✓ Verified 💻 Development ✓ Enhanced Data

Domain Authority Auditor

Use when the user asks to "audit domain authority", "domain trust score", "CITE audit", "how authori

Rating: 4.4 (123 reviews)
Downloads: 2,202 downloads
Version: 1.0.0

Overview

Use when the user asks to "audit domain authority", "domain trust score", "CITE audit", "how authoritative is my.

✨Key Features

Preparation

C + I Audit (20 items)

T + E Audit (20 items)

Scoring & Report

Complete Documentation

View Source →

Domain Authority Auditor

Based on CITE Domain Rating. Full benchmark reference: references/cite-domain-rating.md

SEO & GEO Skills Library · 20 skills for SEO + GEO · Install all: npx skills add aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills

Browse all 20 skills

Research · keyword-research · competitor-analysis · serp-analysis · content-gap-analysis

Build · seo-content-writer · geo-content-optimizer · meta-tags-optimizer · schema-markup-generator

Optimize · on-page-seo-auditor · technical-seo-checker · internal-linking-optimizer · content-refresher

Monitor · rank-tracker · backlink-analyzer · performance-reporter · alert-manager

Cross-cutting · content-quality-auditor · domain-authority-auditor · entity-optimizer · memory-management

This skill evaluates domain authority across 40 standardized criteria organized in 4 dimensions. It produces a comprehensive audit report with per-item scoring, dimension and weighted scores by domain type, veto item checks, and a prioritized action plan.

Sister skill: content-quality-auditor evaluates content at the page level (80 items). This skill evaluates the domain behind the content (40 items). Together they provide a complete 120-item assessment.

Namespace note: CITE uses C01-C10 for Citation items; CORE-EEAT uses C01-C10 for Contextual Clarity items. In combined 120-item assessments, prefix with the framework name (e.g., CITE-C01 vs CORE-C01) to avoid confusion.

When to Use This Skill

Evaluating domain authority before a GEO campaign
Benchmarking your domain against competitors
Assessing whether a domain is trustworthy as a citation source
Running periodic domain health checks or after link building campaigns
Identifying manipulation red flags (PBNs, link farms, penalty history)
Cross-referencing with content-quality-auditor for full 120-item assessment

What This Skill Does

Full 40-Item Audit: Scores every CITE check item as Pass/Partial/Fail
Dimension Scoring: Calculates scores for all 4 dimensions (0-100 each)
Weighted Totals: Applies domain-type-specific weights for CITE Score
Veto Detection: Flags critical manipulation signals (T03, T05, T09)
Priority Ranking: Identifies Top 5 improvements sorted by impact
Action Plan: Generates specific, actionable improvement steps
Cross-Reference: Optionally pairs with CORE-EEAT for combined diagnosis

How to Use

Audit Your Domain

text

Audit domain authority for [domain]
Run a CITE domain audit on [domain] as a [domain type]

Audit with Domain Type

text

CITE audit for example.com as an e-commerce site
Score this SaaS domain against the 40-item benchmark: [domain]

Comparative Audit

text

Compare domain authority: [your domain] vs [competitor 1] vs [competitor 2]

Combined Assessment

text

Run full 120-item assessment on [domain]: CITE domain audit + CORE-EEAT content audit on [sample pages]

Data Sources

See CONNECTORS.md for tool category placeholders.

With ~~link database + ~~SEO tool + ~~AI monitor + ~~knowledge graph + ~~brand monitor connected: Automatically pull backlink profiles and link quality metrics from ~~link database, domain authority scores and keyword rankings from ~~SEO tool, AI citation data from ~~AI monitor, entity presence from ~~knowledge graph, and brand mention data from ~~brand monitor.

With manual data only: Ask the user to provide:

Domain to evaluate
Domain type (if not auto-detectable): Content Publisher, Product & Service, E-commerce, Community & UGC, Tool & Utility, or Authority & Institutional
Backlink data: referring domains count, domain authority, top linking domains
Traffic estimates (from any SEO tool or SimilarWeb)
Competitor domains for comparison (optional)

Proceed with the full 40-item audit using provided data. Note in the output which items could not be fully evaluated due to missing access (e.g., AI citation data, knowledge graph queries, WHOIS history).

