Content Quality Scoring Rubric
Score and grade every piece of content before publishing. This rubric covers readability, SEO optimization, brand voice alignment, originality, and conversion potential.
Content Quality Scoring Rubric
"Is this good?" is the wrong question to ask before publishing a piece of content. It's subjective, it's inconsistent, and it leads to different answers depending on who's reviewing and what mood they're in.
"Does this score above 80 on our quality rubric?" is a better question. It's objective, repeatable, and it gives your writers clear criteria to aim for — not just feedback to accept or reject.
A content quality scoring rubric is the difference between a content program that improves over time and one that stays perpetually inconsistent.
Why Content Teams Need a Scoring Rubric
Without a rubric:
- Editorial feedback is personal ("I don't like this section") not strategic ("this doesn't match search intent")
- Writers don't know what "good" looks like at your company
- Quality is high for some team members, low for others
- You can't benchmark improvement over time
With a rubric:
- Clear expectations before the draft is written
- Consistent editorial feedback
- Objective go/no-go decisions at review
- Measurable quality improvement over time
Your rubric should be simple enough to use in under 10 minutes but rigorous enough to actually differentiate high-quality from mediocre content.
The Two-Layer Rubric Approach
The best content rubrics have two layers:
Layer 1: Pass/Fail Criteria Non-negotiable requirements. If any of these fail, the piece doesn't publish.
Layer 2: Quality Scoring Dimensions where quality exists on a spectrum. Score each 1-5 and set a minimum threshold (e.g., 75/100).
Averi automates this entire workflow
From strategy to drafting to publishing — stop doing it manually.
Layer 1: Pass/Fail Criteria (Must Haves)
Before scoring a piece, confirm all of these are true. If any answer is No, return the piece for revision.
| Criteria | Pass / Fail |
|---|---|
| The piece accurately addresses the intended search query or topic | |
| All factual claims are accurate and sourced | |
| The piece is original — not copied or paraphrased from other sources | |
| The CTA is present and aligned with the piece's funnel stage | |
| The title tag and meta description are written | |
| The piece is free of grammatical errors and typos | |
| The piece does not include any legally or ethically problematic claims |
If all 7 pass, proceed to the quality scoring rubric.
Layer 2: Quality Scoring Rubric
Score each dimension 1-5 using the criteria below. Maximum score: 100.
Dimension 1: Strategic Alignment (Weight: 15 points)
Does this piece serve the strategic goals it was assigned?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (15 pts) | Directly supports the stated content pillar, funnel stage, and target ICP. Keyword is well-chosen and the piece is clearly the right vehicle for the business goal. |
| 4 (12 pts) | Good strategic alignment with minor gaps. Serves the right audience but could be more specifically targeted. |
| 3 (9 pts) | Reasonable alignment but some aspects feel off-target. Audience fit is fuzzy or keyword choice is questionable. |
| 2 (6 pts) | Weak strategic alignment. Doesn't clearly serve a defined pillar or ICP. |
| 1 (3 pts) | No clear strategic purpose. Could have been written for any company. |
Score: ___ / 15
Notes:
Dimension 2: Search Intent Match (Weight: 15 points)
Does the piece deliver what someone searching the target keyword actually wants?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (15 pts) | Format, depth, and content are a perfect match for search intent. The piece would satisfy a searcher's need completely. |
| 4 (12 pts) | Good intent match with minor gaps. Most searchers would find what they need. |
| 3 (9 pts) | Partial intent match. Addresses the topic but misses some of what searchers expect. |
| 2 (6 pts) | Weak intent match. The piece is about the topic but not in the format or depth the searcher needs. |
| 1 (3 pts) | Poor intent match. This content doesn't serve the likely searcher's goal. |
Score: ___ / 15
Notes:
Dimension 3: Depth and Completeness (Weight: 20 points)
Does the piece fully cover the topic for the target reader?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (20 pts) | Comprehensive coverage. All key questions answered, important nuances addressed, real examples included. Reader doesn't need to go anywhere else. |
| 4 (16 pts) | Strong coverage with a few gaps. Covers the essential points with some depth. Most readers will get significant value. |
| 3 (12 pts) | Adequate coverage. Hits the main points but is thin in places. Reader may need to search elsewhere for full answers. |
| 2 (8 pts) | Surface-level coverage. Identifies the topic areas but doesn't go deep enough to be genuinely useful. |
| 1 (4 pts) | Thin content. Could have been written without any real expertise or research. |
Score: ___ / 20
Notes:
Dimension 4: Unique Value and Originality (Weight: 15 points)
Does this piece say something the reader can't find in the top 3 search results?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (15 pts) | Distinctly differentiated. Original research, proprietary framework, unique perspective, or specific examples not available elsewhere. |
| 4 (12 pts) | Clear point of differentiation. Adds something meaningful beyond what's already ranking — specific examples, fresh angle, better structure. |
| 3 (9 pts) | Some unique elements but largely covers the same ground as top competitors with similar treatment. |
| 2 (6 pts) | Mostly repackages what's already out there. No compelling reason to read this over existing resources. |
| 1 (3 pts) | Generic. The content is interchangeable with what's already ranking — or worse. |
Score: ___ / 15
Notes:
Dimension 5: Voice and Readability (Weight: 10 points)
Is the piece written in a way that's engaging and consistent with the brand voice?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (10 pts) | Strong, distinctive voice. Reads like a knowledgeable human, not a textbook or a bot. Engaging, direct, and consistent with brand tone. |
| 4 (8 pts) | Good voice with occasional lapses. Mostly engaging and on-brand. |
| 3 (6 pts) | Adequate writing but generic. Voice is neutral rather than distinctive. Occasional passive voice or filler. |
| 2 (4 pts) | Flat or inconsistent voice. Parts feel robotic, overly formal, or off-brand. |
| 1 (2 pts) | Poor writing quality. Difficult to read, inconsistent, or clearly AI-generated without editing. |
