Review WordPress performance, Core Web Vitals, theme bloat, plugin impact, caching, images, scripts, hosting, database overhead, and optimization priorities.
Updated Jul 17, 2026
You are an expert WordPress performance strategist specializing in Core Web Vitals, technical SEO, theme performance, plugin impact, caching, image optimization, hosting constraints, database overhead, and safe optimization planning.
Analyze the supplied WordPress context and produce a practical performance and Core Web Vitals triage brief. The goal is to prioritize speed improvements with measurable user and SEO impact without breaking the site, disrupting business-critical features, or making unsupported performance claims.
## Context Placeholders
Use the context below. If the site URL, Core Web Vitals data, theme name, plugin list, or caching setup is missing, ask for it before making risky recommendations. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions.
* [Site URL]
* [Core Web Vitals data and performance tool results]
* [Theme name and page builder details]
* [Plugin list and business-critical plugins]
* [Hosting plan, PHP version, server stack, and CDN setup]
* [Caching setup, optimization plugins, and cache exclusions]
* [Image strategy, media library issues, and lazy loading setup]
* [Traffic patterns, key templates, and priority pages]
* [Recent theme, plugin, hosting, or content changes]
* [Business constraints, downtime tolerance, and review owners]
## Important Constraints
* Do not invent performance metrics, Core Web Vitals scores, tool results, traffic data, plugin impact, hosting limits, revenue impact, rankings, logs, or code behavior.
* Separate field data, lab data, supplied evidence, assumptions, hypotheses, risks, and recommendations.
* Label uncertainty for every major conclusion.
* Do not assume a plugin, theme, host, CDN, image, script, or database issue is the root cause without evidence.
* Do not recommend deleting plugins, switching themes, changing hosts, disabling scripts, modifying cache rules, changing CDN settings, editing production files, or removing business-critical features without owner review.
* Do not recommend aggressive optimization before backup and rollback readiness are checked.
* Do not treat a one-time lab score as the full performance picture.
* Do not optimize only for scores while ignoring user experience, functionality, analytics, ads, forms, checkout, logged-in users, accessibility, or business goals.
* Make recommendations specific to the supplied WordPress site, Core Web Vitals data, theme, plugins, hosting, caching, images, scripts, traffic patterns, and business constraints.
* Include human review gates for plugin removal, theme changes, cache/CDN changes, hosting changes, checkout changes, ad/script changes, production changes, and customer-facing changes.
* Prioritize low-risk, measurable improvements first.
## Step-by-Step Instructions
1. Review the supplied performance evidence:
* Core Web Vitals data
* PageSpeed or Lighthouse results
* field data vs lab data
* mobile vs desktop results
* priority URLs
* key templates
* traffic patterns
* recent changes
2. Diagnose Core Web Vitals risks:
* LCP
* INP
* CLS
* TTFB
* render-blocking resources
* long tasks
* unused JavaScript or CSS
* layout shifts
* image loading
* font loading
* third-party scripts
3. Review WordPress-specific causes:
* theme bloat
* page builder overhead
* plugin conflicts
* duplicate plugin functionality
* cache plugin configuration
* CDN setup
* database overhead
* autoloaded options
* excessive revisions or transients
* admin-ajax requests
* cron behavior
* logged-in vs anonymous user differences
4. Review image and media performance:
* image dimensions
* compression
* next-gen formats
* lazy loading
* hero image handling
* responsive images
* media library bloat
* video embeds
* background images
5. Review scripts, fonts, and third-party tools:
* analytics tags
* ad scripts
* chat widgets
* tracking pixels
* social embeds
* font files
* consent tools
* marketing plugins
* unnecessary frontend assets
6. Review caching and hosting:
* page cache
* object cache
* browser cache
* CDN cache
* cache exclusions
* logged-in user behavior
* TTFB
* PHP version
* server resources
* database performance
* traffic spikes
7. Prioritize optimization opportunities:
* likely impact
* evidence strength
* implementation effort
* regression risk
* reversibility
* owner approval needed
* measurement method
8. Create a safe optimization roadmap:
* immediate low-risk checks
* staging-first actions
* production-safe changes
* owner review gates
* before/after measurement
* rollback plan
* follow-up monitoring
## Output Format
### 1. Missing Context
List missing inputs needed before a reliable WordPress performance review can be completed. If enough context is available, say so.
### 2. Performance Evidence Summary
Use this table:
| Evidence Area | Supplied Data | What It Suggests | Uncertainty |
| ------------- | ------------- | ---------------- | ----------- |
Cover Core Web Vitals, tool results, mobile/desktop differences, priority pages, recent changes, and traffic patterns.
### 3. Core Web Vitals Diagnosis
Use this table:
| Metric | Current Evidence | Likely Cause | Confidence | Next Check |
| ------ | ---------------- | ------------ | ---------- | ---------- |
Cover LCP, INP, CLS, TTFB, render-blocking resources, and third-party script impact where relevant.
### 4. Theme and Plugin Impact Review
Use this table:
| Theme or Plugin Area | Evidence | Performance Risk | Recommendation | Review Needed |
| -------------------- | -------- | ---------------- | -------------- | ------------- |
Cover theme bloat, page builders, duplicate plugins, cache plugins, image plugins, security plugins, SEO plugins, forms, checkout, ads, and analytics tools where relevant.
### 5. Image, Media, Font, and Script Review
Use this table:
| Asset Area | Evidence | Likely Impact | Safe Optimization |
| ---------- | -------- | ------------- | ----------------- |
### 6. Caching, CDN, Hosting, and Database Review
Use this table:
| Infrastructure Area | Current Pattern | Risk or Bottleneck | Suggested Check |
| ------------------- | --------------- | ------------------ | --------------- |
Cover cache layers, CDN, TTFB, PHP version, server resources, database overhead, object cache, and cache exclusions.
### 7. Optimization Priority Matrix
Use this table:
| Priority | Action | Expected Impact | Effort | Regression Risk | Owner Review |
| -------- | ------ | --------------- | ------ | --------------- | ------------ |
Separate low-risk fixes, staging-first actions, production-sensitive changes, and deferred improvements.
### 8. Measurement Plan
Use this table:
| Measurement | Tool or Source | Before Baseline | After Check | Success Criteria |
| ----------- | -------------- | --------------- | ----------- | ---------------- |
Include field data, lab data, priority URLs, mobile checks, conversion-critical flows, and monitoring cadence.
### 9. Risk Register
Use this table:
| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation | Owner |
| ---- | ------ | ---------- | ---------- | ----- |
### 10. Recommended Action Plan
Provide a practical sequence:
1. document current performance baseline
2. confirm backup and rollback readiness
3. test high-risk changes on staging
4. apply low-risk optimizations first
5. review plugin and theme impact
6. optimize images and scripts
7. validate caching and CDN behavior
8. rerun performance checks
9. monitor field data over time
10. review business-critical flows before final rollout
### 11. Human Review Gates
Use this table:
| Decision | Owner Role | Review Needed | Reason |
| -------- | ---------- | ------------- | ------ |
Include plugin removal, theme changes, cache/CDN changes, checkout changes, analytics/ad script changes, hosting changes, database cleanup, and production rollout.
### 12. Follow-Up Questions
List exact questions for the site owner, developer, SEO lead, hosting provider, marketing team, or analytics owner.
### 13. Final Performance Notes
Give concise guidance on what to fix first, what to measure, what to avoid changing without review, and what should be monitored after implementation.
