Amo.ng curated workflow
Evidence-Backed SEO and AI Search Content Refresh
Select high-value pages for refresh, gather current evidence, reconcile search intent and authority gaps, and produce citation-ready briefs with a coherent internal-link plan.
# Evidence-Backed SEO and AI Search Content Refresh Workflow ID: AMO-W-000006 Workflow URL: https://amo.ng/workflows/evidence-backed-seo-and-ai-search-content-refresh ## Outcome A prioritized, writer-ready content refresh package designed to improve intent alignment, trust, topical authority, internal discovery, and readiness for conventional and AI-assisted search. ## Before you begin - Current URL inventory and available page performance data - Target topics, keywords, audiences, and conversion goals - Existing page copy, metadata, and internal links - Competitor or SERP evidence where available - Brand, editorial, legal, and citation standards ## Step 1 — Prioritize pages for refresh **Prompt** Content Refresh Audit Prompt **Instructions** Audit the supplied content inventory to identify pages worth updating based on freshness, intent match, structure, performance, and conversion opportunity. Rank pages and state the evidence behind each priority. **Input for this step** Provide URLs, publication and update dates, page copy, available traffic or conversion observations, target topics, and known business priorities. **Carry forward** Pass the ranked refresh backlog, page-level issues, opportunity rationale, and missing evidence requirements to source research. **Review note** An SEO or content owner approves the priority pages so research effort is focused on material opportunities. **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000019 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/content-refresh-audit-prompt **Prompt content** Conduct an evidence-led content refresh audit using the materials below. Audit inputs - Audit goal: [Audit goal] - Page inventory and performance data: [Page inventory and performance data] - Content and page evidence: [Content and page evidence] - SERP and competitor evidence: [SERP and competitor evidence] - Business and audience context: [Business and audience context] - Constraints and approval rules: [Constraints and approval rules] - Measurement window and success criteria: [Measurement window and success criteria] Claude operating boundaries - Analyze files, pasted content, exports, and other materials actually supplied in this conversation. Inspect URLs or current search results only if browsing or retrieval is available and successfully returns the relevant content. - Do not imply access to Google Search Console, analytics, a CMS, crawler, rank tracker, backlink platform, or live SERPs unless corresponding evidence is supplied or that access is explicitly available. - Produce audit findings, priorities, refresh briefs, and verification instructions. Do not edit a CMS, publish copy, change metadata, add redirects, alter canonicals, remove pages, contact publishers, or claim stakeholder approval. - Treat consolidation, deletion, redirect, canonical, noindex, legal, medical, financial, and other high-impact recommendations as proposals requiring authorized human review. - Do not expose personal data, credentials, private customer information, or confidential query data. Flag sensitive material and use aggregated evidence where possible. Input sufficiency and clarification A portfolio-level priority ranking requires, at minimum, an identifiable page inventory, the audit goal, relevant page content or extracts, and some basis for evaluating performance or strategic value. Search Console landing-page and query exports, analytics conversions, crawl data, publication and update dates, target-audience details, SERP captures, backlink data, and prior editorial decisions improve confidence but are not automatically mandatory. Ask concise clarification questions only when a missing or conflicting input would materially change page selection, scoring, or a consequential recommendation. If portfolio ranking is blocked but individual pages can still be assessed, continue with a clearly bounded page-level audit. Preserve missing values as unknown; never convert absent metrics into zero or infer that a page is underperforming solely because data was not supplied. Evidence rules 1. Separate supplied facts, direct content observations, tool-retrieved observations, assumptions, hypotheses, conflicts, and unknowns. 2. Cite each material finding to a URL, file, export field, excerpt, SERP capture, or other supplied source. Include the observation date or data range when available. 3. Do not invent traffic, rankings, conversions, backlinks, publication dates, query intent, competitor performance, or content changes. 4. Distinguish correlation from causation. A traffic decline may reflect seasonality, algorithm changes, SERP feature changes, tracking issues, demand shifts, migration effects, or cannibalization rather than content decay alone. 5. Treat live SERPs as volatile and localized. Record location, device, language, date, and personalization limitations when known. 6. Label confidence as high, medium, or low and explain the decisive evidence or missing evidence behind that rating. 7. Do not recommend changing a visible date merely to simulate freshness. Recommend a date update only when substantive changes occur and the site’s editorial policy permits it. Audit workflow 1. Normalize the inventory. Identify each page’s URL, template or content type, topic, current status, canonical state when supplied, publication or update date, target market, and available performance period. Note duplicate URLs, tracking gaps, migrations, and incomparable date ranges. 2. Establish the baseline. For each page, capture available clicks, impressions, click-through rate, average position, organic sessions, engaged sessions, conversions, assisted conversions, backlinks, and crawl or indexation signals. Compare equivalent periods where possible and identify seasonality or tracking changes. Mark unavailable metrics rather than estimating them. 3. Diagnose search intent. Infer the dominant informational, commercial, transactional, navigational, or local intent from query and SERP evidence. Compare the page’s format, depth, angle, and conversion path with that intent. Record mixed intent and intent uncertainty rather than forcing one label. 4. Assess content freshness and factual reliability. Identify outdated statistics, dates, products, screenshots, processes, regulations, links, claims, examples, and named entities. Flag unsupported assertions, weak primary sourcing, citation decay, broken references, and topics requiring qualified legal, medical, financial, or compliance review. 5. Assess coverage and structure. Review title, primary heading, opening answer, section hierarchy, entity and subtopic coverage, duplication, readability, media usefulness, FAQ value, and whether important information is buried. Separate genuine coverage gaps from competitor sections that do not serve the intended audience. 6. Review search presentation. Evaluate title and description alignment, likely snippet usefulness, structured-data opportunities supported by visible page content, and risks of truncation, duplication, or clickbait. Do not promise rankings, rich results, or click-through gains. 7. Review conversion alignment. Map the page’s intent to its call to action, offer, proof, objections, trust signals, and next step. Identify intrusive or premature conversion elements. Keep conversion recommendations consistent with brand, accessibility, consent, and regulatory constraints. 8. Review internal relationships. Identify relevant source pages that could link to the audited page, useful destinations the page should link to, orphan risk, anchor-text opportunities, topic-cluster gaps, and possible keyword cannibalization. Require crawl, query, or page evidence before asserting cannibalization. 9. Compare credible competitors. Record which competing pages or SERP features satisfy the same intent, what they demonstrably cover or present better, and where the audited page can differentiate. Do not copy proprietary wording or recommend imitation without audience value. 10. Select a disposition for each page: keep, refresh, expand, consolidate, split, reposition, redirect candidate, retire candidate, or investigate. Explain why the disposition fits the evidence. Any destructive or URL-changing disposition must include dependencies, traffic and backlink risks, redirect or recovery considerations, and an approval checkpoint. 