply the fixes above and re-run `/seo-review`.
{{If score < 60}}: Significant rework needed. Consider re-running `/seo-write` with updated outline.

Evaluation Guidelines

Be strict but fair:

• Don't penalize style choices that are valid but different from your preference
• DO penalize missing SEO fundamentals (keyword placement, heading structure)
• Award partial credit generously when the intent is right but execution is imperfect
• Quote specific text from the draft when noting issues (makes fixes actionable)

Common issues to watch for:

• Keyword stuffing (density > 2%)
• Wall-of-text paragraphs (> 4 sentences)
• Missing H2 ↔ secondary keyword mappings
• FAQ answers that are too long (> 80 words) or too short (< 30 words)
• Generic E-E-A-T signals ("experts say...") without specific attribution
• Broken heading hierarchy (H1 → H3 without H2)
• Filler introductions that delay value delivery

User Action

After the review, tell the user:

If score >= 80: "The draft is ready. Apply the minor fixes noted above, then publish or run /seo-optimize after publishing to verify on-page performance." If score < 80: "Apply the fixes above, then re-run /seo-review <slug> to check your score. Alternatively, re-run /seo-write <slug> if major structural changes are needed."