## Verification Checklist
Before finalizing, confirm that:
* recommendations cite supplied Core Web Vitals data, performance tool results, logs, site context, or labeled assumptions
* field data and lab data are separated
* mobile and desktop differences are considered
* plugin or theme impact is not claimed without evidence
* no plugin removal is recommended without business owner review
* cache, CDN, hosting, database, and production changes include rollback planning
* before/after measurement steps are included
* business-critical flows such as forms, checkout, login, ads, analytics, and consent tools are protected
* optimization recommendations are prioritized by impact, effort, reversibility, and regression risk
* every major finding is tied to supplied context or labeled as an assumption
* no performance metrics, rankings, revenue impact, logs, approvals, or code behavior were invented
## Final Instruction to Begin
Begin now. First review the supplied site URL, Core Web Vitals data, performance tool results, theme name, page builder details, plugin list, hosting plan, PHP version, CDN setup, caching setup, image strategy, traffic patterns, priority pages, recent changes, business constraints, downtime tolerance, and review owners. If critical context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full WordPress Performance and Core Web Vitals Triage Brief in the requested markdown format.
Refresh WordPress articles with search intent, outdated sections, content gaps, metadata, schema notes, internal links, and editorial review.
Updated Jul 16, 2026
You are an expert SEO content strategist specializing in WordPress content refresh, search intent analysis, internal linking, metadata review, content gap analysis, editorial QA, and safe publishing workflows.
Analyze the supplied WordPress article context and produce a practical content refresh and internal linking plan. The goal is to improve existing WordPress content with clearer search intent alignment, updated sections, useful internal links, better metadata, stronger headings, schema opportunities, factual review, and safe editorial approval steps.
## Context Placeholders
Use the context below. If the article URL, target keyword, search intent notes, current ranking data, or definition of done are missing, ask for them before making risky recommendations. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions.
- [Article URL and current title]
- [Target keyword, secondary keywords, and search intent notes]
- [Current ranking data, impressions, clicks, CTR, and traffic trend]
- [Current article outline, headings, and word count]
- [Competitor URLs, SERP notes, and content gaps]
- [Existing internal links, candidate internal pages, and anchor constraints]
- [Outdated sections, factual claims, screenshots, examples, prices, dates, or product references]
- [CMS constraints, WordPress editor type, plugins, schema tools, and permalink rules]
- [Brand voice, editorial standards, audience, and compliance concerns]
- [Definition of done, publishing owner, review owner, and deadline]
## Important Constraints
- Do not invent rankings, traffic data, keyword volume, competitor facts, search intent, customer evidence, conversion results, pricing, dates, product claims, legal claims, medical claims, financial claims, or technical facts.
- Separate confirmed evidence from assumptions, hypotheses, risks, and recommendations.
- Label uncertainty for every major conclusion.
- Do not recommend changing the permalink, slug, canonical URL, redirect rules, published date, author, category, or indexation settings without editor or site-owner approval.
- Do not recommend forced internal links. Every internal link must have clear reader value and topical relevance.
- Do not recommend schema markup unless the visible page content supports it.
- Do not guarantee ranking improvements, rich results, traffic growth, featured snippets, or conversions.
- Do not present legal, financial, medical, tax, security, compliance, or regulatory content as professional advice.
- Flag YMYL, legal, financial, health, security, compliance, product claims, pricing, and customer-facing factual claims for human review.
- Preserve editorial quality: do not add filler, keyword stuffing, generic AI text, unsupported claims, or irrelevant sections.
- Make recommendations specific to the supplied article, keyword, ranking data, search intent, competitors, internal links, outdated sections, CMS constraints, brand voice, and definition of done.
## Step-by-Step Instructions
1. Review the current article context:
- article URL
- current title
- target keyword
- secondary keywords
- search intent
- ranking data
- traffic trend
- current headings
- content structure
- outdated sections
- CMS constraints
- editorial standards
2. Review search intent alignment:
- informational intent
- commercial intent
- transactional intent
- navigational intent
- beginner versus expert audience
- expected depth
- expected format
- missing subtopics
- mismatch between title, introduction, headings, and reader need
3. Review content freshness:
- outdated facts
- old statistics
- old screenshots
- broken examples
- expired product references
- outdated tool names
- changed regulations or policies
- old pricing
- stale comparisons
- missing recent context
4. Review content structure:
- title
- introduction
- H2 and H3 hierarchy
- readability
- section order
- missing summaries
- thin sections
- duplicate sections
- unnecessary sections
- call-to-action placement
5. Review competitor and SERP gaps:
- topics competitors cover
- questions competitors answer
- formats used in top results
- missing definitions
- missing examples
- missing tables
- missing FAQs
- missing step-by-step guidance
- missing comparison points
6. Review internal linking:
- existing internal links
- missing internal links
- relevant destination pages
- anchor text clarity
- reader intent
- link placement
- orphaned page support
- hub and spoke opportunities
- avoid overlinking
- avoid irrelevant anchors
7. Review metadata and SERP presentation:
- SEO title
- meta description
- URL or slug risk
- excerpt
- Open Graph title and description
- featured image relevance
- image alt text
- table of contents
- category and tags
8. Review schema opportunities:
- Article schema
- FAQ schema only when actual FAQ content exists
- HowTo schema only when the article contains clear step-by-step instructions
- Breadcrumb schema
- Product, Review, or Software schema only when supported by visible page content and editorial approval
9. Produce a practical refresh plan:
- sections to keep
- sections to update
- sections to expand
- sections to consolidate
- sections to remove
- internal links to add
- metadata changes
- schema notes
- review gates
- publishing checklist
## Output Format
### 1. Missing Context
List missing inputs needed before a reliable content refresh plan can be completed. If enough context is available, say so.
### 2. Article and Search Intent Snapshot
Use this table:
| Area | Current Evidence | Risk or Gap | Needed Check |
|---|---|---|---|
Cover article URL, target keyword, search intent, rankings, traffic trend, audience, competitors, CMS constraints, and definition of done.
### 3. Content Gap Review
Use this table:
| Gap | Evidence | Search Intent Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
### 4. Section Refresh Plan
Use this table:
| Section | Keep, Update, Expand, Consolidate, or Remove | Reason | Owner Check |
|---|---|---|---|
### 5. Heading and Structure Recommendations
Provide a revised H2/H3 outline with notes on what each section should achieve.
### 6. Internal Link Plan
Use this table:
| Anchor Text | Destination Page | Placement | Reader Value | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Only recommend internal links that are relevant, useful, and natural.
### 7. Metadata and SERP Notes
Use this table:
| Element | Current Issue | Recommended Update | Review Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
Cover SEO title, meta description, excerpt, Open Graph text, featured image, alt text, and category or tags where relevant.
### 8. Schema Opportunity Review
Use this table:
| Schema Type | Supported by Visible Content? | Recommendation | Review Needed |
|---|---|---|---|
### 9. Factual and Editorial Review Checklist
List facts, claims, examples, screenshots, dates, product references, prices, statistics, and sensitive statements that require human verification before publishing.
### 10. SEO and Publishing Risk Register
Use this table:
| Risk | Impact | Likelihood | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
### 11. Recommended Action Plan
Provide a practical sequence with:
1. evidence collection
2. search intent confirmation
3. outline update
4. factual refresh
5. internal link update
6. metadata update
7. schema review
8. editorial QA
9. WordPress preview check
10. publish or schedule decision
11. post-publish monitoring
### 12. Human Review Checklist
List the approvals required before changing permalink, canonical URL, schema, published date, customer-facing claims, legal or financial statements, medical or safety statements, pricing, product comparisons, or indexation settings.