11. Prioritize transparently. Score only dimensions supported by evidence, such as performance decline, intent mismatch, freshness risk, ranking opportunity, business value, conversion opportunity, implementation effort, and change risk. State the scale, weights, missing-data treatment, and tie-breaking rule. Never present a precise score as objective certainty. 12. Build an implementation-ready refresh brief for every page selected for action. Preserve useful material and existing equity; avoid a full rewrite unless the diagnosis supports one. Sequence dependencies such as subject-matter review, design, development, analytics, legal review, and redirect mapping. 13. Define pre-publication and post-publication verification. Separate checks an editor can perform now from measurements that require an implemented change and elapsed time. Required deliverable A. Audit scope and evidence status - Goal, audience, included and excluded pages, data ranges, markets, devices, constraints, and success criteria - Available sources and access limitations - Blocking gaps, non-blocking gaps, conflicts, assumptions, and the safe scope completed B. Evidence ledger Provide a table with: evidence ID; page or issue; source; observation or metric; date or range; evidence class; limitation; and confidence. C. Prioritized page register Provide one row per page with: priority rank; URL; content type; target intent; baseline evidence; diagnosed issue; recommended disposition; expected user or business benefit; effort; change risk; confidence; decisive evidence IDs; required approval; and status. Use status values that keep proposed, blocked, ready for human review, executed, and verified distinct. Unless execution evidence is supplied, recommendations must remain proposed or ready for human review. D. Page-level refresh briefs For each recommended page, provide: - Current purpose, audience, target queries, dominant intent, and observed mismatch - Evidence-backed diagnosis and confidence - Elements to retain - Outdated or unsupported claims requiring correction, removal, citation, or specialist review - Missing topics, entities, questions, examples, or media, with rationale - Proposed title, primary heading, opening answer, section outline, and concise meta-description direction - Internal links to add or review, including source page, destination page, placement rationale, and non-spammy anchor guidance - External citation requirements, prioritizing primary, current, authoritative sources - Conversion recommendation matched to intent and funnel stage - Accessibility, structured-data, design, development, legal, or subject-matter dependencies - Cannibalization or migration considerations - Editorial acceptance criteria and approval owner E. Risk and decision register List each major risk or unresolved decision with: affected page; trigger; potential impact; mitigation; rollback or recovery consideration; owner; approval needed; and stop condition. Stop and escalate when evidence conflicts on URL ownership, canonical strategy, regulated claims, legal obligations, brand commitments, or destructive page actions. F. Verification and measurement plan For every selected page, define: - Pre-change baseline metric, source, comparable date range, and captured value when available - Editorial checks for intent match, factual accuracy, primary-source support, link validity, accessibility, spelling, rendering, metadata, canonical consistency, analytics tagging, and mobile experience - Expected observation and acceptance threshold for each check - Actual observation and evidence field, left explicitly pending when no implementation or test occurred - Post-change review windows appropriate to crawl, ranking, traffic, and conversion latency - Guardrail metrics such as branded traffic, qualified conversions, backlinks, indexed URL count, or revenue contribution where relevant - Confounders and a method for reconciling seasonality, campaigns, migrations, algorithm changes, and tracking changes - Decision rules for retain, iterate, roll back, investigate, or extend the measurement window G. Handoff End with the recommended first review batch, why it is the safest high-value batch, required owners, approvals, dependencies, and the smallest authorized next action. Explicitly state what remains unverified and what evidence would close each material unknown. Completion language Use “proposed” for recommendations, “executed” only when direct action evidence is supplied, and “verified” only when an identified check has an actual recorded result. Never claim that content was refreshed, published, indexed, ranked, approved, or improved when the conversation contains only a plan or forecast. ## Step 2 — Build a current evidence pack **Prompt** Content Refresh Evidence Pack With Sources **Instructions** Gather and organize current source evidence for each approved page, including changed facts, new competitors, intent shifts, and citation gaps. Preserve source links, dates, and uncertainty. **Input for this step** Use the approved page backlog and its evidence requirements. Add target queries, geographic or industry scope, recency requirements, and acceptable source standards. **Carry forward** Pass the source pack, changed facts, competitor evidence, citation gaps, and unresolved claims to the search-intent analysis. **Review note** An editor reviews consequential facts, weak or conflicting sources, and any claims requiring subject-matter or legal validation. **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000138 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/content-refresh-evidence-pack-sources **Prompt content** 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. ## Step 3 — Analyze search-intent gaps **Prompt** Search Intent Gap Analysis Prompt **Instructions** Compare target keywords and current page approaches against observed SERP intent. Identify missing angles, formats, trust signals, and mismatches between user needs and existing content. **Input for this step** Provide each page, target queries, the current evidence pack, relevant SERP observations, audience context, and conversion goal. **Carry forward** Pass the intent classification, missing sections, format recommendations, trust requirements, and query-to-page guidance to the authority audit. **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000017 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/search-intent-gap-analysis-prompt **Prompt content** 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. ## Step 4 — Audit entity authority and source gaps **Prompt** Evidence-Grounded AI Search Entity Authority and Source Gap Audit **Instructions** Assess whether the brand, site, and topic have clear entity signals, sufficient source support, internal structure, and topical coverage for AI search visibility. Prioritize authority gaps that the refresh can realistically address. **Input for this step** Use the page inventory, source evidence, intent findings, existing site structure, brand information, and known external references. **Carry forward** Pass the entity-clarity findings, source gaps, structural issues, and prioritized authority recommendations to brief creation. **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000091 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/ai-search-entity-authority-source-gap-audit **Prompt content** Conduct an evidence-grounded audit of the supplied website or brand for entity clarity, topical authority, source support, internal linking, structured data, and citation readiness. ## Audit context Website or brand: [Website or brand] Target topic or niche: [Target topic or niche] Target audience and market: [Target audience and market] Important page evidence: [Important page evidence] Content inventory: [Content inventory] Internal link data: [Internal link data] External source pack: [External source pack] Schema evidence: [Schema evidence] Competitors: [Competitors] Performance and visibility evidence: [Performance and visibility evidence] Constraints and definition of done: [Constraints and definition of done] ## Input contract Blocking prerequisites: - A named website or brand and target topic. - Reviewable evidence for at least the important pages, supplied as page text, screenshots, exports, crawl data, or accessible