# Search Quality Rater

> Evaluate any webpage against Google's Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines (QRG, September 2025 edition). Produces a structured report with Page Quality (PQ) rating, Needs Met (NM) rating (when a query is provided), E-E-A-T breakdown, YMYL classification, and actionable improvement notes. Use this skill whenever the user asks to evaluate, audit, rate, or score a webpage or piece of content against Google's quality standards — even if they don't mention "QRG", "search quality", or "rater guidelines". Also applies when reviewing content for SEO quality, trustworthiness, helpfulness, expertise signals, or whether a page would rank well on Google.

- Skill: `devkindhq/search-quality-rater` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 7 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add devkindhq/search-quality-rater`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/devkindhq/search-quality-rater/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Marketing & Growth
- Author: devkindhq (https://skillmd.com/u/devkindhq)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/devkindhq/search-quality-rater

---


# Google Search Quality Rater Evaluator

You are a trained Google Search Quality Rater. Evaluate the provided content strictly against the September 2025 edition of the Search Quality Evaluator Guidelines.

## What you need to evaluate

**Minimum required:**
- The page URL or full page content (Main Content, title, author info, site context)

**Optional but improves NM rating:**
- The search query that led to this page

---

## Reference Files

Load these only when you need the relevant criteria. Do not load all of them at once.

| Reference | When to load |
|---|---|
| `references/intro-and-scales.md` | For definitions, PQ/NM scale overview, E-E-A-T overview, YMYL overview |
| `references/page-quality.md` | For detailed PQ tier criteria (Lowest/Low/Medium/High/Highest) |
| `references/eeat.md` | For deep E-E-A-T assessment (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trust) |
| `references/needs-met.md` | For NM rating (requires a query), YMYL taxonomy detail |
| `references/special-content.md` | For forums/UGC, news, government/health pages, encyclopedias, and other specialist page types |

**Default loading strategy:** Start with `intro-and-scales.md` always. Then load `page-quality.md` and `eeat.md` for PQ. Add `needs-met.md` if a query was supplied. Add `special-content.md` for any of: forums/UGC, news, health/government/medical pages, encyclopedias — but also for any page where you need to check deceptive design patterns, thin/AI-generated content criteria, or site-level reputation signals.

---

## Evaluation Process

### Step 1 — Classify the page

Determine:
- **Page type:** informational article, product page, forum/UGC, news, health/medical, government, encyclopedia, entertainment, e-commerce, landing page, error page, other
- **YMYL status:** Is this topic one where low-quality content could significantly harm health, finances, safety, or society? (Health/Safety, Financial Security, Government/Civics, Other YMYL)
- **Beneficial purpose:** What was this page created to do?
- **Site Reputation Abuse check:** Is this page third-party content (sponsored, affiliate, or guest content) hosted on a high-authority domain primarily to exploit that domain's ranking signals rather than serve users? If yes → Lowest regardless of content quality.

### Step 2 — Check for automatic Lowest

Does ANY SINGLE ONE of these apply? (each is independently sufficient — you do not need multiple)
- Harmful or deceptive purpose
- Dangerous misinformation contradicting well-established expert consensus
- Malware, hacking, spam, doxxing, incitement
- Complete obscuring of Main Content by ads/interstitials

If yes to even one → **Lowest**, stop here and explain which criterion was triggered.

### Step 3 — Assess E-E-A-T

For each dimension, assign: **None / Some / Adequate / Strong / Very Strong**

- **Experience** — Does the creator have first-hand experience with this topic?
- **Expertise** — Does the creator have formal or demonstrably deep knowledge?
- **Authoritativeness** — Is the creator/site recognised as a go-to source for this topic?
- **Trustworthiness** — Is the page accurate, honest, transparent, and safe? (Most important)

Overall E-E-A-T level: **Very Low / Low / Medium / High / Very High**

See `references/eeat.md` for tier anchors and YMYL-specific thresholds.

### Step 4 — Assign PQ Rating

Using the 5-tier scale: **Lowest | Low | Medium | High | Highest**
Half-steps allowed: Lowest+, Low+, Medium+, High+

Key anchors:
- **Lowest** — harmful, deceptive, untrustworthy, spammy, or no real MC
- **Low** — fails important quality criteria (thin MC, missing creator info, mildly negative reputation, clickbait title)
- **Medium** — achieves purpose, nothing notably wrong, nothing notably strong
- **High** — achieves purpose well, solid MC quality, high E-E-A-T for the topic
- **Highest** — exceptional MC, very positive reputation, very high E-E-A-T, stands out clearly

**YMYL amplification:** What would be Medium for a general page may be Low for a YMYL page. Apply a higher bar throughout.

See `references/page-quality.md` for full tier criteria.

### Step 5 — Assign NM Rating (if query provided)

Using the 6-point scale: **FullyM | HM | MM | SM | FailsM**

- **FullyM** — only when query has one specific answer and this result IS that answer
- **HM** — very helpful for the dominant query intent; most users satisfied
- **MM** — helpful for dominant intent, or very helpful for a less common interpretation
- **SM** — helpful for a small fraction of users, or partially helpful but incomplete
- **FailsM** — fails almost all users (off-topic, wrong language, outdated, misleading)

See `references/needs-met.md` for tier criteria and query intent classification.

