# SEO Helpful Content > Pre-publish (or retroactive) content-quality gate implementing Google's official self-assessment questions from the creating-helpful-content doc, plus 2024 spam-policy red flags. Verdict: PUBLISH / REVISE / RETHINK. Use when user says "helpful content", "people-first", "content self-assessment", "is my content helpful", or "content quality gate". - Skill: `lionkiii/seo-helpful-content` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add lionkiii/seo-helpful-content` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/lionkiii/seo-helpful-content/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: lionkiii (https://skillmd.com/u/lionkiii) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/lionkiii/seo-helpful-content --- # Helpful Content Gate (People-First Self-Assessment) Implements Google's own self-assessment from https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/creating-helpful-content. Walk EVERY question with YES / NO / PARTIAL + one line of evidence from the content. Google also suggests getting an honest assessment from people unaffiliated with the site — this skill plays that role. ## Inputs - **URL** — WebFetch (fallback `curl -sL`), or - **Local file/draft** — Read tool - Optional context: site purpose, intended audience, whether AI assisted ## Execution 1. Fetch/read the content; identify topic, format, and apparent audience. 2. Walk **Section A** (content & quality), **Section B** (expertise), **Section C** (people-first) — each answer YES/NO/PARTIAL + evidence quote. 3. Walk **Section D** (search-engine-first warning signs) — here YES answers are red flags. 4. Run **Section E** spam-policy screen (2024 policies). 5. If AI-assisted, apply the **AI content** rules. 6. Issue verdict with prioritized revision list. ## Section A — Content and Quality Questions (Google's list) - Does the content provide original information, reporting, research, or analysis? - Does it provide a substantial, complete, or comprehensive description of the topic? - Does it provide insightful analysis or interesting information beyond the obvious? - If drawing on other sources, does it avoid simply copying/rewriting them and add substantial value and originality? - Does the main heading or page title provide a descriptive, helpful summary? - Does the heading/title avoid exaggerating or being shocking? - Is this a page you'd bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend? - Would you expect to see it referenced by a printed magazine, encyclopedia, or book? - Does it provide substantial value compared to other pages in search results? - Is it free of spelling/stylistic issues? - Is it produced well — not sloppy or hastily made? - Is it NOT mass-produced/outsourced across many creators or sites such that pages don't get attention or care? ## Section B — Expertise Questions (Google's list) - Is information presented in a way that makes you want to trust it — clear sourcing, evidence of expertise, author/site background (author page, About page)? - Would someone researching the site come away seeing it as well-trusted or widely recognized as an authority on its topic? - Is it written or reviewed by an expert or enthusiast who demonstrably knows the topic well? - Is it free of easily-verified factual errors? ## Section C — People-First Signals (YES = good) - Existing/intended audience would find it useful coming directly to the site? - Clearly demonstrates first-hand expertise and depth of knowledge (actually used the product/service, visited the place)? - Does the site have a primary purpose or focus? - Will readers leave feeling they've learned enough to achieve their goal? - Will readers leave feeling they've had a satisfying experience? ## Section D — Search-Engine-First Warning Signs (YES = red flag) - Content primarily made to attract search engine visits? - Producing lots of content on many topics hoping some performs? - Using extensive automation to produce content on many topics? - Mainly summarizing what others say without adding much value? - Writing about things only because they're trending, not for your audience? - Will readers need to search again for better information elsewhere? - Writing to a word count because of a believed Google preference? (Google: there is no preferred word count.) - Entered a niche with no real expertise, mainly for traffic? - Promising an answer to a question that has no answer (e.g., unconfirmed release dates)? - Changing dates to seem fresh without substantial content changes? - Adding/removing lots of content mainly to seem "fresh" for rankings? (Google: it won't help.) SEO itself is fine — people-first content plus SEO is Google's recommended combination; search-engine-first content is the problem. ## Section E — Spam Policy Screen (2024 policies) From https://developers.google.com/search/docs/essentials/spam-policies: - **Scaled content abuse:** many pages generated primarily to manipulate rankings, not help users — regardless of how made (gen-AI without added value; scraped/synonymized/translated feeds; stitched content; multi-site networks hiding scale; keyword pages that make little sense to a reader). - **Site reputation abuse:** third-party content published on a host mainly to exploit the host's established ranking signals (sponsored payday-loan reviews on an .edu, white-label coupons on a news site). NOT violations: wire services, syndicated news, genuine UGC/forums, editorial columns, advertorials meant for the publication's own readers, normal affiliate links. - **Expired domain abuse:** repurposing an expired domain's history to host low-value content (casino content on a former school domain). Any confirmed hit here = automatic RETHINK verdict. ## AI-Generated / AI-Assisted Content From https://developers.google.com/search/docs/fundamentals/using-gen-ai-content: automation is acceptable when people-first; using AI primarily to manipulate rankings violates the scaled content abuse policy. Check: - Accuracy, quality, relevance — including auto-generated titles, meta descriptions, structured data, and alt text - Context for users: disclose how automation was used where readers would reasonably ask "how was this created?" (the "How" from Who/How/Why) - Ecommerce: Merchant Center requires IPTC `DigitalSourceType` `TrainedAlgorithmicMedia` metadata on AI-generated images, and AI-generated product data must be labeled ## Output ``` ## Helpful Content Gate — ### A. Content & Quality (12 questions) | Question | Answer | Evidence | |---|---|---| | Original information/research? | YES/NO/PARTIAL | "..." | ... (every question, all sections) ### D. Search-Engine-First Flags: N raised ### E. Spam Policy Screen: CLEAR / VIOLATION () ### AI content: N/A or compliant/issues ### Verdict: PUBLISH | REVISE | RETHINK - PUBLISH — A/B/C mostly YES, ≤2 PARTIALs, no D flags, E clear - REVISE — fixable gaps: list revisions in priority order - RETHINK — multiple D flags or any E violation; the premise (the "Why") is search-first — revision won't fix intent ### Prioritized Revisions 1. ... ``` ## Cross-references - `/seo-eeat-audit` — deep E-E-A-T scoring (trust/author signals) - `/seo-content` — structural/readability content audit - `/seo-ai-optimization` — Google AI feature readiness (cites this gate as the main content lever)