public URLs. - A target audience and market against which relevance can be judged. Useful optional evidence: - A full URL inventory or crawl export with status codes, canonicals, indexability, titles, headings, word counts, inlinks, outlinks, and anchor text. - Search Console, analytics, rank-tracking, or AI-visibility observations with date ranges and filters. - Current JSON-LD or structured-data validation results. - Editorial standards, approved source lists, competitor pages, conversion priorities, and implementation constraints. If a blocking prerequisite is absent, ask no more than five focused clarification questions before auditing. If answers are unavailable, continue only where the supplied evidence permits, mark the scope as limited, and list blocked analyses. Do not treat an unreviewed page, missing crawl field, inaccessible URL, or absent performance export as evidence that a problem does or does not exist. Preserve conflicting inputs in a conflict register rather than silently choosing one. ## ChatGPT capability and evidence boundaries - Analyze material included in the conversation. If browsing or URL access is available in the current ChatGPT session, you may inspect public pages and identify each accessed URL with the access date. If it is unavailable, do not claim to have opened, crawled, rendered, validated, or tested any URL. - State the evidence-access mode at the beginning: supplied-material review, public-page review, or both. - Do not imply access to Search Console, analytics, CMS data, server logs, paid SEO platforms, schema validators, or complete site crawls unless their exports or results were supplied. - Label material conclusions as Confirmed observation, Supplied fact, Assumption, Hypothesis, Unknown, or Conflict. A confirmed observation must point to a reviewed page, excerpt, crawl row, schema block, report, screenshot, or other identifiable artifact. - Do not invent traffic data, rankings, citations, statistics, source authority, competitor coverage, links, schema properties, validation results, or AI-search appearances. - Treat correlations in visibility data as signals for investigation, not proof that a content or schema change caused a ranking outcome. ## Authority, safety, and action boundaries This is a read-only analysis and recommendation task. Do not edit a CMS, change links, publish content, deploy schema, contact authors, submit URLs, remove pages, or represent recommendations as approved. Mark all changes as proposed until an authorized person implements them. Do not reproduce credentials, private customer information, personal data, confidential analytics rows, or unpublished commercial data unnecessarily. If sensitive material appears, summarize only what is needed and recommend redaction. Flag legal, medical, financial, regulatory, reputation, copyright, or high-risk factual claims for qualified human review. Do not recommend fabricated authorship, reviews, ratings, credentials, consensus, first-hand experience, or citations. Recommend Review or AggregateRating markup only when genuine, visible, policy-compliant review data supports it. Stop and request human direction if the requested work would require unauthorized access, deceptive authority signals, publication without approval, removal of material with legal or contractual implications, or unsupported manipulation of structured data. For consequential changes, specify the owner, approval needed, validation method, and a rollback or recovery step such as retaining the prior copy or schema version. ## Audit workflow ### 1. Establish scope and evidence coverage Create a scope statement covering the audited entity, topic, audience, market, reviewed page set, evidence dates, exclusions, and access limitations. Build an evidence ledger with these fields: - Evidence ID - Artifact or URL - Evidence type - Supplied or directly reviewed - Relevant page or claim - Date or date range - What it supports - Limitations Report coverage numerically where the inputs permit, such as reviewed important pages versus listed important pages and crawl URLs with usable inlink data versus total crawl URLs. Do not extrapolate a sitewide conclusion from a sample without labeling the inference. ### 2. Assess entity clarity and trust signals Determine whether the primary organization, product, service, person, or topic is named and described consistently across reviewed evidence. Examine: - Primary entity name, aliases, category, offer, audience, geography, and distinguishing attributes. - Consistency among homepage, About, Contact, author, editorial-policy, product, service, and key topical pages. - Clear relationships among the organization, authors, products, services, and subject areas. - Ownership, contact, authorship, dates, policies, credentials, and other trust signals appropriate to the site. - Ambiguous naming, unexplained acronyms, contradictory descriptions, entity conflation, or unsupported expertise claims. For each issue, cite its evidence ID, classify its status, explain the interpretation risk, and propose a precise copy, navigation, attribution, or data-consistency change. Do not claim that a search engine has recognized an entity unless supplied evidence demonstrates that specific observation. ### 3. Map topical coverage and overlap Build a topic map from the reviewed inventory. Separate core topics, supporting concepts, definitions, use cases, comparisons, implementation guidance, and audience questions. Identify: - Materially absent topics needed to satisfy the stated audience journey. - Thin coverage, based on missing explanatory substance rather than word count alone. - Duplicate or overlapping pages that may split intent or create unclear canonical ownership. - Topics present only incidentally and pages whose apparent intent conflicts with their content. - Opportunities to consolidate, expand, differentiate, or create content. Competitor material may reveal candidate topics, but competitor presence alone is not proof that a page should be created. Test each opportunity against audience need, business relevance, existing coverage, evidence availability, and maintenance cost. ### 4. Audit claim and source support Review consequential, quantitative, comparative, time-sensitive, definitional, and attribution-dependent claims in the supplied pages. Create a source-gap register with: - Claim or summarized claim - Page and location - Claim type - Current support - Evidence status - Risk if unsupported or outdated - Required source type - Preferred source characteristics - Recommended editorial treatment Prefer relevant primary sources such as official standards, legislation, regulatory guidance, original datasets, technical documentation, peer-reviewed research, or direct company records when appropriate. Secondary sources may provide context but must not be presented as primary evidence. If no suitable source is supplied or accessed, describe the source needed rather than fabricating a citation. Recommend removing, qualifying, dating, or rewriting claims when adequate support is unlikely. ### 5. Audit internal linking and information paths Use only supplied link data or links directly observed in reviewed pages. Evaluate: - Important pages with weak inlink support. - Orphan candidates, labeled as candidates unless a complete crawl establishes orphan status. - Missing contextual links between parent, child, sibling, definition, comparison, and conversion pages. - Vague, misleading, repetitive, or over-optimized anchor text. - Broken or redirected internal destinations when status evidence exists. - Navigation paths that obscure topic hierarchy or force users through irrelevant pages. Produce a proposed link map with source URL, destination URL, suggested natural anchor concept, placement context, user benefit, topical rationale, evidence basis, and priority. Do not claim a link was added or tested. ### 6. Review structured data opportunities Inventory schema types and properties visible in the supplied markup or evidence. Separate: - Observed markup. - Supplied validator results. - Recommended markup not yet implemented. - Unknown implementation or validation state. Recommend only schema types supported by visible page content and the represented entity, potentially including Organization, WebSite, WebPage, Article, BlogPosting, BreadcrumbList, Person, Product, SoftwareApplication, Course, or FAQPage where appropriate. For each recommendation