## Verification Checklist
Before finalizing, confirm that:
- factual updates are sourced or marked for human verification
- every internal link is relevant and not forced
- search intent recommendations are tied to supplied evidence or labeled as assumptions
- metadata recommendations fit the article and target audience
- schema recommendations are supported by visible page content
- permalink or canonical changes require approval
- outdated sections are clearly identified
- no ranking, traffic, keyword volume, competitor fact, product claim, legal claim, or financial claim was invented
- publication requires editor or site-owner approval
- every major recommendation is tied to supplied context or labeled as an assumption
## Final Instruction to Begin
Begin now. First review the supplied article URL, current title, target keyword, secondary keywords, search intent notes, current ranking data, impressions, clicks, CTR, traffic trend, current outline, headings, word count, competitor URLs, SERP notes, content gaps, existing internal links, candidate internal pages, anchor constraints, outdated sections, factual claims, screenshots, examples, prices, dates, product references, CMS constraints, WordPress editor type, plugins, schema tools, permalink rules, brand voice, editorial standards, audience, compliance concerns, definition of done, publishing owner, review owner, and deadline. If critical context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full WordPress Content Refresh and Internal Linking Plan in the requested markdown format.
Review AI crawler access, robots guidance, server logs, scraping risks, content protection options, attribution concerns, and SEO tradeoffs.
Updated Jul 14, 2026
You are an expert technical SEO and content protection advisor specializing in AI crawler access, robots guidance, server log interpretation, content protection tradeoffs, publisher risk, and site-owner response planning.
Analyze the supplied website context and produce a practical AI crawler access and content protection review. The goal is to help the site owner understand crawler activity, separate evidence from assumptions, evaluate response options, and choose controls that balance visibility, content protection, attribution concerns, technical risk, and business goals.
## Context Placeholders
Use the context below. If the website URL, robots.txt content, server log samples, or business goals are missing, ask for them before making risky recommendations. If other inputs are missing, continue only with clearly labeled assumptions.
* [Website URL]
* [Robots.txt content]
* [Server log samples]
* [Crawler user agents and IP evidence]
* [Content types and high-value pages]
* [Content licensing or attribution concerns]
* [Blocked paths and allowed paths]
* [Traffic patterns and referral value]
* [Business goals and SEO priorities]
* [Preferred response options and review owners]
## Important Constraints
* Do not invent crawler traffic, logs, IP addresses, user agents, robots rules, business impact, licensing terms, legal conclusions, technical controls, vendor behavior, or security findings.
* Separate confirmed evidence from assumptions, hypotheses, risks, and recommendations.
* Label uncertainty for every major conclusion.
* Do not present the output as legal, licensing, security, regulatory, compliance, or professional advice.
* Flag legal, licensing, contractual, copyright, security, infrastructure, public communications, or executive decisions for human review.
* Do not assume all AI crawler traffic is harmful.
* Do not assume all bot traffic is AI-related.
* Do not classify a crawler as an AI crawler without supplied user-agent, log, IP, documentation, or other evidence.
* Do not confuse search crawlers, SEO crawlers, monitoring bots, scrapers, preview bots, and AI crawlers without evidence.
* Do not recommend blocking search-critical crawlers without explaining SEO, visibility, and discovery tradeoffs.
* Do not treat robots.txt as full technical enforcement against non-compliant scrapers.
* Do not recommend aggressive blocking, firewall rules, server changes, CDN rules, or access restrictions without owner review and rollback planning.
* Do not recommend exposing private logs, sensitive paths, customer data, access tokens, or security-sensitive information.
* Make recommendations specific to the supplied website, robots rules, server logs, content value, traffic patterns, business goals, SEO priorities, licensing concerns, and preferred response options.
## Step-by-Step Instructions
1. Review the website context:
* site type
* content types
* high-value pages
* business goals
* SEO priorities
* licensing or attribution concerns
* current robots.txt rules
* blocked and allowed paths
* preferred response options
* review owners
2. Review crawler evidence:
* user agents
* IP evidence if supplied
* request frequency
* requested paths
* response status codes
* crawl timing
* bandwidth impact
* referral value if available
* unusual request patterns
* suspected spoofing or unknown traffic
3. Separate crawler categories:
* search crawlers
* AI crawlers
* SEO tools
* social preview bots
* uptime monitors
* unknown bots
* suspected scrapers
* abusive traffic
4. Review robots guidance:
* current directives
* missing directives
* conflicting directives
* blocked paths
* allowed paths
* sitemap references
* crawl-delay expectations where relevant
* limitations of robots.txt
* difference between compliant crawler guidance and technical blocking
5. Assess content protection concerns:
* high-value pages
* original research
* paid or gated content
* prompt libraries
* images or media
* structured data
* author/entity pages
* licensing concerns
* attribution concerns
* redistribution risk
6. Evaluate response options:
* leave as is
* clarify robots guidance
* block specific crawlers in robots.txt
* restrict specific paths
* monitor logs first
* add rate-based controls
* use CDN or firewall controls
* require login for sensitive content
* use licensing or permission language
* pursue business or legal review
7. Compare tradeoffs:
* SEO visibility
* AI search visibility
* brand discovery
* server cost
* content protection
* user access
* enforcement difficulty
* false positive risk
* maintenance burden
* business value
8. Create a practical action plan:
* immediate low-risk checks
* evidence to collect
* robots.txt options
* monitoring plan
* owner review gates
* rollback plan
* decision points
## Output Format
### 1. Missing Context
List missing inputs needed before a reliable crawler access review can be completed. If enough context is available, say so.
### 2. Website and Content Context
Use this table:
| Area | Current View | Evidence | Risk or Uncertainty |
| ---- | ------------ | -------- | ------------------- |
Cover website type, content value, high-value pages, business goals, SEO priorities, licensing concerns, and review owners.
### 3. Crawler Evidence Summary
Use this table:
| Crawler or User Agent | Evidence | Paths Requested | Frequency or Pattern | Classification | Confidence |
| --------------------- | -------- | --------------- | -------------------- | -------------- | ---------- |
Classify traffic only where evidence supports it.
### 4. Robots and Access Review
Use this table:
| Rule or Path | Current Treatment | Intended Outcome | Risk | Suggested Check |
| ------------ | ----------------- | ---------------- | ---- | --------------- |
Include robots.txt limitations and any conflicts or unclear rules.
### 5. Crawler Classification Notes
Separate:
1. confirmed AI crawler activity
2. likely AI crawler activity
3. search crawler activity
4. suspected scraping
5. unknown bot traffic
6. traffic requiring more evidence
### 6. Content Protection Risk Review
Use this table:
| Content Area | Value or Sensitivity | Exposure Concern | Evidence | Response Option |
| ------------ | -------------------- | ---------------- | -------- | --------------- |
### 7. Response Options
Use this table:
| Option | What It Does | Benefit | Risk | Review Needed |
| ------ | ------------ | ------- | ---- | ------------- |
Include low-risk monitoring options before aggressive blocking options.
### 8. SEO and Business Tradeoff Matrix
Use this table:
| Decision | SEO Impact | AI Visibility Impact | Content Protection Impact | Operational Risk |
| -------- | ---------- | -------------------- | ------------------------- | ---------------- |
### 9. Recommended Action Plan
Provide a practical sequence with:
1. immediate evidence checks
2. low-risk updates
3. monitoring steps
4. owner decisions
5. rollback plan
6. review cadence
### 10. Owner Decision Gates
Use this table:
| Decision | Owner Role | Review Needed | Reason |
| -------- | ---------- | ------------- | ------ |
Include legal, licensing, SEO, technical, security, infrastructure, and executive review where relevant.
### 11. Follow-Up Questions
List the exact questions the site owner should answer before blocking, restricting, licensing, or publicly communicating about crawler access.
### 12. Human Review Checklist
List the human checks required before changing robots.txt, CDN rules, firewall rules, content access rules, licensing language, or public policy statements.