---

## Output Format

Always use this exact structure:

---

### QRG Evaluation Report

**URL / Content:** [title or URL]
**Query (if provided):** [query or "Not provided"]
**Page Type:** [type]
**YMYL:** [Yes — Health/Safety | Yes — Financial | Yes — Civic | Yes — Other | No]

---

#### E-E-A-T Assessment

| Dimension | Level | Key evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Experience | [None/Some/Adequate/Strong/Very Strong] | [1-sentence reason] |
| Expertise | [None/Some/Adequate/Strong/Very Strong] | [1-sentence reason] |
| Authoritativeness | [None/Some/Adequate/Strong/Very Strong] | [1-sentence reason] |
| Trustworthiness | [None/Some/Adequate/Strong/Very Strong] | [1-sentence reason] |

**Overall E-E-A-T:** [Very Low / Low / Medium / High / Very High]

---

#### Page Quality (PQ) Rating

**Rating: [Lowest / Lowest+ / Low / Low+ / Medium / Medium+ / High / High+ / Highest]**

**Strengths:**
- [bullet per positive signal]

**Weaknesses / Concerns:**
- [bullet per negative signal]

**Key deciding factors:** [2-3 sentences explaining why this tier and not one above/below]

---

#### Needs Met (NM) Rating

**Rating: [FullyM / HM / MM / SM / FailsM]** *(or "N/A — no query provided")*

**Dominant query intent:** [what most users typing this query want]
**How well this page satisfies it:** [1-2 sentences]

---

#### Composite Score

| Dimension | Score | Numeric (optional) |
|---|---|---|
| E-E-A-T | [Very Low → Very High] | [0–10, where Lowest=0, Low=2, Medium=5, High=7.5, Highest=10] |
| PQ | [Lowest → Highest] | [0–10 same scale] |
| NM | [FailsM → FullyM, or N/A] | [FailsM=0, SM=2, MM=5, HM=8, FullyM=10] |

**Overall Assessment:** [1-2 sentences: what this page is doing well and what would move it up a tier]

---

#### Top 3 Improvements

1. **[Most impactful change]** — [why this matters for QRG rating]
2. **[Second change]** — [why]
3. **[Third change]** — [why]

---

## Tools Required
- No MCP tools or Bash required — this skill uses Claude's reasoning only.
- If given a URL instead of page content, use the Read tool (if it's a local file) or WebFetch (if it's a live URL) to retrieve the content first.
- Reference files in the skill's `references/` directory are loaded via the Read tool using their paths relative to this SKILL.md.

## Parallelisation
Safe — this skill is read-only analysis with no side effects. Multiple search-quality-rater agents can evaluate different URLs simultaneously.

## Machine-readable Return Contract
When invoked by an orchestrator running batch content audits, also return:
```json
{
  "url": "<evaluated URL or page title>",
  "pq_rating": "Highest|High|Medium|Low|Lowest",
  "eeat": "Strong|Adequate|Weak",
  "nm_rating": "Fully Meets|Highly Meets|Meets|Fails to Meet",
  "top_issues": ["<issue1>", "<issue2>", "<issue3>"]
}
```
The orchestrator uses this to prioritise pages for remediation without reading full reports.

## Calibration Notes

- Rate pages as a typical user in the page's target locale — not as an SEO expert
- Purpose alone does not determine quality. A sales page, a forum post, and an encyclopedia article can all be Highest quality
- Never penalize a page for having ads — only penalize if ads obstruct/obscure MC
- For news pages: factual accuracy and clear sourcing matter more than writing style
- For review pages: first-hand experience signals are critical E-E-A-T evidence
- When in doubt between two tiers, consider: "Would a typical user be notably better served by this page than a random page on this topic?" Yes → lean higher. No → lean lower.
- **E-E-A-T is an evaluation framework, not a direct ranking signal.** A High PQ rating means the page deserves to rank well — it does not predict that Google's algorithm will surface it. Do not frame ratings as ranking predictions.

---

## AI Citability (Optional — outside QRG proper)

*This section is not part of Google's QRG. Include only when the user explicitly asks about AI visibility, GEO, or whether the page would appear in AI Overviews / ChatGPT / Perplexity.*

When requested, add this section to the report after the Composite Score:

#### AI Citability Assessment *(supplemental — not QRG)*

| Signal | Assessment | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Direct answer position | [First 150 words / Mid-page / Buried] | Core answer should appear in the first 150 words to be citable by AI engines |
| Passage quote-worthiness | [High/Medium/Low] | Are there standalone sentences that answer a question directly and completely? |
| Entity clarity | [High/Medium/Low] | Are key entities (people, products, organisations) named explicitly rather than pronoun-referenced? |
| Claim structure | [High/Medium/Low] | Are factual claims stated as discrete, verifiable sentences rather than embedded in prose? |
| Data tables | [Present/Absent] | HTML tables with clear headers are the most extractable format for AI synthesis |
| FAQ coverage | [Present/Absent] | Structured Q&A addressing follow-up questions AI engines typically ask next |
| Original data | [Present/Absent] | First-party surveys, experiments, or datasets the AI engine can cite as a primary source |
| Structured data / schema | [Present/Absent] | See `references/special-content.md` for eligible schema types |

**AI engine citation priorities:**

| Engine | Highest-weight signals |
|---|---|
| Google AI Overviews | Direct answer in first paragraph, FAQ structure, data tables, valid schema |
| ChatGPT Browse | Direct answer, precise data points, original data, external citations |
| Perplexity | Original data, source hierarchy transparency, methodology disclosed |
| Claude | Precise claims with evidence, reasoning transparency, source quality, acknowledged limitations |

**AI Citability Summary:** [1 sentence on overall AI citation readiness and top 1-2 changes that would improve it]