provide the eligible page pattern, represented entity, required factual fields, visible-content dependency, implementation risk, official documentation to consult, proposed validation method, and human owner. State that valid markup does not guarantee rich results, AI citations, indexing, rankings, or inclusion in generated answers. ### 7. Evaluate citation-ready presentation Identify reviewed pages that would benefit from clearer standalone definitions, concise answer passages, explicit scope, dated facts, source-adjacent claims, original examples, transparent methodology, author context, comparisons with consistent criteria, or conclusions that preserve caveats. Recommendations must improve reader comprehension even if no AI system cites the page. Avoid formulaic answer blocks, FAQ padding, repetitive summaries, or unsupported claims added merely for search visibility. ### 8. Prioritize recommendations Score each recommendation using evidence strength, audience value, strategic relevance, risk reduction, implementation effort, dependencies, and expected impact. Use High, Medium, or Low ratings and explain the basis; do not present numeric precision unsupported by data. The priority register must contain: - Recommendation ID - Finding and evidence ID - Affected page or template - Status: proposed, blocked, or needs validation - Recommended change - Reader benefit - Search-understanding rationale - Evidence strength - Risk and trade-off - Effort - Dependency - Approval owner - Validation method - Rollback or recovery note when applicable - Priority Expected impact is a reasoned forecast, not a promise. Explicitly identify recommendations that could create cannibalization, inaccurate markup, maintenance burden, factual risk, degraded navigation, or loss of useful content. ### 9. Build a feasible 30-day plan Organize accepted candidate work into four weekly stages: - Week 1: resolve entity ambiguity, scope gaps, and high-risk trust inconsistencies. - Week 2: strengthen or qualify unsupported claims and document approved source standards. - Week 3: implement approved internal-link and topical-architecture changes in a controlled batch. - Week 4: draft approved gap content and structured-data changes, then validate and review. For every action include recommendation ID, owner, prerequisite, approval gate, deliverable, verification method, expected observation, rollback or correction path, and handoff state. Use only proposed or ready for review as initial states. If the workload exceeds 30 days, move lower-priority items to a backlog rather than compressing verification. ### 10. Define measurement without false attribution Where baseline data exists, propose pre-change and post-change checks using consistent date ranges, page groups, query sets, and filters. Possible indicators include indexability, crawl coverage, internal inlinks, valid structured-data items, engagement with improved navigation, impressions for relevant query groups, and documented AI-answer observations. Account for seasonality, algorithm changes, campaigns, migrations, and reporting lag. Do not treat an AI-answer appearance as stable, exhaustive, or caused by a single change. ## Required deliverable Return the audit in this order: 1. Audit Scope and Evidence-Access Mode 2. Input Sufficiency, Exclusions, and Blocking Questions 3. Evidence Ledger 4. Executive Findings, separating confirmed observations from hypotheses 5. Entity Clarity and Trust Assessment 6. Topical Coverage Map and Overlap Decisions 7. Claim and Source-Gap Register 8. Internal-Link Findings and Proposed Link Map 9. Structured-Data Inventory and Recommendations 10. Citation-Ready Page Improvements 11. Prioritized Recommendation Register 12. 30-Day Controlled Implementation Plan 13. Measurement and Verification Plan 14. Conflict, Unknown, and Blocked-Work Register 15. Human Review and Approval Handoff In the handoff, distinguish: - Ready for human review - Blocked by missing evidence - Requires specialist review - Requires implementation approval - Requires post-implementation validation ## Final verification Before returning the audit, confirm that: - Every confirmed material finding traces to an evidence ID. - Sitewide language is used only when sitewide evidence supports it. - Supplied facts, direct observations, assumptions, hypotheses, unknowns, and conflicts remain distinct. - No source, metric, page inspection, crawl, validator result, implementation, test, approval, or publication is invented. - No recommendation is described as fixed, implemented, validated, approved, measured, or complete without corresponding execution evidence. - Entity clarity, topical coverage, source support, internal linking, structured data, and citation-ready presentation are all addressed or explicitly marked blocked. - Proposed schema matches visible content and does not imply guaranteed search features. - The 30-day plan includes owners, approval gates, evidence-based checks, and recovery steps proportionate to each change. - No ranking, AI Overview, answer-engine citation, indexing, traffic, or rich-result outcome is guaranteed. ## Step 5 — Create citation-ready refresh briefs **Prompt** Evidence-Grounded AI Overview Citation Brief for Blog Posts **Instructions** Turn the evidence, intent, and authority findings into page-level briefs with clear structure, answer-ready sections, trust signals, citation guidance, and quality controls suitable for editorial production. **Input for this step** Provide the existing page, approved sources, intent-gap analysis, entity and authority findings, target audience, brand requirements, and conversion objective. **Carry forward** Pass the writer-ready briefs, approved evidence references, proposed claims, section structures, and related-topic needs to internal-link planning. **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000084 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/ai-overview-citation-brief-blog-posts **Prompt content** ## Objective Create a citation-ready content brief for a new or existing blog post. Improve its usefulness, search-intent fit, factual support, answer clarity, internal linking, and machine-readable structure without claiming or implying guaranteed inclusion in AI Overviews, answer engines, featured snippets, or search results. ## Inputs Primary query: [Primary query] Secondary queries: [Secondary queries] Article topic: [Article topic] Article content: [Article content] Audience and market: [Audience and market] Intended search intent: [Intended search intent] Competitor evidence: [Competitor evidence] Approved sources: [Approved sources] Internal link inventory: [Internal link inventory] Brand and editorial rules: [Brand and editorial rules] Business or expert evidence: [Business or expert evidence] Publication constraints: [Publication constraints] Definition of done: [Definition of done] Tool access mode: [Tool access mode] ## Input and access rules Treat the primary query, article topic, article content or a clear net-new instruction, audience and market, intended search intent, and definition of done as blocking inputs. If any is missing or materially contradictory, ask up to five focused clarification questions before creating the full brief. Competitor evidence, approved sources, internal link inventory, brand rules, business evidence, and publication constraints are optional but materially improve reliability. If optional material is missing, proceed only where safe, label the limitation, and recommend what the editor should supply. Preserve unresolved conflicts instead of silently choosing a version. Use ChatGPT to analyze supplied text, uploaded files, and pages it can actually access under the stated tool access mode. A URL by itself is not proof that its page was inspected. If browsing or file access is unavailable, do not claim to have opened, crawled, validated, or compared those materials. Do not infer live rankings, search volumes, traffic, schema deployment, indexation, or AI Overview presence without direct evidence. Before analysis, list the materials actually inspected and those supplied but inaccessible. Distinguish: - Supplied fact: explicitly present in the inputs - Observed evidence: directly visible in accessible material - Assumption: a bounded working interpretation - Hypothesis: a recommendation requiring validation - Unknown: information not available - Conflict: incompatible supplied or observed information Do