SEO prompts built around real decisions.

Act as a senior SEO strategist, content architect, and subject-matter editor. Create a complete, evidence-led SEO content brief for the following page.

INPUTS
- Primary topic or query: [TARGET KEYWORD]
- Audience and level of knowledge: [AUDIENCE]
- Country, language, or market: [MARKET]
- Business objective and desired conversion: [BUSINESS GOAL]
- Product, service, or website context: [ADD CONTEXT]
- Existing pages that may overlap: [PASTE URLS OR TITLES]
- First-party evidence available: [CUSTOMER QUESTIONS, DATA, EXPERT NOTES]
- Verified SERP or competitor observations: [PASTE MANUAL RESEARCH OR WRITE NONE]

PHASE 1 — DIAGNOSIS
1. Restate the search problem in plain language.
2. Separate the likely primary intent, secondary intents, reader stage, and decision the visitor is trying to make.
3. Identify what must be manually validated in the live search results. Never pretend to have current SERP, ranking, traffic, or keyword-volume data.
4. Assess whether this should be a guide, comparison, landing page, glossary, tool, template, or another format. Explain the choice.
5. Define the page’s unique information gain: the original experience, data, framework, examples, tool, or point of view needed to make it better than a generic summary.

PHASE 2 — CONTENT SPECIFICATION
Return:
- Three accurate title-tag options with different angles
- A recommended H1 and concise meta description
- A one-sentence editorial promise
- A detailed H2/H3 outline in the order a reader needs it
- The purpose of every major section
- Questions each section must answer
- Entities, concepts, definitions, and comparisons to cover naturally
- Evidence required: first-party experience, expert input, examples, screenshots, data, sources, or demonstrations
- Claims that require verification or citation
- Recommended tables, checklists, diagrams, calculators, templates, or interactive elements
- What to exclude to avoid scope drift and keyword cannibalization

PHASE 3 — SITE INTEGRATION
Create an internal-link plan with:
- Relevant pages that should link to this page
- Pages this article should link to
- Natural anchor concepts
- Reader reason for each link
- Potential overlap, merge, redirect, or refresh decisions

PHASE 4 — TRUST AND CONVERSION
Define:
- Author expertise or review evidence the page should display
- Transparency notes and limitations
- A primary and secondary call to action matched to search intent
- Objections or anxieties to address before the CTA
- Accessibility and mobile-reading requirements

PHASE 5 — ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Finish with:
- A prioritized production checklist
- A fact-check checklist
- An originality and helpfulness checklist
- Five ways this page could fail
- The analytics events and Search Console signals to review after publication
- A 30/60/90-day refresh plan

Do not draft the full article. Do not invent live data. Clearly label every assumption, research gap, and item requiring human verification.

REVIEWED EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Act as a senior SEO strategist and information architect. Build a semantic topical map for [CORE TOPIC] for [AUDIENCE]. The site offers [SITE OFFER]. Existing relevant pages: [EXISTING PAGES]. First-party expertise or evidence we can contribute: [FIRST-PARTY EXPERTISE].

Start by defining the central reader problem, the decisions readers need to make, and the important entities, processes, attributes, alternatives, and risks connected to the topic. Group the coverage into a small number of coherent clusters. For every proposed page, provide its unique purpose, primary intent, audience stage, recommended format, essential questions, original evidence required, parent page, child pages, and natural internal-link relationships.

Identify pages that would overlap, compete, or add little value. Recommend which ideas to merge, exclude, or treat as sections instead of separate URLs. Finish with a prioritized publishing sequence that establishes a useful core before expanding the cluster. Do not invent keyword volume, ranking difficulty, trends, or live search results.

REVIEWED EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.

Create an original-evidence content plan for [TOPIC] aimed at [AUDIENCE] and supporting [BUSINESS GOAL]. Available experience: [AVAILABLE EXPERIENCE]. Available data, examples, screenshots, interviews, or tests: [DATA OR EXAMPLES].

Separate what we know directly from what requires research. Propose five content assets that use our evidence to answer a meaningful reader question better than a generic summary could. For each asset, define the unique claim or lesson, the evidence needed, the practical deliverable for the reader, the best page format, the fact-checking requirements, and the internal pages that should support it.

Include a plan for obtaining missing first-party evidence through small tests, interviews, demonstrations, or analysis. Reject ideas that rely mainly on rewriting existing articles. Finish with a quality rubric covering originality, accuracy, completeness, transparency, usefulness, and maintenance.

REVIEWED EXECUTION PROTOCOL
1. Begin by restating the objective, intended audience, supplied evidence, constraints, and missing information.
2. Ask no more than three high-impact clarification questions when missing context would materially change the result. Otherwise continue with clearly labeled assumptions.
3. Work from the supplied facts. Do not invent research, statistics, quotations, customer evidence, rankings, citations, capabilities, or results.
4. Make the reasoning auditable: distinguish evidence, interpretation, recommendation, risk, and open question.
5. Produce a decision-ready deliverable, not generic advice. Prioritize the most valuable actions and explain the trade-offs.
6. Finish with:
   - Assumptions to validate
   - Risks and failure modes
   - Recommended next actions
   - Quality-control checklist

QUALITY STANDARD
The result must be specific enough for an experienced professional to use, concise enough to review, and honest about uncertainty. Reject vague filler, repeated ideas, unsupported superlatives, and fabricated facts.