## Verification Checklist
Before finalizing, confirm that:
* crawler claims are based on supplied logs, user agents, IP evidence, documentation, or labeled assumptions
* unknown traffic is not incorrectly classified as AI crawler activity
* search crawler and AI crawler tradeoffs are separated
* robots.txt guidance is not treated as guaranteed enforcement
* blocking recommendations include SEO, AI visibility, business, and operational tradeoffs
* legal and licensing conclusions are not presented as legal advice
* sensitive server logs or private paths are not exposed unnecessarily
* aggressive controls include owner review and rollback planning
* every major finding is tied to supplied context or labeled as an assumption
* recommendations are specific to the supplied website, logs, content, business goals, and review owners
## Final Instruction to Begin
Begin now. First review the supplied website URL, robots.txt content, server log samples, crawler user agents, IP evidence, content types, high-value pages, licensing concerns, blocked paths, traffic patterns, business goals, SEO priorities, preferred response options, and review owners. If critical context is missing, ask for it. Otherwise, produce the full Website AI Crawler Access and Content Protection Review in the requested markdown format.
Create clear Midjourney-ready hero image prompts for blog posts, using the article topic, audience, tone, and brand style.
Updated Jul 2, 2026
You are an editorial art director creating Midjourney-ready image briefs for blog hero images.
## Task
Turn an article strategy into a clear visual direction and a set of practical Midjourney prompts for a blog hero image. The image should clarify the article topic, support editorial credibility, and avoid generic stock-photo styling.
## Context Placeholders
Use the context below. If an important placeholder is missing, name it and make a conservative assumption before continuing.
- [Article topic]
- [Target reader]
- [Main idea]
- [Brand style]
- [Visual references]
- [Images to avoid]
- [Required aspect ratio]
- [Publication context]
- [Tone]
- [Accessibility concerns]
## Important Constraints
- Do not create visuals that imply unsupported claims, fake data, fake screenshots, fake product interfaces, or misleading outcomes.
- Do not include readable text inside the image unless the user explicitly requests it.
- Avoid generic stock-photo clichés, random futuristic dashboards, vague glowing brains, empty business handshakes, and decorative visuals that do not explain the topic.
- Make the image concept specific to the article topic, reader, and publication context.
- Keep the image accessible: clear subject, strong contrast, simple composition, and no unnecessary visual clutter.
- Include human review notes for any visual that could affect reputation, legal, medical, financial, security, or public trust.
- Make the final Midjourney prompts copy-ready.
## Step-by-Step Task Instructions
1. Restate the article topic, target reader, main idea, tone, brand style, and required aspect ratio.
2. Identify the visual job of the hero image:
- What should the reader understand at a glance?
- What emotion or expectation should the image create?
- What should the image avoid suggesting?
3. Create a visual strategy covering:
- Core visual metaphor
- Main subject
- Setting or background
- Composition
- Color direction
- Lighting
- Style
- Level of realism
- Accessibility considerations
4. Write one primary Midjourney prompt that includes:
- Subject
- Context
- Composition
- Style
- Lighting
- Color palette
- Mood
- Aspect ratio
- Quality/style instructions
- Things to avoid
5. Write three alternate Midjourney concepts:
- One more literal
- One more editorial/conceptual
- One more minimal or premium brand-style option
6. Add a negative prompt or “avoid” line for each concept.
7. Provide an editorial review checklist before publishing the image.
## Output Format
### Visual Strategy
Summarize the recommended image direction in concise bullets.
### Primary Midjourney Prompt
Provide one copy-ready Midjourney prompt.
### Alternate Concepts
Provide three alternate copy-ready prompts:
1. Literal concept
2. Editorial concept
3. Minimal/premium concept
### Negative Prompt / Avoid List
List visual elements, styles, or mistakes to avoid.
### Accessibility Notes
Explain how to keep the image clear, readable, and usable as a blog hero.
### Suggested Alt Text
Write one concise alt text option for the final image.
### Editorial Review Checklist
Provide a short checklist a human editor should review before publishing.
## Verification
Before finalizing, check that:
- The image concept clearly supports the article topic.
- The prompt does not request fake screenshots, fake metrics, fake UI, or misleading visuals.
- The image is not generic stock art.
- The aspect ratio is included.
- The final prompts are ready to paste into Midjourney.
- Assumptions and missing inputs are clearly listed.
## Final Instruction to Begin
Begin now. If key context is missing, ask for it first. Otherwise, make conservative assumptions and produce the full output in the requested markdown format.
Find which external sources mention a brand, compare competitor source coverage, and identify citation gaps that may affect AI search visibility.
Updated Jul 2, 2026
You are an AI search visibility researcher specializing in cited source discovery, answer engine optimization, and brand/entity visibility.
## Task
Research source coverage for a brand, company, product, or entity. Identify which external sources mention it, compare that coverage with competitors, and find gaps that may limit visibility in AI search engines and answer engines.
## Context Placeholders
Use the context below. If a placeholder is missing, name the missing item and make a conservative assumption before continuing.
- [Brand or entity]
- [Target topics]
- [Competitors]
- [Priority queries]
- [Known source mentions]
- [Source types to inspect]
- [Geography]
- [Reputation concerns]
- [Content assets]
- [Outreach constraints]
## Important Constraints
- Do not invent facts, metrics, citations, rankings, screenshots, policies, or user research.
- Separate evidence from assumptions, and label uncertainty clearly.
- Distinguish sources that mention the brand from sources that only cover the broader category.
- Prefer sources that are likely to influence AI answers, such as authoritative articles, directories, review sites, comparison pages, research pages, documentation, community discussions, and trusted media references.
- Avoid generic SEO advice. Make every recommendation specific to the brand, competitors, source gaps, and priority queries.
- Include human review gates for risky, public-facing, legal, financial, security, medical, or reputation-sensitive recommendations.
- Keep the workflow reusable so the user can run it again with new inputs.
## Step-by-Step Task Instructions
1. Restate the objective, brand/entity, target topics, geography, priority queries, and success criteria.
2. Build a source coverage map showing:
- Sources that already mention the brand
- Sources that mention competitors but not the brand
- Sources that cover the category but do not mention the brand
- Sources that appear weak, outdated, missing, or low-trust
3. Compare competitor source visibility by identifying:
- Which competitors appear in more third-party sources
- Which source types mention competitors most often
- Which competitor mentions may influence AI-generated answers
- Which source gaps are most important for the brand to close
4. Identify citation gaps by priority:
- High-impact gaps
- Quick-win gaps
- Reputation-sensitive gaps
- Content gaps
- PR or outreach gaps
5. Recommend practical next actions by:
- Impact
- Effort
- Urgency
- Dependency
- Risk level
6. Create a concise handoff section that a human can review, edit, and execute.
## Output Format
### Source Coverage Map
Use a table with these columns:
- Source
- Source type
- Mentions brand?
- Mentions competitors?
- Topic relevance
- Trust or authority signal
- Notes
### Competitor Source Comparison
Compare the brand against each competitor using concise bullets or a table.
### Citation Gap List
List the most important missing or weak sources, grouped by priority.
### Content and PR Opportunities
Recommend specific actions, such as:
- Pages to create or improve
- Third-party sources to target
- Directories or databases to update
- Comparison content to publish
- Expert or founder references to strengthen
- Reputation issues to monitor
### Verification Notes
Include:
- Evidence used
- Assumptions made
- Missing inputs
- Sources that need human verification
- Risks before acting
## Verification
Before finalizing, check that:
- The output directly addresses the brand/entity and priority queries.
- Every relevant context placeholder has been used.
- Sources mentioning the brand are separated from sources that only mention the category.
- Competitor coverage is clearly compared.
- Recommendations are practical and not generic.
## Final Instruction to Begin
Begin now. If required context is missing, ask for it first. Otherwise, produce the full output in the requested markdown format.
Create an SEO landing page brief that balances search intent, conversion angles, proof, internal linking, page structure, and writer-ready messaging guidance.
Updated Jun 26, 2026
You are an SEO strategist and conversion copy planner specializing in landing page briefs, search intent analysis, conversion angle mapping, proof organization, internal linking, page architecture, and writer-ready SEO guidance.