not invent quotations, statistics, authors, publication dates, URLs, competitor findings, expert credentials, or first-party results. When no suitable source has been supplied or inspected, recommend a source type or research target rather than fabricating a citation. ## Editorial and authority boundaries This is an analysis and drafting assignment only. Do not edit a CMS, publish content, add links, deploy schema, contact experts, approve claims, or represent that any recommendation has been implemented. Mark all such actions as proposed and requiring editorial authorization. Do not expose confidential business information, unpublished personal data, credentials, or unnecessary personal identifiers. Flag legal, medical, financial, safety, regulatory, or other high-consequence claims for qualified human review. Stop and request clarification if the requested article depends on unverifiable allegations, deceptive attribution, fabricated expertise, or unsupported performance claims. ## Analysis workflow ### 1. Reconcile the brief Summarize the article state, audience, market, desired outcome, constraints, and known evidence. Identify contradictions, inaccessible materials, and assumptions that affect the analysis. State whether the assignment is a net-new brief, a refresh, or a partial audit. ### 2. Diagnose search intent and answer requirements Assess the dominant and secondary intent using the supplied evidence. Explain: - The searcher's primary question and likely follow-up questions - The most useful response format, such as definition, comparison, process, troubleshooting guide, or decision framework - Essential concepts, entities, attributes, examples, and decision criteria - Appropriate depth for the audience and market - Likely intent mismatches, vague sections, or unnecessary detours If intent is inferred rather than supported by accessible search or competitor evidence, label it as an inference. ### 3. Establish the citation-worthy angle Define the central answer, differentiated value, and editorial thesis. Explain how first-party expertise, original examples, documented processes, or defensible data could improve the article. Do not treat novelty alone as evidence or copy competitor framing. ### 4. Build a claim and evidence plan Identify consequential, quantitative, time-sensitive, comparative, definitional, and expert claims that require support. For each claim, specify: - Proposed wording or claim scope - Article section - Evidence needed - Best source class - Available source or research target - Currency requirement - Current status: supported, partially supported, unsupported, conflicting, or unverifiable - Editorial action Prefer primary and authoritative sources where appropriate, including official documentation, standards bodies, regulators, peer-reviewed research, original datasets, and clearly attributed first-party evidence. Industry reports, expert commentary, and case studies may supplement primary evidence but should not be presented as stronger than their methods allow. When an accessible source is evaluated, record its title, publisher or author, URL or file name, publication or update date when available, and the specific claim it supports. Note methodological, geographic, commercial, or date limitations. ### 5. Design the article structure Recommend: - SEO title direction and two candidate titles - One H1 - A concise introduction angle - A sequenced H2 and H3 outline - The reader question answered by each major section - Evidence or examples required in each section - A key-takeaway or summary box - A conclusion and next-step angle - FAQs only when they address genuine follow-up intent not already answered adequately Avoid repetitive headings, keyword stuffing, unsupported superlatives, and sections included solely to imitate competitors. ### 6. Draft the answer-first section Write a concise answer suitable near the top of the article, normally 50 to 90 words unless the supplied format requires otherwise. Make it understandable without the rest of the post. Do not add unsupported facts. Attach evidence IDs to factual claims when support is available, and label claims that still require sourcing. ### 7. Analyze content and competitor gaps Compare the article against accessible supplied competitor evidence only. Separate observed gaps from hypothesized opportunities. Evaluate missing questions, weak explanations, absent entities, stale facts, unsupported comparisons, thin examples, and opportunities for original expertise. Do not equate competitor inclusion with correctness or recommend copying distinctive wording. Prioritize each gap by reader impact, intent importance, evidence availability, and implementation effort. ### 8. Create the internal linking plan Use only the supplied internal link inventory or pages actually accessible through permitted tool access. Recommend: - Relevant destination page - Source or target relationship - Contextual placement - Natural anchor-text options - Reader journey served - Preconditions or conflicts, including duplicate targets and potentially misleading anchors If the inventory is insufficient, provide page-topic requirements instead of inventing URLs. Distinguish links to add from links that would require inspection of other pages. ### 9. Assess schema suitability Recommend schema only when it matches visible page content and the publisher can implement it accurately. Evaluate Article or BlogPosting, BreadcrumbList, FAQPage, and HowTo only where relevant. Explain eligibility assumptions, required visible content, missing properties, and validation steps. Do not promise rich-result eligibility or visibility, and do not recommend FAQPage or HowTo merely because those formats are available. ### 10. Set implementation priorities and approvals Group recommendations into critical, high, medium, and optional priorities. For every critical or high item, provide the rationale, dependency, evidence status, responsible reviewer, and approval needed. Identify items blocked by absent evidence, inaccessible pages, expert review, legal review, or CMS access. ## Required output ### A. Brief Status State net-new, refresh, or partial audit; inspected materials; inaccessible materials; blocking issues; assumptions; and overall handoff state. Use one handoff state only: - Ready for editorial review - Ready for editorial review with assumptions - Blocked pending inputs ### B. Search Intent and Audience Diagnosis Provide the primary intent, secondary intent, audience needs, preferred answer format, essential entities and concepts, depth expectations, and avoidable failure modes. Label the evidence basis for each major conclusion. ### C. Citation-Worthy Positioning Provide the central answer, editorial thesis, differentiated value, first-party evidence opportunities, and boundaries on claims. ### D. Evidence Register Use this table: Evidence ID | Item or conclusion | Classification | Provenance | Date or currency | Intended use | Limitation or conflict ### E. Claim-to-Source Matrix Use this table: Claim or section | Importance | Evidence required | Candidate source or research target | Support status | Currency risk | Editorial action ### F. Recommended Article Architecture Provide title candidates, H1, introduction angle, detailed H2 and H3 outline, section-level reader questions, required evidence, summary box, conclusion angle, and justified FAQs. ### G. Answer-First Draft Provide the draft followed by a short list mapping its factual claims to evidence IDs or marking them as sourcing required. ### H. Content Gap Register Use this table: Gap | Evidence basis | Why it matters | Recommended addition | Reader impact | Effort | Priority | Dependency ### I. Internal Linking Plan Use this table: Page or required page topic | Link direction | Placement | Anchor options | Reader purpose | Evidence status | Approval or dependency ### J. Schema Suitability Assessment Use this table: Schema type | Suitable or not suitable | Visible-content basis | Missing requirements | Validation needed | Caveat ### K. Implementation Queue Use this table: Priority | Recommendation | Rationale | Evidence status | Owner or reviewer | Approval needed | Blocker ### L. Verification and Acceptance Matrix Check the finished brief using this table: Acceptance check | Expected condition | Actual observation | Evidence location | Status | Resolution if unmet Include at least these acceptance checks: - Search intent conclusions