Score: ___ / 10
Notes:
Dimension 6: Structure and UX (Weight: 10 points)
Is the piece organized for easy reading and scanning?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (10 pts) | Excellent structure. Logical flow, clear headings, appropriate use of bullets and tables, mobile-readable, easy to scan for key points. |
| 4 (8 pts) | Good structure with minor issues. Mostly well-organized and scannable. |
| 3 (6 pts) | Adequate structure. Headings present but could be better organized. Some sections are wall-of-text. |
| 2 (4 pts) | Poor structure. Hard to navigate. Walls of text, unclear section breaks, or confusing organization. |
| 1 (2 pts) | No meaningful structure. Reader has to work too hard to extract value. |
Score: ___ / 10
Notes:
Dimension 7: SEO Execution (Weight: 10 points)
Are the SEO fundamentals correctly implemented?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (10 pts) | Title includes keyword and is compelling. Meta description written and includes keyword. H1 set. Keyword in first 100 words. Secondary keywords used naturally. Internal links included. Image alt text written. |
| 4 (8 pts) | Most SEO basics covered. 1-2 minor gaps (e.g., meta description could be stronger or one image lacks alt text). |
| 3 (6 pts) | Core SEO elements present but not optimized. Title includes keyword but isn't compelling. Meta description is placeholder. |
| 2 (4 pts) | Minimal SEO implementation. Title set but not optimized. Meta description missing. Few keyword signals. |
| 1 (2 pts) | No meaningful SEO implementation. |
Score: ___ / 10
Notes:
Dimension 8: Conversion Optimization (Weight: 5 points)
Does the piece convert readers effectively?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 (5 pts) | Clear, relevant CTA that matches the piece's intent and the reader's stage. CTA is placed at the right moments. Conversion path is frictionless. |
| 4 (4 pts) | Good CTA placement and relevance with minor improvements possible. |
| 3 (3 pts) | CTA is present but generic or in only one location. Relevant but not optimized. |
| 2 (2 pts) | CTA is weak, off-topic, or likely to feel jarring given the piece's content. |
| 1 (1 pt) | No meaningful CTA. Reader has no clear next step. |
Score: ___ / 5
Notes:
Total Score and Decision Matrix
| Total Score | Decision |
|---|---|
| 90-100 | Publish as-is. Exceptional content. |
| 80-89 | Publish with minor edits. Note specific improvements. |
| 70-79 | Revise before publishing. Identify 2-3 specific improvements required. |
| 60-69 | Major revision required. Do not publish until score improves above 70. |
| Below 60 | Return to brief. Fundamental issues need to be addressed. |
Final Score: ___ / 100
Decision: Publish / Minor Edits / Revise / Major Revision / Return to Brief
Required Changes Before Publishing:
Build your content engine with Averi
AI-powered strategy, drafting, and publishing in one workflow.
Using the Rubric Effectively
Score during editorial review, not after publishing. The rubric is a gate, not a retrospective.
Score new hires' first 5 pieces. This is how you calibrate expectations without 10 rounds of vague feedback.
Use scores to track quality trends. If average scores are dropping, something's wrong with your briefs, your writers, or your review process.
Don't use rubric scores to micromanage. A 82/100 that drives 500 leads is more valuable than a 97/100 that no one reads. The rubric is a quality floor, not a perfection target.
Calibrate quarterly. Do a rubric calibration session where your editorial team scores the same piece independently, then compares. If scores diverge significantly, you need to clarify criteria.
How Averi Maintains Content Quality
When you create content in Averi, the brief already encodes your quality expectations: target keyword, intended depth, audience, tone, and CTA. The output is evaluated against your brand standards before it reaches your review queue — so you spend editorial time on high-level quality decisions, not fixing basics.
Further Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
Should I use this rubric for every piece, or just new writers?
Use it for every piece, especially early in building your content program. Once your editorial team has internalized the standards and your writers consistently score above 80, you can move to spot-checking rather than scoring every piece.
What if my writers push back on the rubric?
This is a healthy sign. Review the criteria together with your writers. If they disagree with how a dimension is defined, update it. The rubric should be a collaborative standard, not an arbitrary judgment. The goal is a shared definition of quality, not a management tool.
How do I adapt this rubric for different content types?
The dimensions above work for most long-form written content. For video scripts, podcast content, or short-form social posts, adjust the weights: SEO execution is less important for social posts; voice and structure matter more for video scripts. Create a lightweight version of the rubric for each format type.
Can AI content score the same as human-written content?
It can if it's well-edited. The rubric doesn't care who wrote the first draft — it evaluates the final piece. An AI draft that's been thoroughly edited, fact-checked, and injected with original examples can score as well as human-written content. Unedited AI output will typically score low on voice, originality, and depth.
What's the minimum score threshold for publishing?
We recommend 75 as a minimum. Content scoring 75-79 can publish with light edits. Content below 75 should go back for revision. Setting too high a bar (90+) will create bottlenecks; setting too low (60+) will flood your site with mediocre content that hurts your brand authority and SEO over time.
Start Your AI Content Engine
Ready to put this into practice? Averi automates the hard parts of content marketing — so you can focus on strategy.
Related Resources
Content Brief Template for Writers
Give your writers everything they need in one brief. Includes target keyword, search intent, outline, competitor analysis, and brand voice guidelines.
Content Audit Template & Checklist
Audit your existing content with our comprehensive template. Score pages by traffic, engagement, SEO health, and conversion. Includes prioritization framework.
Blog Post Template for B2B SaaS
Write better blog posts faster with these 5 proven templates. Includes how-to guides, listicles, comparison posts, thought leadership, and case studies.