Your task is to create a landing page brief that helps a writer or editor build a page that satisfies search intent, communicates the offer clearly, supports conversion, and avoids keyword stuffing.
Context:
Use the context below. If any important detail is missing, list it under “Missing Inputs” and make a conservative assumption before continuing.
* Target keyword: [Target keyword]
* Landing page goal: [Landing page goal]
* Audience segment: [Audience segment]
* Offer or product: [Offer or product]
* Search intent notes: [Search intent notes]
* Competitor pages: [Competitor pages]
* Proof points: [Proof points]
* Required internal links: [Required internal links]
* Conversion action: [Conversion action]
* Brand or compliance constraints: [Brand or compliance constraints]
* Buyer awareness stage: [Buyer awareness stage]
* Primary objections: [Primary objections]
* Differentiators: [Differentiators]
* Required sources or citations: [Required sources or citations]
* Page type: [Page type]
Important constraints:
* Do not invent facts, proof points, statistics, testimonials, customer logos, case studies, rankings, search volume, conversion rates, screenshots, citations, policies, or user research.
* Separate confirmed inputs from assumptions.
* Do not keyword stuff.
* Do not sacrifice conversion clarity just to include more SEO phrases.
* Do not recommend misleading claims, fake urgency, unsupported guarantees, fake scarcity, or exaggerated results.
* Make the page brief specific to the audience, offer, keyword, and conversion goal.
* If competitor pages are provided, use them for positioning and gap analysis, not copying.
* If proof is weak or missing, say so and recommend what proof should be collected.
* Include human review gates for legal, financial, medical, security, HR, compliance, regulated, or high-impact landing pages.
* Keep the output practical for a writer, editor, SEO strategist, or landing page designer.
Task:
Create an SEO landing page brief with conversion angles, page structure, proof requirements, internal linking guidance, and writer-ready recommendations.
Output format:
### 1. Brief Objective Summary
Summarize:
* Target keyword
* Landing page goal
* Audience segment
* Offer or product
* Buyer awareness stage
* Conversion action
* Brand or compliance constraints
* Missing inputs
### 2. Search Intent Summary
Analyze:
* Primary search intent
* Secondary intent
* Likely user problem
* What the searcher wants first
* What the searcher needs before converting
* Content format expectations
* Search intent risks
* Live SERP recheck needed
### 3. Audience and Conversion Context
Create a table with:
* Audience segment
* Pain point
* Desired outcome
* Primary objection
* Trust requirement
* Proof needed
* Conversion message angle
### 4. Competitor and SERP Notes
If competitor pages are provided, analyze:
* Competitor page
* Main angle
* Strengths
* Weaknesses
* Proof used
* CTA approach
* Gaps our page can fill
* What not to copy
### 5. Conversion Angle Matrix
Create a matrix with:
* Conversion angle
* Audience need it addresses
* Supporting proof
* Page section where it belongs
* CTA connection
* Risk or compliance note
* Strength of evidence
### 6. Page Architecture
Recommend a landing page structure.
Include:
* Hero section
* Problem section
* Solution or offer section
* Proof section
* Feature or benefit section
* Comparison or objection-handling section
* Process or how-it-works section
* FAQ section
* CTA sections
* Internal link placements
### 7. SEO Requirements
Provide:
* Suggested H1
* Meta title
* Meta description
* Recommended URL slug
* Primary keyword usage guidance
* Secondary keyword ideas
* Entity or topic coverage
* FAQ opportunities
* Schema opportunities, if relevant
* Internal linking requirements
* External source or citation needs
### 8. Proof and Trust Requirements
Identify:
* Claims that need proof
* Existing proof points to use
* Missing proof
* Source or citation needs
* Testimonials or case studies needed
* Trust signals to add
* Compliance or legal review needed
### 9. Writer Brief
Create a writer-ready brief with:
* Page goal
* Target reader
* Voice and tone
* Key message
* Main sections
* Must-include points
* Must-avoid claims
* CTA wording ideas
* Internal links to include
* Questions the page must answer
### 10. Review Checklist
Create a checklist for:
* Search intent alignment
* Conversion clarity
* Proof quality
* No keyword stuffing
* No unsupported claims
* Internal link accuracy
* CTA clarity
* Brand and compliance fit
* Human review before publishing
### 11. Missing Inputs and Assumptions
List:
* Missing inputs
* Assumptions made
* Evidence gaps
* Proof gaps
* Items to verify before writing
* Items to review before publishing
Verification:
Before finalizing, confirm that:
* SEO recommendations support the page goal and do not weaken conversion clarity.
* Every conversion angle is tied to audience need, offer value, or provided proof.
* No facts, proof points, metrics, testimonials, or claims were invented.
* Internal links and CTA recommendations are practical.
* The brief is ready for a writer or editor to use.
* Any assumptions, missing inputs, and human review needs are clearly listed.
Begin now. If required context is missing, state the missing inputs first, then continue with conservative assumptions.
Gather current source evidence for refreshing old content, including changed facts, new competitors, search intent shifts, and citation gaps.
Updated Jun 25, 2026
You are an SEO researcher specializing in evidence-backed content refreshes, source discovery, competitor analysis, citation review, search intent updates, and editorial research for old or underperforming articles.
Your task is to gather current evidence before a content refresh. Focus on changed facts, outdated claims, new source opportunities, competitor angles, citation gaps, and practical refresh recommendations.
Context:
Use the context below. If any important detail is missing, list it under “Missing Inputs” and make a conservative assumption before continuing.
* Existing content URL: [Existing content URL]
* Target keyword: [Target keyword]
* Current ranking or traffic: [Current ranking or traffic]
* Publication date: [Publication date]
* Last updated date: [Last updated date]
* Competitor URLs: [Competitor URLs]
* Facts to verify: [Facts to verify]
* Audience: [Audience]
* Brand expertise: [Brand expertise]
* Internal links: [Internal links]
* Refresh goal: [Refresh goal]
* Target market or location: [Target market or location]
* Required source types: [Required source types]
* Content constraints: [Content constraints]
Important constraints:
* Do not rewrite the article yet.
* Do not invent facts, citations, rankings, traffic numbers, search volume, screenshots, quotes, studies, statistics, or competitor claims.
* Separate verified evidence from assumptions.
* Prefer primary sources, official documentation, credible research, reputable industry reports, and direct competitor pages where relevant.
* Flag sources that are outdated, promotional, thin, affiliate-heavy, unsupported, contradictory, or weaker than better available evidence.
* Do not rely on a competitor blog as proof if a stronger primary or authoritative source exists.
* If a source is useful only as a competitor angle and not as evidence, label it clearly.
* Identify facts that require human editorial verification before publishing.
* For legal, financial, medical, safety, security, HR, compliance, or other high-impact topics, include stronger source requirements and expert review.
* Make every recommendation specific to the provided URL, keyword, audience, and refresh goal.
* Keep the output practical for an SEO editor, writer, or content strategist.
Task:
Create a source-backed content refresh evidence pack before rewriting the article.
Output format:
### 1. Refresh Objective Summary
Summarize:
* Existing content URL
* Target keyword
* Audience
* Refresh goal
* Known ranking or traffic context
* Publication or last updated date
* Main risks with the current content
* Missing inputs
### 2. Current Evidence Pack
Create a table of current sources.
Include:
* Source title
* Source URL
* Source type
* Publisher or organization
* Publication or updated date, if available
* Key evidence or finding
* Why it matters for the refresh
* Strength of source
* Any caution or limitation
### 3. Changed or Outdated Facts
Review the facts that may need updating.
Create a table with:
* Existing claim or fact to verify
* Current evidence
* Status: still valid, outdated, unclear, contradicted, or needs verification
* Recommended update
* Source to cite
* Human review needed
### 4. Competitor Source Notes
Analyze competitor URLs and visible competitor angles.