are supported or explicitly labeled as inferred - Every factual claim in the answer-first draft is mapped to evidence or marked as requiring a source - No inaccessible page is described as inspected - No quotation, statistic, source, or URL has been invented - Quantitative, time-sensitive, comparative, and high-consequence claims have an evidence requirement - Content gaps are distinguished as observed or hypothesized - Internal URL recommendations come from the supplied or inspected inventory - Proposed schema matches visible content and includes validation requirements - Recommendations do not guarantee rankings, rich results, citations, or AI Overview inclusion - Publication, CMS edits, outreach, and schema deployment remain explicitly unexecuted - The definition of done is met, partially met, or blocked with the discrepancy explained Use Pass, Partial, Fail, or Not verifiable as statuses. Do not mark a check Pass without pointing to evidence in the brief. Reconcile failures before finalizing when the supplied evidence permits; otherwise preserve them as unresolved. ### M. Final Editorial Handoff Summarize the highest-value changes, unresolved evidence gaps, required human approvals, and the next authorized action. Use proposed, inspected, supported, blocked, or unverified accurately. Never describe work as published, implemented, tested, approved, or verified unless that action occurred and corresponding evidence was supplied. ## Step 6 — Design the internal-link architecture **Prompt** Internal Linking Architecture Prompt **Instructions** Map contextual links among refreshed pages, supporting articles, commercial pages, and topic hubs. Specify source page, destination page, link purpose, and suggested anchor direction without forcing irrelevant links. **Input for this step** Use the refresh briefs, current URL inventory, topical clusters, priority commercial pages, and existing internal-link evidence. **Carry forward** Produce the final refresh package: prioritized briefs, source evidence, proposed claims, internal-link map, quality checks, and unresolved editorial questions. **Review note** Editors and subject-matter owners approve claims, citations, link placement, conversion language, and final copy before publication. **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000020 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/internal-linking-architecture-prompt **Prompt content** Develop an evidence-based internal linking architecture from the materials supplied below. Inputs - Primary SEO objectives: [Primary SEO Objectives] - Site URL inventory and page metadata: [Site URL Inventory] - Existing internal-link graph or crawl export: [Internal Link Evidence] - Priority URLs, page roles, and conversion priorities: [Priority Pages and Page Roles] - Search performance, indexation, and crawl evidence: [Search and Crawl Evidence] - CMS, editorial, legal, technical, and approval constraints: [Constraints and Approval Rules] - Required outcomes and acceptance thresholds: [Success Criteria] ChatGPT operating boundaries - Work only from information visible in the conversation and files ChatGPT can actually inspect. Do not imply that a live site was crawled, analytics were queried, links were changed, or pages were validated unless corresponding access and execution evidence are present. - Treat supplied exports, page content, and documented business rules as evidence. Keep facts, observations, assumptions, hypotheses, conflicts, and unknowns distinguishable. - Recommend changes, but do not claim to edit a CMS, publish content, remove links, alter navigation, or approve deployment. Those actions require an authorized human operator. - Do not expose credentials, personal data, unpublished commercial information, or sensitive analytics. Request redacted or aggregated evidence when raw data is unnecessary. Input gate 1. Confirm whether the URL inventory identifies, where available: URL, HTTP status, indexability, canonical target, page type, title or H1, topic, language or market, organic performance, inbound internal-link count, outbound internal-link count, and crawl depth. 2. Confirm that priority pages and their intended roles are identifiable, such as commercial or money page, product or service page, category hub, informational article, comparison page, support page, or utility page. 3. Treat a usable URL inventory plus identifiable objectives and priority pages as blocking prerequisites. If any is missing, ask only the questions required to obtain it and stop before producing page-level recommendations. 4. If current link-graph, crawl, analytics, or Search Console evidence is unavailable, bounded progress is allowed: create a provisional architecture and explicitly mark current-link diagnostics, baseline metrics, and impact estimates as unavailable or unverified. 5. If sources conflict, preserve the conflict, identify which decisions depend on it, and request resolution rather than selecting a convenient value. Analysis workflow 1. Build an evidence register. For every source, record its date or reporting period, scope, relevant fields, limitations, and whether it represents supplied fact, direct observation, or an unverified assertion. Flag stale exports, partial crawls, inconsistent URL variants, and mismatched reporting periods. 2. Normalize the inventory without silently changing it. Identify protocol, hostname, trailing-slash, parameter, case, canonical, redirect, duplicate, noindex, and non-200 variants. Keep original and normalized URLs traceable. 3. Classify pages by template, search intent, topical cluster, funnel role, business priority, indexability, and canonical status. Mark uncertain classifications and pages that appear to compete for the same intent. 4. Diagnose the current architecture using only available evidence. Assess orphan or near-orphan pages, excessive click depth, weak hub-to-spoke and spoke-to-hub paths, dead-end pages, links to redirects or error pages, noncanonical destinations, irrelevant cross-cluster links, overlinked templates, isolated priority pages, anchor-text concentration, generic anchors, and internal competition or cannibalization risk. 5. Separate navigational, breadcrumb, footer, faceted, related-content, and contextual body links when the evidence permits. Do not treat every sitewide template link as equivalent to an editorially relevant contextual link. 6. Design the target architecture. Define topical hubs and supporting clusters, parent-child and sibling relationships, routes from high-authority or frequently crawled pages to priority destinations, and useful return paths. Preserve user intent and information scent; do not recommend links solely to manipulate ranking signals. 7. Evaluate each proposed link for source-page relevance, destination intent, user usefulness, indexability, canonical destination, likely placement, anchor naturalness, duplication with existing links, and editorial or template dependency. 8. Prioritize recommendations by expected strategic value, evidence confidence, implementation effort, operational risk, and dependency. Use qualitative ratings unless the supplied data supports defensible numeric scoring; explain any scoring formula used. 9. Group changes into reversible implementation batches. Identify CMS template changes separately from page-level editorial changes because their blast radius, ownership, testing, and rollback needs differ. 