Instructions

When a user requests a domain authority audit:

Step 1: Preparation

markdown

### Audit Setup

**Domain**: [domain]
**Domain Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [from domain-type weight table below]

#### Domain-Type Weight Table

> Canonical source: `references/cite-domain-rating.md`. This inline copy is for convenience.

| Dim | Default | Content Publisher | Product & Service | E-commerce | Community & UGC | Tool & Utility | Authority & Institutional |
|-----|:-------:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
| C | 35% | **40%** | 25% | 20% | 35% | 25% | **45%** |
| I | 20% | 15% | **30%** | 20% | 10% | **30%** | 20% |
| T | 25% | 20% | 25% | **35%** | 25% | 25% | 20% |
| E | 20% | 25% | 20% | 25% | **30%** | 20% | 15% |

#### Veto Check (Emergency Brake)

| Veto Item | Status | Action |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| T03: Link-Traffic Coherence | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Audit backlink profile; disavow toxic links"] |
| T05: Backlink Profile Uniqueness | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Flag as manipulation network; investigate link sources"] |
| T09: Penalty & Deindex History | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Address penalty first; all other optimization is futile"] |

If any veto item triggers, flag it prominently at the top of the report. CITE Score is capped at 39 (Poor) regardless of other scores.

Step 2: C + I Audit (20 items)

Evaluate each item against the criteria in references/cite-domain-rating.md.

Score each item:

Pass = 10 points (fully meets criteria)
Partial = 5 points (partially meets criteria)
Fail = 0 points (does not meet criteria)

markdown

### C — Citation

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Referring Domains Volume | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| C02 | Referring Domains Quality | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| C10 | Link Source Diversity | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |

**C Score**: [X]/100

### I — Identity

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| I01 | Knowledge Graph Presence | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**I Score**: [X]/100

Step 3: T + E Audit (20 items)

Same format for Trust and Eminence dimensions.

markdown

### T — Trust

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| T01 | Link Profile Naturalness | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**T Score**: [X]/100

### E — Eminence

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| E01 | Organic Search Visibility | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**E Score**: [X]/100

Note: Some items require specialized data (C05-C08 AI citation data, I01 knowledge graph queries, T04-T05 IP/profile analysis). Score what is observable; mark unverifiable items as "N/A — requires [data source]" and exclude from dimension average.

Step 4: Scoring & Report

Calculate scores and generate the final report:

markdown

## CITE Domain Authority Report

### Overview

- **Domain**: [domain]
- **Domain Type**: [type]
- **Audit Date**: [date]
- **CITE Score**: [score]/100 ([rating])
- **Veto Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ [item] triggered — Score capped at 39

### Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| C — Citation | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| I — Identity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| T — Trust | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| E — Eminence | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| **CITE Score** | | | | **[X]/100** |

**Score Calculation**: CITE Score = C × [w_C] + I × [w_I] + T × [w_T] + E × [w_E]

**Rating Scale**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Medium | 40-59 Low | 0-39 Poor

### Per-Item Scores

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Referring Domains Volume | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| C02 | Referring Domains Quality | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| E10 | Industry Share of Voice | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |

### Top 5 Priority Improvements

Sorted by: weight × points lost (highest impact first)

1. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]
2. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]
3–5. [Same format]

### Action Plan

#### Quick Wins (< 1 week)
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]
#### Medium Effort (1-4 weeks)
- [ ] [Action 3]
- [ ] [Action 4]
#### Strategic (1-3 months)
- [ ] [Action 5]
- [ ] [Action 6]

### Cross-Reference with CORE-EEAT

For a complete assessment, pair this CITE audit with a CORE-EEAT content audit:

| Assessment | Score | Rating |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| CITE (Domain) | [X]/100 | [rating] |
| CORE-EEAT (Content) | [Run content-quality-auditor on sample pages] | — |

**Diagnosis Matrix**:
- High CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Maintain and expand
- High CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Prioritize content quality
- Low CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Build domain authority
- Low CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Start with content, then domain

### Recommended Next Steps

- For domain authority building: focus on top 5 priorities above
- For content improvement: use [content-quality-auditor](../content-quality-auditor/) on key pages
- For backlink strategy: use [backlink-analyzer](../../monitor/backlink-analyzer/) for detailed link analysis
- For competitor benchmarking: use [competitor-analysis](../../research/competitor-analysis/) with CITE scores
- For tracking progress: run `/seo:report` with CITE score trends

Validation Checkpoints

Input Validation

[ ] Domain identified and accessible
[ ] Domain type confirmed (auto-detected or user-specified)
[ ] Backlink data available (at minimum: referring domains count, DA/DR)
[ ] If comparative audit, competitor domains also specified