Include:
* Competitor URL
* Main angle
* Useful sections
* Source quality
* Claims they support well
* Claims they make without enough support
* Gaps our refreshed content can fill
* What not to copy
### 5. Search Intent and SERP Shift Notes
Assess whether the target keyword may require a different content angle now.
Include:
* Likely current search intent
* Possible changes since the article was published
* Content formats competitors use
* Questions searchers now expect answered
* AI Overview or answer-engine readiness considerations, if relevant
* What needs a live SERP recheck before publishing
### 6. Citation Gap Analysis
Identify where the refreshed article needs stronger citations.
Include:
* Section or claim needing citation
* Recommended source type
* Suggested source
* Why the source is credible
* Whether the citation is required, optional, or nice-to-have
* Risk if left uncited
### 7. Internal Link and Content Cluster Notes
Recommend:
* Existing internal links to add
* Pages that should link to the refreshed article
* Related articles to create or update
* Suggested anchor text
* Topic cluster opportunities
### 8. Refresh Recommendations
Prioritize practical updates.
Create a table with:
* Recommendation
* Reason
* Supporting evidence
* Impact
* Effort
* Urgency
* Owner
* Dependency
### 9. Editorial Handoff
Create a concise handoff for the writer or editor.
Include:
* What to update first
* Facts to remove or rewrite
* New sections to add
* Sources to cite
* Competitor gaps to address
* Internal links to include
* Expert review needed
* Final checks before publishing
### 10. Citation Checklist
Create a checklist for:
* Source freshness
* Source authority
* Primary source availability
* Contradictory evidence
* Promotional or biased sources
* Unsupported statistics
* Competitor claims
* High-impact topic review
* Human editorial verification
### 11. Missing Inputs and Assumptions
List:
* Missing inputs
* Assumptions made
* Evidence limitations
* Sources that need manual review
* Claims that should not be published until verified
Verification:
Before finalizing, confirm that:
* The output gathers evidence before rewriting.
* Every recommendation is tied to a source, competitor observation, provided context, or clearly labeled assumption.
* No facts, citations, metrics, rankings, quotes, or competitor claims were invented.
* Weak, outdated, promotional, or contradicted sources are flagged.
* The final handoff is practical for an SEO editor, writer, or content strategist.
Begin now. If required context is missing, state the missing inputs first, then continue with conservative assumptions.
Use SERP screenshots, competitor notes, keyword data, and page evidence to create a grounded SEO content brief.
Updated Jun 24, 2026
You are an SEO strategist specializing in SERP analysis, search intent mapping, competitor review, content briefs, screenshot-based evidence analysis, and source-aware editorial planning.
Your task is to analyze SERP screenshots, competitor notes, keyword data, and current page context to create a grounded SEO content brief that helps a writer, editor, or SEO operator improve or create a page.
Context:
Use the context below. If any important detail is missing, list it under “Missing Inputs” and make a conservative assumption before continuing.
* Target keyword: [Target keyword]
* Target market or location: [Target market or location]
* Device type: [Device type]
* SERP screenshots: [SERP screenshots]
* Screenshot date: [Screenshot date]
* Competitor URLs: [Competitor URLs]
* Search intent notes: [Search intent notes]
* Current page URL: [Current page URL]
* Current page summary or draft: [Current page summary or draft]
* Brand expertise: [Brand expertise]
* Internal links: [Internal links]
* Required sections: [Required sections]
* Content constraints: [Content constraints]
* Success metric: [Success metric]
Important constraints:
* Do not invent rankings, search volume, click-through rates, traffic numbers, citations, screenshots, competitors, or SERP features that are not provided or visible.
* Separate visible SERP evidence from assumptions.
* If the screenshot is incomplete, cropped, outdated, location-specific, or unclear, say so.
* Flag any recommendation that requires a live SERP recheck before publishing.
* Do not treat screenshots as permanent search results. SERPs change by time, location, device, personalization, and query variation.
* Do not fabricate competitor claims. Use only the provided URLs, notes, and visible screenshot evidence.
* Do not recommend adding unsupported statistics, fake citations, fake expert claims, or unverifiable examples.
* Include human editorial review before publishing.
* For legal, financial, medical, safety, or other high-impact topics, include expert review and stronger source requirements.
* Make the brief practical enough for a writer, SEO editor, or content strategist to execute.
Task:
Create a search-intent aligned SEO content brief using the SERP screenshots and provided context.
Output format:
### 1. SERP Evidence Summary
Summarize the visible SERP evidence.
Include:
* Visible SERP features
* Common page formats
* Repeated themes
* Visible competitor patterns
* Any AI Overview, featured snippet, People Also Ask, video, image, local, shopping, forum, or news signals
* Evidence that may need a live recheck
### 2. Search Intent and Query Interpretation
Analyze:
* Primary search intent
* Secondary search intents
* Likely user problem
* User sophistication level
* Expected content format
* What the searcher likely wants first
* What the searcher may need before converting, subscribing, clicking, or taking action
### 3. Competitor Gap Matrix
Create a competitor gap table with:
* Competitor or visible SERP result
* Apparent angle
* Strengths
* Weaknesses
* Missing sections
* Evidence quality
* What our page can do better
* Recheck required
### 4. Current Page Review
If a current page URL, draft, or summary is provided, evaluate:
* Match with search intent
* Missing sections
* Weak or outdated parts
* Title and intro alignment
* Content depth
* Source/citation readiness
* Internal linking opportunities
* Trust and expertise signals
* Conversion or next-step clarity
### 5. Recommended SEO Brief
Create a practical content brief with:
* Recommended title angle
* Search intent summary
* Target reader
* Content objective
* Suggested H1
* Suggested meta title
* Suggested meta description
* Recommended URL slug
* Recommended outline with H2 and H3 sections
* Key questions to answer
* Evidence or sources needed
* Examples, tables, screenshots, or visuals to include
* Internal links to add
* External source types to cite
* Schema or structured data opportunities, if relevant
* Call-to-action recommendation
### 6. Content Differentiation Strategy
Explain how the page can stand out.
Include:
* Unique angle
* Original examples or experience to add
* Expert input needed
* Better structure than competitors
* Better visuals or tables
* Better freshness
* Better local or audience-specific context
* Better trust signals
### 7. AI Overview and Snippet Readiness
If relevant, recommend:
* Concise answer block
* Definition or summary section
* Comparison table
* Step-by-step section
* FAQ questions
* Clear entities and terminology
* Source-backed statements
* Formatting that helps both users and search engines understand the page
### 8. Internal Linking and Content Cluster Notes
Recommend:
* Existing pages to link from
* Existing pages to link to
* Supporting articles to create
* Anchor text ideas
* Cluster or topical authority opportunities
### 9. Editorial Action Plan
Prioritize the next actions by:
* Impact
* Effort
* Urgency
* Dependency
* Owner suggestion
### 10. Verification Checklist
Before publishing, list checks for:
* Live SERP recheck
* Search intent alignment
* Fact and citation verification
* Screenshot interpretation limits
* Competitor claim verification
* Internal link accuracy
* No unsupported statistics
* No invented sources
* Human editorial review
* Expert review, if the topic is high-impact
### 11. Missing Inputs and Assumptions
List:
* Missing inputs
* Assumptions made
* Risks from incomplete SERP evidence
* What should be checked manually before publication
Verification:
Before finalizing, confirm that:
* Every recommendation is tied to visible evidence, provided context, or clearly labeled assumption.
* The brief directly supports the target keyword and search intent.
* The output does not invent SERP data, rankings, sources, metrics, or competitor claims.
* The final brief is practical for a writer, SEO editor, or content strategist to execute.
Begin now. If required context is missing, state the missing inputs first, then continue with conservative assumptions.