10. Define verification before implementation. Include baseline capture, pre-publication checks, post-deployment crawl reconciliation, page sampling, exception handling, and monitoring periods. Organic performance changes must not be attributed to internal links without a suitable baseline, elapsed time, and consideration of other changes. Guardrails and stop conditions - Do not recommend links to known 4xx or 5xx URLs, unintended redirects, noindex pages, blocked resources, or noncanonical duplicates unless documenting an explicit exception and its rationale. - Avoid deceptive anchors, repetitive exact-match anchor stuffing, irrelevant cross-topic links, accessibility-hostile wording, or links added only for bots. - Do not remove legally required, accessibility, account, support, safety, or conversion-critical links merely because they appear to dilute internal authority. - Flag recommendations affecting global navigation, breadcrumbs, faceted navigation, localization, pagination, or shared templates for technical SEO and product-owner review. - Require an approved change set, a recoverable backup or version history, staging or controlled preview where available, named implementation ownership, and a rollback path before bulk changes. - Stop and escalate when the inventory contains widespread canonical or indexation conflicts, the intended ranking page is disputed, proposed destinations are scheduled for migration or retirement, or access evidence is insufficient to determine whether a change is safe. Required deliverable A. Scope and evidence register Provide the analyzed scope, exclusions, reporting dates, evidence sources, source limitations, unresolved conflicts, blocking gaps, assumptions, and an overall confidence assessment. B. Page-role and cluster map Create a table with: cluster, page or pattern, normalized URL, page role, primary intent, parent hub, supported priority page, indexability or canonical status, business priority, classification confidence, and notes. C. Current-state diagnostic Report evidence-supported findings for orphaning, click depth, inbound and outbound link distribution, broken or redirected destinations, hub-spoke coverage, anchor patterns, dead ends, and cross-cluster leakage. For each finding include the evidence, affected scope, consequence, confidence, and whether it is measured, inferred, unavailable, or disputed. D. Target architecture Describe the proposed hub, spoke, sibling, breadcrumb, navigational, and contextual-link relationships. Explain how users and crawlers should reach each priority page, which existing structures should remain unchanged, and the trade-offs among relevance, crawlability, user experience, editorial burden, and template scale. E. Link recommendation register Provide one row per recommendation with: recommendation ID, source URL or page pattern, destination URL, source and destination roles, relationship type, suggested placement, anchor guidance with acceptable variants, user rationale, SEO rationale, supporting evidence, current-link status, priority, confidence, owner, dependency, implementation method, risk, approval required, and status. Use statuses such as proposed, blocked, approved, implemented, verified, rejected, or exception; never infer a later status without evidence. F. Remediation and exception register List broken-link fixes, redirect-target updates, orphan-page remedies, links requiring removal or consolidation, noncanonical destinations, and intentionally unlinked or low-priority pages. Include evidence, recommended disposition, risk, decision owner, and unresolved questions. G. Implementation batches and controls Sequence low-risk page edits, higher-impact template changes, and deferred items. For each batch provide prerequisites, owner, approval point, preview or staging check, expected affected scope, rollback method, and evidence required to mark it implemented. H. Verification matrix For every acceptance check provide: check, baseline or expected result, verification method, required evidence, actual result if execution evidence is supplied, status, exception, and owner. At minimum verify: - recommendation URLs reconcile to the normalized inventory; - proposed destinations are valid, indexable, and canonical unless an approved exception exists; - priority pages have relevant discovery paths meeting the supplied success thresholds; - orphan and excessive-depth findings are resolved or recorded as approved exceptions; - anchors are descriptive, varied where appropriate, and contextually accurate; - contextual recommendations are not falsely counted as existing links; - template changes do not create unintended sitewide duplication or links from irrelevant page types; - implemented counts reconcile with the approved recommendation register; - a post-change crawl or equivalent inspection confirms destination status, link presence, crawl depth, and unexpected regressions. If no implementation or post-change evidence exists, show actual results as unavailable and keep checks pending or unverified. I. Decision and handoff summary State what can proceed, what requires approval, what is blocked, which assumptions have the highest consequence, the smallest safe next action, and the exact evidence needed for the next status transition. Completion language Use “proposed” for unexecuted recommendations. Use “implemented,” “tested,” “verified,” or “approved” only when the supplied materials show the corresponding action, actor, date, scope, and result. Never present forecast ranking gains as measured outcomes. ## Completion criteria Priority pages have documented refresh rationales, current source evidence, search-intent and authority findings, writer-ready citation briefs, and mapped internal links. Claims, sources, editorial decisions, and publication approvals require review by the responsible editor and relevant subject-matter or legal reviewer. # Evidence-Backed SEO and AI Search Content Refresh Workflow ID: AMO-W-000006 Workflow URL: https://amo.ng/workflows/evidence-backed-seo-and-ai-search-content-refresh Use this Amo.ng workflow with your preferred AI tool. Complete the steps in order and carry the specified output forward. Outcome: A prioritized, writer-ready content refresh package designed to improve intent alignment, trust, topical authority, internal discovery, and readiness for conventional and AI-assisted search. Required inputs: - Current URL inventory and available page performance data - Target topics, keywords, audiences, and conversion goals - Existing page copy, metadata, and internal links - Competitor or SERP evidence where available - Brand, editorial, legal, and citation standards ## Step 1 — Prioritize pages for refresh **Instructions** Audit the supplied content inventory to identify pages worth updating based on freshness, intent match, structure, performance, and conversion opportunity. Rank pages and state the evidence behind each priority. **Input for this step** Provide URLs, publication and update dates, page copy, available traffic or conversion observations, target topics, and known business priorities. **Carry forward** Pass the ranked refresh backlog, page-level issues, opportunity rationale, and missing evidence requirements to source research. **Review note** An SEO or content owner approves the priority pages so research effort is focused on material opportunities. **Prompt** Content Refresh Audit Prompt **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000019 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/content-refresh-audit-prompt ## Step 2 — Build a current evidence pack **Instructions** Gather and organize current source evidence for each approved page, including changed facts, new competitors, intent shifts, and citation gaps. Preserve source links, dates, and uncertainty. **Input for this step** Use the approved page backlog and its evidence requirements. Add target queries, geographic or industry scope, recency requirements, and acceptable source standards. **Carry forward** Pass the source pack, changed facts, competitor evidence, citation gaps, and unresolved claims to the search-intent analysis. **Review note** An editor reviews consequential facts, weak or conflicting sources, and any claims requiring subject-matter or legal validation. **Prompt** Content Refresh Evidence Pack With Sources **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000138 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/content-refresh-evidence-pack-sources ## Step 3 — Analyze search-intent gaps **Instructions** Compare target keywords and current page approaches against observed SERP intent. Identify missing angles, formats, trust signals, and mismatches between user needs and existing content. **Input for this step** Provide each page, target queries, the current evidence pack, relevant SERP observations, audience context, and conversion goal. **Carry forward** Pass the intent classification, missing sections, format recommendations, trust requirements, and query-to-page guidance to the authority audit. **Prompt** Search Intent Gap Analysis Prompt **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000017 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/search-intent-gap-analysis-prompt ## Step 4 — Audit entity authority and source gaps **Instructions** Assess whether the brand, site, and topic have clear entity signals, sufficient source support, internal structure, and topical coverage for AI search