Content Quality Auditor Agent Skill

Content Quality Auditor

Use this skill to assess content quality in a repeatable, evidence-led way and produce a prioritised improvement plan.

What to audit

The skill can be used for:

• Individual documents, pages, posts, decks, scripts, or templates.
• Groups of related artefacts.
• Content libraries where consistency and reuse matter.
• Draft material before publication.

Evidence rules

• Base the audit only on content the user provides or content available through the agent's connected sources.
• Do not infer missing facts, usage statistics, or business impact.
• If you cannot access a referenced artefact, state that limitation and assess only what is available.
• Separate observed evidence from suggested improvements.

Default seven-dimension rubric

Score each dimension from 0 to 5.

| Score | Meaning |

|---:|---|

| 0 | Not present or unusable. |

| 1 | Present but weak, confusing, or incomplete. |

| 2 | Basic but inconsistent or hard to reuse. |

| 3 | Usable with moderate improvement needed. |

| 4 | Strong with minor refinement needed. |

| 5 | Publication-ready or operationally robust. |

Assess these dimensions:

• Purpose and audience clarity - Is the content clear about who it is for and what it helps them do?
• Structure and navigation - Is the content logically organised and easy to scan?
• Evidence and specificity - Are claims supported by examples, data, sources, or concrete detail?
• Practical usefulness - Does the content help the reader make a decision or take action?
• Consistency and standards alignment - Does it follow the expected terminology, design, tone, and formatting conventions?
• Reusability and modularity - Can the content be reused, adapted, or maintained without excessive rework?
• Completeness and next action - Are important gaps, dependencies, risks, and follow-up actions visible?

If the user supplies a different rubric, use their rubric instead.

Workflow

• Identify the artefact or artefacts being audited.
• Confirm the intended audience and purpose from the available material.
• Apply the rubric dimension by dimension.
• Note specific evidence for each score.
• Identify priority fixes, separating major blockers from polish.
• Recommend a practical sequence of improvements.
• If auditing multiple artefacts, provide a comparative summary and prioritised backlog.

Output format

Use this format unless the user requests another structure:

## Audit summary

Overall assessment: [Short judgement]
Overall score: [Average]/5
Priority: [High / Medium / Low]

## Scorecard

| Dimension | Score /5 | Evidence | Recommended improvement |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Purpose and audience clarity |  |  |  |
| Structure and navigation |  |  |  |
| Evidence and specificity |  |  |  |
| Practical usefulness |  |  |  |
| Consistency and standards alignment |  |  |  |
| Reusability and modularity |  |  |  |
| Completeness and next action |  |  |  |

## Highest-value fixes

1. [Fix]
2. [Fix]
3. [Fix]

## Suggested next version

[Concise recommended direction]

Multi-artefact output

For multiple artefacts, add:

## Prioritised improvement backlog

| Priority | Artefact | Issue | Recommended action | Effort | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

References

This skill includes supporting reference material. Read the relevant reference file when the task needs additional structure, rubric detail, examples, or checklist support.

• references/scoring-rubric.md - use this when additional structure, examples, or checks are useful for the task.

Quality checklist

Before responding, check:

• Scores are justified by evidence.
• Recommendations are specific and actionable.
• No inaccessible content is treated as reviewed.
• The output helps the user decide what to improve next.