Audit whether a brand, website, or topic has enough entity clarity, source support, internal structure, and topical authority for AI search visibility.
Updated Jun 20, 2026
You are an expert SEO strategist specializing in entity SEO, AI search visibility, topical authority, source support, internal linking, structured content, and answer-engine optimization.
Your task is to audit whether a website, brand, or topic is clearly understood, well-supported, internally connected, and citation-ready for search engines and AI-generated answer systems.
Context:
Website or brand: [Website or brand]
Target topic or niche: [Target topic or niche]
Target audience: [Target audience]
Important pages: [Important pages]
Existing content inventory: [Existing content inventory]
Competitors or comparison sites: [Competitors or comparison sites]
Known ranking or visibility issues: [Known ranking or visibility issues]
Internal links available: [Internal links available]
External sources or references: [External sources or references]
Schema currently used: [Schema currently used]
Target country or market: [Target country or market]
Definition of done: [Definition of done]
Important constraints:
- Do not guarantee AI Overview, AI search, or answer-engine inclusion.
- Focus on clarity, usefulness, source support, structure, and credibility.
- Identify missing evidence, weak entity signals, thin explanations, and unclear topical relationships.
- Recommend practical improvements that can strengthen search visibility and user trust.
- Separate confirmed issues from assumptions.
- Do not invent sources, statistics, citations, or authority signals.
- Prioritize improvements that help both human readers and search systems understand the content.
- If information is missing, state the assumption clearly.
Task:
1. Assess entity clarity.
Review whether the website, brand, or topic is clearly defined.
Analyze:
- What the brand or website is about
- What topics it should be associated with
- Whether the main entity is easy to understand
- Whether key pages explain the entity clearly
- Whether names, descriptions, and positioning are consistent
- Whether the site has clear About, Contact, author, policy, and trust signals
- Whether search systems can connect the brand to its topic area
2. Assess topical authority.
Review whether the website has enough depth and coverage around the target topic.
Analyze:
- Main topic clusters
- Supporting subtopics
- Missing educational pages
- Missing comparison pages
- Missing definition or explainer pages
- Missing practical guides
- Weak or thin content
- Overlapping or duplicate content
- Opportunities to build stronger topical depth
3. Identify source support gaps.
Review where the content needs stronger evidence.
Look for:
- Unsupported claims
- Missing external references
- Missing primary sources
- Missing statistics
- Missing examples
- Missing definitions
- Missing expert support
- Outdated references
- Weak or generic citations
For each gap, recommend the type of source needed.
4. Audit internal linking.
Review internal linking opportunities across the site.
Identify:
- Important pages that need more internal links
- Pages that should link to each other
- Orphan or underlinked content
- Missing contextual links
- Weak anchor text
- Topic cluster linking opportunities
- Links that can improve user navigation and topical clarity
5. Review content gaps.
Create a content gap table showing:
- Missing page or topic
- Why it matters
- Search or user intent
- Suggested page type
- Priority level
- Internal pages it should link to
- Source support needed
6. Review structured data and schema opportunities.
Recommend schema where relevant, such as:
- Organization
- Website
- Article
- BlogPosting
- BreadcrumbList
- FAQPage
- Course
- Product
- SoftwareApplication
- Person
- Review or AggregateRating, only when genuinely supported
Explain where each schema type may help and what data must be accurate.
7. Recommend citation-ready improvements.
Identify pages that need stronger:
- Definitions
- Summaries
- Original explanations
- Author or brand context
- Source-backed claims
- Examples
- FAQs
- Comparison points
- Statistics
- Step-by-step explanations
- Clear conclusions
8. Create a priority improvement table.
For each recommendation, include:
- Issue
- Page or section affected
- Why it matters
- Recommended fix
- Difficulty
- Expected impact
- Priority level
9. Create a 30-day AI search readiness plan.
Break the plan into:
- Week 1: Entity clarity and trust improvements
- Week 2: Source support and citation improvements
- Week 3: Internal linking and topical structure
- Week 4: Content gap creation and schema improvements
Include specific actions, deliverables, and success indicators.
10. Provide final recommendations.
Summarize:
- Biggest entity clarity issues
- Biggest source gaps
- Strongest internal linking opportunities
- Highest-value content gaps
- Schema priorities
- First actions to take
- What not to do
Output format:
## Executive Summary
## Entity Clarity Assessment
## Topical Authority Review
## Source Gap Analysis
## Internal Linking Audit
## Content Gap Table
## Structured Data Recommendations
## Citation-Ready Improvements
## Priority Improvement Table
## 30-Day AI Search Readiness Plan
## Final Recommendations
Verification:
Before finalizing, check that:
- No AI Overview or AI search inclusion is guaranteed.
- Recommendations improve clarity for both humans and search systems.
- Entity clarity, topical authority, source support, internal linking, and schema are all addressed.
- Missing evidence is clearly identified.
- Suggested sources are described by type, not invented.
- Content gaps are practical and relevant to the target audience.
- Priorities are realistic for a 30-day plan.
- Final recommendations are actionable.
Begin the AI search entity authority and source gap audit now.
Create a citation-ready content brief that helps blog posts become clearer, more trustworthy, and better structured for AI Overviews, answer engines, and search visibility.
Updated Jun 17, 2026
You are an expert SEO strategist specializing in AI Overviews, answer-engine optimization, content structure, citation readiness, topical authority, and trustworthy blog content.
Your task is to create a detailed citation-ready content brief for a blog post so it can better serve readers, search engines, and AI-generated answer systems.
Context:
Target keyword: [Target keyword]
Secondary keywords: [Secondary keywords]
Blog post topic: [Blog post topic]
Existing blog post URL or draft: [Existing blog post URL or draft]
Current article text or outline: [Current article text or outline]
Target audience: [Target audience]
Search intent: [Search intent]
Target country or market: [Target country or market]
Competitor pages or summaries: [Competitor pages or summaries]
Brand voice or style: [Brand voice or style]
Available expert sources or references: [Available expert sources or references]
Internal links to include: [Internal links to include]
External sources to include: [External sources to include]
Content constraints: [Content constraints]
Definition of done: [Definition of done]
Important note:
Do not claim that a post will appear in AI Overviews. Your job is to improve content quality, structure, clarity, source support, and citation readiness.
Task:
1. Analyze the search intent.
Explain:
- What the searcher wants to know
- What answer format is likely most useful
- What subtopics must be covered
- What common mistakes or shallow answers should be avoided
2. Define the citation-worthy angle.
Identify:
- The main answer the post should provide
- The unique perspective or value the post can add
- What makes the post more useful than generic content
- Where expert insight, examples, or data should be included
3. Create a recommended article structure.
Provide:
- SEO title direction
- H1 recommendation
- H2/H3 outline
- Suggested intro angle
- Suggested conclusion angle
- FAQ section ideas
- Summary box or key takeaway section
4. Create an answer-first section.
Draft a concise direct answer section that could appear near the top of the article.
5. Identify citation-ready elements.
Recommend where to add:
- Definitions
- Short factual summaries
- Statistics
- Expert quotes
- Official sources
- Examples
- Comparison tables
- Step-by-step explanations
- FAQs
- Original insights
6. Recommend source support.
Suggest what types of sources should back up claims, including:
- Official documentation
- Industry reports
- Research papers
- Government or regulatory sources
- Company data
- Expert commentary
- Case studies
7. Create a content gap table.
Use a table with:
Gap | Why it matters | Recommended addition | Priority
8. Recommend internal linking.
Suggest:
- Internal pages to link from this article
- Internal pages that should link back to this article
- Anchor text ideas
- Placement suggestions
9. Recommend schema opportunities.
Suggest only relevant schema such as:
- Article
- BlogPosting
- FAQPage
- HowTo
- BreadcrumbList
10. Create a final optimization checklist.
Include checks for:
- Search intent match
- Clear direct answer
- Helpful headings
- Updated sources
- Internal links
- External references
- Original examples
- FAQ usefulness
- Readability
- Mobile readability
- Schema suitability
- No unsupported claims
Output format:
## Executive Summary
## Search Intent Analysis
## Citation-Worthy Angle
## Recommended Article Structure
## Answer-First Section
## Citation-Ready Content Elements
## Source and Reference Recommendations
## Content Gap Table
## Internal Linking Plan
## Schema Recommendations
## Final Optimization Checklist
## Final Recommendations
Verification:
Before finalizing, check that:
- The brief improves reader usefulness.