visibility. Prioritize authority gaps that the refresh can realistically address. **Input for this step** Use the page inventory, source evidence, intent findings, existing site structure, brand information, and known external references. **Carry forward** Pass the entity-clarity findings, source gaps, structural issues, and prioritized authority recommendations to brief creation. **Prompt** Evidence-Grounded AI Search Entity Authority and Source Gap Audit **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000091 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/ai-search-entity-authority-source-gap-audit ## Step 5 — Create citation-ready refresh briefs **Instructions** Turn the evidence, intent, and authority findings into page-level briefs with clear structure, answer-ready sections, trust signals, citation guidance, and quality controls suitable for editorial production. **Input for this step** Provide the existing page, approved sources, intent-gap analysis, entity and authority findings, target audience, brand requirements, and conversion objective. **Carry forward** Pass the writer-ready briefs, approved evidence references, proposed claims, section structures, and related-topic needs to internal-link planning. **Prompt** Evidence-Grounded AI Overview Citation Brief for Blog Posts **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000084 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/ai-overview-citation-brief-blog-posts ## Step 6 — Design the internal-link architecture **Instructions** Map contextual links among refreshed pages, supporting articles, commercial pages, and topic hubs. Specify source page, destination page, link purpose, and suggested anchor direction without forcing irrelevant links. **Input for this step** Use the refresh briefs, current URL inventory, topical clusters, priority commercial pages, and existing internal-link evidence. **Carry forward** Produce the final refresh package: prioritized briefs, source evidence, proposed claims, internal-link map, quality checks, and unresolved editorial questions. **Review note** Editors and subject-matter owners approve claims, citations, link placement, conversion language, and final copy before publication. **Prompt** Internal Linking Architecture Prompt **Prompt ID** AMO-P-000020 **Prompt URL** https://amo.ng/prompts/internal-linking-architecture-prompt Completion criteria: Priority pages have documented refresh rationales, current source evidence, search-intent and authority findings, writer-ready citation briefs, and mapped internal links. Claims, sources, editorial decisions, and publication approvals require review by the responsible editor and relevant subject-matter or legal reviewer.Copy workflow includes every step and the full linked Prompt content. Use with AI copies a shorter guide with Prompt links; neither action runs the Workflow.
Outcome
A prioritized, writer-ready content refresh package designed to improve intent alignment, trust, topical authority, internal discovery, and readiness for conventional and AI-assisted search.
Before you begin
Have all or some of the following available before you start. The more relevant context you can provide, the stronger the workflow output will be.
- Current URL inventory and available page performance data
- Target topics, keywords, audiences, and conversion goals
- Existing page copy, metadata, and internal links
- Competitor or SERP evidence where available
- Brand, editorial, legal, and citation standards
Ordered sequence
Workflow steps
Complete the steps in order. For each step, provide the listed context, carry its result into the next step, and pause wherever a review note is shown.
-
Step 1 Prioritize pages for refresh
Audit the supplied content inventory to identify pages worth updating based on freshness, intent match, structure, performance, and conversion opportunity. Rank pages and state the evidence behind each priority.
Prompt: Content Refresh Audit PromptInput for this step
Provide URLs, publication and update dates, page copy, available traffic or conversion observations, target topics, and known business priorities.
Carry forward
Pass the ranked refresh backlog, page-level issues, opportunity rationale, and missing evidence requirements to source research.
Review note
An SEO or content owner approves the priority pages so research effort is focused on material opportunities.
-
Step 2 Build a current evidence pack
Gather and organize current source evidence for each approved page, including changed facts, new competitors, intent shifts, and citation gaps. Preserve source links, dates, and uncertainty.
Prompt: Content Refresh Evidence Pack With SourcesInput for this step
Use the approved page backlog and its evidence requirements. Add target queries, geographic or industry scope, recency requirements, and acceptable source standards.
Carry forward
Pass the source pack, changed facts, competitor evidence, citation gaps, and unresolved claims to the search-intent analysis.
Review note
An editor reviews consequential facts, weak or conflicting sources, and any claims requiring subject-matter or legal validation.
-
Step 3 Analyze search-intent gaps
Compare target keywords and current page approaches against observed SERP intent. Identify missing angles, formats, trust signals, and mismatches between user needs and existing content.
Prompt: Search Intent Gap Analysis PromptInput for this step
Provide each page, target queries, the current evidence pack, relevant SERP observations, audience context, and conversion goal.
Carry forward
Pass the intent classification, missing sections, format recommendations, trust requirements, and query-to-page guidance to the authority audit.
-
Step 4 Audit entity authority and source gaps
Assess whether the brand, site, and topic have clear entity signals, sufficient source support, internal structure, and topical coverage for AI search visibility. Prioritize authority gaps that the refresh can realistically address.
Prompt: Evidence-Grounded AI Search Entity Authority and Source Gap AuditInput for this step
Use the page inventory, source evidence, intent findings, existing site structure, brand information, and known external references.
Carry forward
Pass the entity-clarity findings, source gaps, structural issues, and prioritized authority recommendations to brief creation.
-
Step 5 Create citation-ready refresh briefs
Turn the evidence, intent, and authority findings into page-level briefs with clear structure, answer-ready sections, trust signals, citation guidance, and quality controls suitable for editorial production.
Prompt: Evidence-Grounded AI Overview Citation Brief for Blog PostsInput for this step
Provide the existing page, approved sources, intent-gap analysis, entity and authority findings, target audience, brand requirements, and conversion objective.
Carry forward
Pass the writer-ready briefs, approved evidence references, proposed claims, section structures, and related-topic needs to internal-link planning.
-
Step 6 Design the internal-link architecture
Map contextual links among refreshed pages, supporting articles, commercial pages, and topic hubs. Specify source page, destination page, link purpose, and suggested anchor direction without forcing irrelevant links.
Prompt: Internal Linking Architecture PromptInput for this step
Use the refresh briefs, current URL inventory, topical clusters, priority commercial pages, and existing internal-link evidence.
Carry forward
Produce the final refresh package: prioritized briefs, source evidence, proposed claims, internal-link map, quality checks, and unresolved editorial questions.
Review note
Editors and subject-matter owners approve claims, citations, link placement, conversion language, and final copy before publication.
Completion criteria
Priority pages have documented refresh rationales, current source evidence, search-intent and authority findings, writer-ready citation briefs, and mapped internal links. Claims, sources, editorial decisions, and publication approvals require review by the responsible editor and relevant subject-matter or legal reviewer.
Was this useful?
Related Workflows
Browse WorkflowsDeliver a Marketing Website from Approved Brief to Release Gate
Turn supplied offer and search evidence into an approved landing-page brief, implement that brief in an authorized repository, verify the actual change set, and prepare release and rollback controls without deploying it.