Search Intent Gap Analysis Prompt

Conduct an evidence-backed search intent gap analysis using Perplexity’s web search and citation capabilities.

Inputs
- Target keywords: [Target keywords]
- Page to assess, supplied as a public URL or pasted content: [Page content or URL]
- Intended audience and conversion goal: [Audience and conversion goal]
- Geographic market, language, and device context: [Market, language, and device]
- Research date, preferred search engine if relevant, and number of results to inspect per query: [Analysis date and SERP depth]
- First-party evidence such as Search Console exports, analytics summaries, customer research, product documentation, site inventory, or approved claims: [First-party evidence]
- Editorial, legal, brand, time, and resource limits: [Constraints]
- Conditions the analysis must satisfy: [Acceptance criteria]

Input handling
1. Treat the target keywords, accessible page content, market, and language as blocking inputs. Ask a concise clarification if any is absent or materially ambiguous.
2. If the public page cannot be accessed, request pasted content. Do not infer its headings, claims, schema, links, or current condition from search snippets alone.
3. If only the target keywords are available, a directional intent review may proceed, but mark the page-level gap analysis as blocked.
4. Preserve conflicts between supplied data and web observations. Do not silently choose one source or invent missing traffic, ranking, conversion, audience, or competitor data.

Research boundaries and evidence rules
- Use Perplexity to find and inspect publicly accessible pages, supporting sources, and recent search-result evidence. Cite the relevant URL beside each material web-derived observation.
- Perplexity’s surfaced sources are not automatically an exact, neutral, or reproducible Google or Bing ranking. If an engine export, screenshot, or rank-tracking file is supplied, use it as the primary SERP-order evidence. Otherwise call the researched set an observable result sample and treat rankings and SERP features as directional or unavailable.
- Record the query, market, language, device assumption, research date, inspected result count, and any access limitation. Do not describe an unobserved result as top-ranking or claim exhaustive SERP coverage.
- Label material statements as Supplied fact, Observed evidence, Inference, Hypothesis, Conflict, or Unknown. Separate direct page observations from conclusions about likely searcher needs.
- Prefer primary sources for factual and trust-sensitive claims. Evaluate source ownership, expertise, publication or update date, commercial incentives, and corroboration. A competitor’s repeated assertion is not independent confirmation.
- Do not upload or reproduce confidential analytics, personal data, credentials, or restricted documents. Stop and request sanitized inputs if sensitive information is necessary.
- This is research and recommendation work only. Do not edit the page, change metadata, publish content, contact site owners, approve claims, or represent recommendations as authorized. Require human editorial approval before implementation. Require qualified legal, medical, or financial review for regulated or high-impact claims.
- Do not copy competitor wording or distinctive structure. Summarize patterns and recommend original coverage.

Analysis workflow
1. Normalize the supplied keywords without changing their meaning. Group close variants into defensible clusters while retaining each original keyword. Flag ambiguous terms, mixed-language queries, branded queries, local modifiers, freshness-sensitive terms, and keywords that may represent different entities.
2. Research each cluster within the stated scope. Where accessible, inspect representative result pages rather than relying only on snippets. Capture page type, content format, apparent audience, problem being solved, funnel stage, freshness, depth, and trust mechanisms. Record observed SERP features only when supported by supplied SERP evidence or direct observation.
3. Infer dominant and secondary intent for each cluster using evidence from result composition and page content. Distinguish informational, commercial investigation, transactional, navigational, local, and mixed intent. State confidence as High, Medium, or Low and explain mixed or unstable intent.
4. Establish the target-page baseline from accessible or supplied content: primary purpose, audience, search intent addressed, title and heading promise, topical coverage, format, depth, freshness, evidence, author or publisher signals, citations, original experience, conversion path, and relevant internal links. Mark elements that cannot be inspected as Unknown.
5. Compare the page with the intent model and observable result sample. Classify each issue as Intent mismatch, Missing subtopic, Insufficient depth, Format mismatch, Freshness gap, Trust or evidence gap, Usability gap, Conversion mismatch, Internal-link gap, Cannibalization risk, or No demonstrated gap.
6. For every gap, provide the supporting query cluster, evidence, user need, affected page area, consequence, and confidence. Distinguish a genuinely absent element from one that is merely weaker or expressed differently. Do not recommend additions solely because competitors include them.
7. Develop an original improvement brief. Specify the page positioning, intent to prioritize, sections to add, revise, merge, or remove, suitable content format, questions to answer, proof or first-party expertise required, citation needs, trust signals, and conversion alignment. Suggest internal links only when a supplied site inventory or verifiable public page supports both the source and destination relationship.
8. Prioritize recommendations using expected intent impact, evidence confidence, implementation effort, business relevance, and risk. Identify trade-offs such as satisfying a secondary intent at the expense of focus, expanding content without adding information gain, or creating overlap with another page.
9. Test the proposed brief against the acceptance checks below. Keep unresolved items visible and identify the evidence or human decision needed to close them.

Required deliverable

A. Scope and evidence status
- Objective, supplied inputs, blocking omissions, assumptions, market and device scope, research date, result-sampling method, access limits, and whether exact SERP-order evidence was available.

B. Keyword and intent map
Provide a table with: original keyword; cluster; dominant intent; secondary intent; searcher job or question; funnel stage; observed result formats; observed SERP features or Unavailable; evidence URLs; confidence; conflicts or ambiguity.

C. Target-page baseline
Provide: current promise; intended audience; intent served; key topics present; format and depth; freshness signals; trust and citation signals; conversion path; relevant internal links; inaccessible or unknown elements. Tie observations to the page text or supplied evidence.

D. Search intent gap matrix
Provide a table with: gap ID; keyword cluster; gap classification; missing, weak, mismatched, or unsupported element; supporting evidence; affected page section; searcher consequence; business relevance; confidence; recommended response; dependency or risk.

E. Evidence ledger
Provide a table with: evidence ID; query or claim supported; source title; URL; publisher; source type; publication or update date when available; access date; direct observation or concise paraphrase; evidence label; reliability limitation.

F. Prioritized content brief
Include: recommended page positioning; primary and secondary intent; proposed title direction without claiming performance; recommended outline; section purpose; questions to answer; required original information or first-party proof; citation and trust requirements; recommended format elements; conversion action; internal-link opportunities supported by evidence; items to merge, remove, or avoid; cannibalization checks.

Provide a prioritization table with: recommendation; linked gap IDs; expected intent impact; evidence confidence; implementation effort; editorial or compliance risk; priority; accountable human reviewer.

G. Verification and acceptance record
For each check, report expected condition, actual observation, supporting evidence, and Pass, Fail, or Blocked status:
- Every original target keyword is retained and assigned to an intent cluster.
- Every cluster has a stated dominant intent, confidence level, and evidence basis.
- Result-count and scope claims reconcile with the evidence ledger.
- Exact ranking or SERP-feature claims appear only when directly observed or supplied.
- Every page-level finding is traceable to accessible page content or supplied evidence.
- Every recommendation maps to at least one documented gap and searcher need.
- Trust-sensitive factual recommendations identify an appropriate source or remain unresolved.
- Internal-link recommendations identify a verifiable source page, destination, and contextual rationale.
- Mixed intent, conflicting evidence, inaccessible pages, and unknown data remain explicit.
- The proposed brief satisfies the supplied acceptance criteria or records why it does not.

H. Handoff state
State what research was actually performed, what remained unavailable, which conclusions are directional, what requires human approval, and the smallest safe next action. Do not claim that content was changed, tested, ranked, approved, published, or completed unless that action occurred and corresponding evidence was supplied.