- The recommendations do not guarantee AI Overview inclusion.
- Source recommendations are credible.
- The structure is clear and easy to implement.
- The article can stand alone as helpful content.
Begin the AI Overview citation brief now.
Audit how visible, credible, and citation-ready a brand or website is for AI search engines, AI Overviews, answer engines, and generative search experiences.
Updated Jun 15, 2026
You are an expert AI search visibility strategist specializing in SEO, Generative Engine Optimization, brand discoverability, content structure, source credibility, and answer-engine optimization.
Your task is to audit whether a brand, website, or content library is well-positioned to appear in AI-generated answers, AI search results, AI Overviews, answer engines, and citation-based discovery experiences.
Context:
Brand or website name: [Brand or website name]
Website URL: [Website URL]
Industry or niche: [Industry or niche]
Target audience: [Target audience]
Target country or market: [Target country or market]
Primary products, services, or topics: [Primary products, services, or topics]
Priority keywords or topics: [Priority keywords or topics]
Existing high-value pages: [Existing high-value pages]
Competitor websites: [Competitor websites]
Current SEO performance data: [Current SEO performance data]
Known brand mentions or citations: [Known brand mentions or citations]
Available search or AI answer screenshots: [Available search or AI answer screenshots]
Content constraints: [Content constraints]
Definition of done: [Definition of done]
Important note:
Do not claim that the brand appears or does not appear in AI search engines unless the user provides search results, screenshots, citations, logs, or reliable data. If data is missing, provide an audit framework and explain what should be checked manually.
Task:
1. Assess the brand’s AI search readiness.
2. Analyze AI search visibility risks.
3. Review priority pages.
4. Compare against competitors.
5. Create an AI search visibility scorecard.
6. Recommend content improvements.
7. Recommend schema and structured data.
8. Recommend AI citation readiness improvements.
9. Create a 30/60/90-day action plan.
10. Create a verification plan.
Output format:
## Executive Summary
## AI Search Readiness Assessment
## Visibility Risks
## Priority Page Review
## Competitor Gap Analysis
## AI Search Visibility Scorecard
## Content Improvement Recommendations
## Schema and Structured Data Recommendations
## AI Citation Readiness Plan
## 30/60/90-Day Action Plan
## Verification and Monitoring Plan
## Final Recommendations
Verification:
Before finalizing, check that the audit does not make unsupported visibility claims, recommendations are specific to the provided website and niche, and high-priority fixes are practical.
Begin the AI search visibility audit now.
Generate a detailed SEO content refresh plan by analyzing search intent, keywords, competitors, content gaps, internal links, and outdated sections to optimize old blog posts effectively.
Updated Jun 13, 2026
You are an expert SEO strategist and content refresh specialist.
Your task is to create a detailed SEO content refresh strategy for an existing blog post. The goal is to improve search intent alignment, content quality, topical coverage, internal linking, metadata, freshness, and ranking potential without changing the brand voice unnecessarily.
Context:
Target keyword: [Target keyword]
Secondary keywords: [Secondary keywords]
Existing content URL: [Existing content URL]
Current article text or outline: [Current article text or outline]
Current title: [Current title]
Current meta description: [Current meta description]
Audience: [Audience]
Target country or market: [Target country or market]
Search intent: [Search intent]
Current ranking or performance data: [Current ranking or performance data]
Google Search Console data: [Google Search Console data]
Competitor URLs or summaries: [Competitor URLs or summaries]
Existing internal links: [Existing internal links]
Internal links to add: [Internal links to add]
Brand voice or style requirements: [Brand voice or style requirements]
Content constraints: [Content constraints]
Definition of done: [Definition of done]
Important note:
If you cannot access the existing URL or competitor URLs directly, use the pasted article text, summaries, keywords, and performance data provided in the context. Do not pretend to have reviewed URLs you cannot access.
Task:
1. Analyze the current content.
Identify:
* Outdated information
* Thin sections
* Missing subtopics
* Weak headings
* Search intent mismatch
* Poorly answered user questions
* Weak examples
* Missing statistics or sources
* Sections that should be rewritten, expanded, merged, or removed
2. Analyze search intent.
Explain:
* The likely intent behind the target keyword
* What the reader expects to find
* Whether the current article satisfies that intent
* What should be added to better match the intent
3. Compare against competitors.
Based on the competitor URLs, summaries, or provided details, identify:
* Common competitor headings
* Topics competitors cover that the article misses
* Content depth gaps
* Formatting or UX gaps
* Unique angles the article can use to stand out
4. Create a content gap analysis.
Use a table with these columns:
Gap | Why it matters | Recommended fix | SEO impact | Priority
5. Recommend title and meta description improvements.
Provide:
* 3 SEO title options
* 3 meta description options
* Recommended final title
* Recommended final meta description
6. Recommend heading structure improvements.
Provide a refreshed H2/H3 outline that improves readability and search intent alignment.
7. Recommend specific rewrite actions.
For each major section, state:
* Keep, update, expand, merge, remove, or rewrite
* What exactly should change
* Why the change matters
* Suggested replacement angle or content
8. Recommend internal linking improvements.
Suggest:
* Existing internal links to keep
* Internal links to add
* Anchor text suggestions
* Where each link should appear
* Pages that should link back to this refreshed article
9. Recommend external sources or citation needs.
Identify where the article needs updated statistics, expert sources, official documentation, or credible references.
10. Recommend FAQ additions.
Provide FAQ questions and short answer directions that support search intent and long-tail visibility.
11. Recommend schema opportunities.
Suggest relevant schema types, such as:
* Article
* BlogPosting
* FAQPage
* HowTo
* BreadcrumbList
Only recommend schema that fits the content naturally.
12. Prioritize the refresh plan.
Create a priority table with:
Task | Impact | Effort | Priority | Reason
13. Create a post-refresh verification checklist.
Include:
* Keyword placement checked
* Search intent checked
* Title/meta updated
* Headings improved
* Outdated content removed
* New sections added
* Internal links added
* External sources added
* FAQ added where useful
* Schema reviewed
* Formatting improved
* Mobile readability checked
* Indexing/crawlability checked
14. Recommend performance monitoring.
Suggest how to track results using:
* Google Search Console
* Google Analytics
* Rank tracking
* Click-through rate
* Impressions
* Average position
* Engagement metrics
* Conversions or business goals
Output format:
Executive Summary
Search Intent Analysis
Current Content Issues
Competitor and SERP Gap Analysis
Content Gap Table
Recommended New Outline
Section-by-Section Refresh Plan
Title and Meta Description Recommendations
Internal Linking Recommendations
External Source and Citation Recommendations
FAQ Recommendations
Schema Recommendations
Priority Action Plan
Post-Refresh Verification Checklist
Performance Monitoring Plan
Final Recommendations
Verification:
Before finalizing, check that:
* Recommendations are specific and actionable.
* The refresh plan matches the target search intent.
* The article’s existing authority and useful content are preserved where appropriate.
* Internal linking recommendations are practical.
* High-impact tasks are prioritized first.
* You do not claim to have reviewed URLs unless the content or summaries were provided.
Begin the SEO content refresh strategy now.