Output Validation

[ ] All 40 items scored (or marked N/A with reason)
[ ] All 4 dimension scores calculated correctly
[ ] Weighted CITE Score matches domain-type weight configuration
[ ] All 3 veto items checked first and flagged if triggered
[ ] Top 5 improvements sorted by weighted impact, not arbitrary
[ ] Every recommendation is specific and actionable (not generic advice)
[ ] Action plan includes concrete steps with effort estimates

Example

See references/example-report.md for a complete CITE audit of cloudhosting.com showing veto check, dimension scores, top 5 improvements, action plan, and cross-reference with CORE-EEAT.

Tips for Success

Start with veto items — T03, T05, T09 can invalidate the entire score
Identify domain type first — Different types have very different weight profiles
AI citation items (C05-C08) matter most for GEO — Test by querying AI engines with niche-relevant questions
Some items need specialized tools — Knowledge graph queries, AI citation monitoring, and IP diversity analysis may require manual research if tools aren't connected
Pair with CORE-EEAT for full picture — Domain authority without content quality (or vice versa) tells only half the story

Reference Materials

CITE Domain Rating — Full 40-item benchmark with dimension definitions, scoring criteria, domain-type weight tables, and veto items
references/example-report.md — Complete CITE audit example with scored dimensions, top 5 improvements, action plan, and CORE-EEAT cross-reference

Related Skills

content-quality-auditor — Page-level content audit (CORE-EEAT 80 items) — the sister skill
backlink-analyzer — Deep-dive into backlink profile (feeds C dimension data)
competitor-analysis — Compare CITE scores across competitors
performance-reporter — Track CITE score trends over time
entity-optimizer — Entity presence audit; complements CITE I dimension

Installation

Terminal bash


openclaw install domain-authority-auditor

Copied!

💻Code Examples

Run full 120-item assessment on [domain]: CITE domain audit + CORE-EEAT content audit on [sample pages]

run-full-120-item-assessment-on-domain-cite-domain-audit--core-eeat-content-audit-on-sample-pages.txt

## Data Sources

> See [CONNECTORS.md](../../CONNECTORS.md) for tool category placeholders.

**With ~~link database + ~~SEO tool + ~~AI monitor + ~~knowledge graph + ~~brand monitor connected:**
Automatically pull backlink profiles and link quality metrics from ~~link database, domain authority scores and keyword rankings from ~~SEO tool, AI citation data from ~~AI monitor, entity presence from ~~knowledge graph, and brand mention data from ~~brand monitor.

**With manual data only:**
Ask the user to provide:
1. Domain to evaluate
2. Domain type (if not auto-detectable): Content Publisher, Product & Service, E-commerce, Community & UGC, Tool & Utility, or Authority & Institutional
3. Backlink data: referring domains count, domain authority, top linking domains
4. Traffic estimates (from any SEO tool or SimilarWeb)
5. Competitor domains for comparison (optional)

Proceed with the full 40-item audit using provided data. Note in the output which items could not be fully evaluated due to missing access (e.g., AI citation data, knowledge graph queries, WHOIS history).

## Instructions

When a user requests a domain authority audit:

### Step 1: Preparation

| T09: Penalty & Deindex History | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Address penalty first; all other optimization is futile"] |

-t09-penalty--deindex-history---pass---veto--if-veto-address-penalty-first-all-other-optimization-is-futile-.txt

If any veto item triggers, flag it prominently at the top of the report. CITE Score is capped at 39 (Poor) regardless of other scores.

### Step 2: C + I Audit (20 items)

Evaluate each item against the criteria in [references/cite-domain-rating.md](../../references/cite-domain-rating.md).

Score each item:
- **Pass** = 10 points (fully meets criteria)
- **Partial** = 5 points (partially meets criteria)
- **Fail** = 0 points (does not meet criteria)

I Score: [X]/100

i-score-x100.txt

### Step 3: T + E Audit (20 items)

Same format for Trust and Eminence dimensions.

E Score: [X]/100

e-score-x100.txt

**Note**: Some items require specialized data (C05-C08 AI citation data, I01 knowledge graph queries, T04-T05 IP/profile analysis). Score what is observable; mark unverifiable items as "N/A — requires [data source]" and exclude from dimension average.

