/write-content

Technique 16: Quality Scoring System

What It Is

A 100-point composite scoring system that evaluates AI-generated content across five dimensions before output. Content scoring below threshold is automatically revised. This is the final quality gate preventing bad content from being published.

Why It Works

Organizations using structured quality gates report 45% fewer post-publication content issues. The scoring system provides objective, repeatable assessment and identifies WHICH areas need improvement rather than a binary pass/fail.

Scoring Breakdown (100 Points Total)

Content Quality (30 points)

Topical Completeness (0-10):

• Are all SERP-common topics covered? (from brief's competitor analysis)
• Are PAA questions from the brief addressed?
• Scoring: 10 = all topics covered, 7 = 80%+, 5 = 60%+, 3 = 40%+, 0 = below 40%

Depth of Coverage (0-10):

• Does each major section contain specific examples, data points, or analysis?
• Are claims supported with evidence rather than stated as fact?
• Scoring: count sections with at least one specific example/data point. 10 = all sections, proportional down

Originality (0-10):

• Does the content contain at least one section adding information not found in the top 10 SERP results?
• Are there unique insights, original analysis, contrarian perspectives, or proprietary data?
• Scoring: 10 = multiple unique sections, 7 = one strong unique section, 4 = unique framing of known info, 0 = pure rehash

SEO Optimization (25 points)

Keyword Placement (0-8):

• Primary keyword in meta title: +2
• Primary keyword in H1: +2
• Primary keyword in first 100 words: +2
• Primary keyword or variation in 2+ H2s: +2

Internal Links (0-5):

• 3-5 verified internal links per 1,000 words: +3
• All links validated against real sitemap: +2
• Deduct 2 points per hallucinated link

Meta Quality (0-4):

• Meta title under 60 chars with keyword + hook: +2
• Meta description under 155 chars with CTA: +2

Schema Markup (0-4):

• Correct primary schema for content type: +2
• FAQ schema present (if FAQ section exists): +2

Featured Snippet Targeting (0-4):

• Target snippet format identified and implemented: +2
• 40-60 word direct answer at correct position: +2

E-E-A-T Signals (15 points)

First-Person Experience (0-5):

• Uses "I/we tested," "in my experience," "our data shows": +2
• Contains specific case study or personal testing data: +3
• Scoring: presence of genuine experience signals, not just the words

Specific Data & Examples (0-5):

• Named companies, specific numbers, dated events: +2
• At least one example that is not a common/obvious example: +3
• Deduct points for "many companies" or "experts agree" without names

Source Attribution (0-5):

• Claims backed by named sources with dates: +3
• External links to authoritative references: +2

Anti-Slop Score (15 points)

Zero Tier 1 Phrases (0-5):

• 5 = zero Tier 1 words/phrases detected
• Deduct 1 point per Tier 1 detection (minimum 0)

Burstiness (0-3):

• Measure sentence length standard deviation
• 3 = high variation (SD > 8 words), 2 = moderate (SD 5-8), 1 = low (SD 3-5), 0 = uniform

Voice Consistency (0-3):

• Content matches the loaded voice document characteristics
• 3 = strong match, 2 = moderate, 1 = weak, 0 = no voice detected

Horoscope Test (0-4):

• Count paragraphs that pass the specificity check (topic-specific, audience-specific)
• 4 = all pass, 3 = 80%+, 2 = 60%+, 1 = 40%+, 0 = below 40%

AI Citation Readiness (15 points)

Answer-First Formatting (0-5):

• Key sections lead with extractable 40-60 word answers: +3
• Direct answer appears within first 100 words of the article: +2

FAQ Schema (0-3):

• FAQPage schema present with 3+ properly formatted Q&As: +3

Claim-Evidence Pairs (0-4):

• Data claims include named source + date: +2
• Statistics include specific numbers (not "many" or "most"): +2

Entity Richness (0-3):

• Named entities (companies, people, tools) used instead of generic references: +2
• Entity relationships explicitly stated: +1

Readability Targets

Readability is assessed but NOT part of the 100-point score (since optimal readability varies by audience and content type).

Quality Gate Actions

Auto-Revision Strategy

When score is 60-69, target the weakest category first:

1. Low Content Quality: Add missing topics from brief, inject specific examples into thin sections
2. Low SEO: Fix keyword placement, add missing internal links, generate meta tags
3. Low E-E-A-T: Add first-person experience language, inject specific data points, add source citations
4. Low Anti-Slop: Run additional editing passes against banned phrase list, increase sentence length variation
5. Low GEO: Restructure key sections with answer-first formatting, add FAQ schema, add source attributions

Maximum 2 revision cycles. Research (Self-Refine) shows diminishing returns after 2 cycles, and quality can actually degrade with over-revision.

Reporting Format

## Quality Report

**Overall Score: XX/100** [Ready | Minor Issues | Needs Revision | Major Issues]

| Category | Score | Status |
|----------|-------|--------|
| Content Quality | XX/30 | [pass/flag] |
| SEO Optimization | XX/25 | [pass/flag] |
| E-E-A-T Signals | XX/15 | [pass/flag] |
| Anti-Slop | XX/15 | [pass/flag] |
| AI Citation Ready | XX/15 | [pass/flag] |

**Readability:** Flesch XX (Grade Level X) -- [appropriate/too complex/too simple for target audience]

**Issues Found:**
1. [Specific issue + location in content + suggested fix]
2. [...]

**Strengths:**
1. [What scored well]
2. [...]

Key Sources

• AgriciDaniel/claude-blog -- 100-point system across 5 dimensions
• aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills -- 80-item CORE-EEAT framework
• hardikpandya/stop-slop -- 50-point scoring across 5 dimensions
• AI Content Quality Control Guide 2026 (Koanthic)
• Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement (Learn Prompting)