### Step 4: Scoring & Report

Calculate scores and generate the final report:

example.md

### Audit Setup

**Domain**: [domain]
**Domain Type**: [auto-detected or user-specified]
**Dimension Weights**: [from domain-type weight table below]

#### Domain-Type Weight Table

> Canonical source: `references/cite-domain-rating.md`. This inline copy is for convenience.

| Dim | Default | Content Publisher | Product & Service | E-commerce | Community & UGC | Tool & Utility | Authority & Institutional |
|-----|:-------:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|
| C | 35% | **40%** | 25% | 20% | 35% | 25% | **45%** |
| I | 20% | 15% | **30%** | 20% | 10% | **30%** | 20% |
| T | 25% | 20% | 25% | **35%** | 25% | 25% | 20% |
| E | 20% | 25% | 20% | 25% | **30%** | 20% | 15% |

#### Veto Check (Emergency Brake)

| Veto Item | Status | Action |
|-----------|--------|--------|
| T03: Link-Traffic Coherence | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Audit backlink profile; disavow toxic links"] |
| T05: Backlink Profile Uniqueness | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Flag as manipulation network; investigate link sources"] |
| T09: Penalty & Deindex History | ✅ Pass / ⚠️ VETO | [If VETO: "Address penalty first; all other optimization is futile"] |

example.md

### C — Citation

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Referring Domains Volume | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| C02 | Referring Domains Quality | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| C10 | Link Source Diversity | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |

**C Score**: [X]/100

### I — Identity

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| I01 | Knowledge Graph Presence | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**I Score**: [X]/100

example.md

### T — Trust

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| T01 | Link Profile Naturalness | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**T Score**: [X]/100

### E — Eminence

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| E01 | Organic Search Visibility | Pass/Partial/Fail | [specific observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

**E Score**: [X]/100

example.md

## CITE Domain Authority Report

### Overview

- **Domain**: [domain]
- **Domain Type**: [type]
- **Audit Date**: [date]
- **CITE Score**: [score]/100 ([rating])
- **Veto Status**: ✅ No triggers / ⚠️ [item] triggered — Score capped at 39

### Dimension Scores

| Dimension | Score | Rating | Weight | Weighted |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------|----------|
| C — Citation | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| I — Identity | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| T — Trust | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| E — Eminence | [X]/100 | [rating] | [X]% | [X] |
| **CITE Score** | | | | **[X]/100** |

**Score Calculation**: CITE Score = C × [w_C] + I × [w_I] + T × [w_T] + E × [w_E]

**Rating Scale**: 90-100 Excellent | 75-89 Good | 60-74 Medium | 40-59 Low | 0-39 Poor

### Per-Item Scores

| ID | Check Item | Score | Notes |
|----|-----------|-------|-------|
| C01 | Referring Domains Volume | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| C02 | Referring Domains Quality | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
| E10 | Industry Share of Voice | [Pass/Partial/Fail] | [observation] |

### Top 5 Priority Improvements

Sorted by: weight × points lost (highest impact first)

1. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]
2. **[ID] [Name]** — [specific modification suggestion]
   - Current: [Fail/Partial] | Potential gain: [X] weighted points
   - Action: [concrete step]
3–5. [Same format]

### Action Plan

#### Quick Wins (< 1 week)
- [ ] [Action 1]
- [ ] [Action 2]
#### Medium Effort (1-4 weeks)
- [ ] [Action 3]
- [ ] [Action 4]
#### Strategic (1-3 months)
- [ ] [Action 5]
- [ ] [Action 6]

### Cross-Reference with CORE-EEAT

For a complete assessment, pair this CITE audit with a CORE-EEAT content audit:

| Assessment | Score | Rating |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| CITE (Domain) | [X]/100 | [rating] |
| CORE-EEAT (Content) | [Run content-quality-auditor on sample pages] | — |

**Diagnosis Matrix**:
- High CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Maintain and expand
- High CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Prioritize content quality
- Low CITE + High CORE-EEAT → Build domain authority
- Low CITE + Low CORE-EEAT → Start with content, then domain

### Recommended Next Steps

- For domain authority building: focus on top 5 priorities above
- For content improvement: use [content-quality-auditor](../content-quality-auditor/) on key pages
- For backlink strategy: use [backlink-analyzer](../../monitor/backlink-analyzer/) for detailed link analysis
- For competitor benchmarking: use [competitor-analysis](../../research/competitor-analysis/) with CITE scores
- For tracking progress: run `/seo:report` with CITE score trends