1. Define the reader problem
A page begins with a task or decision, not a target word count. We check whether an existing page already answers the same need before creating another URL.
Editorial methodology
How we turn AI topics into accountable, useful guides.
This is the public standard used to select, write, review, update, and retire content on Intelligence Prompting. It also explains exactly what our prompt review does—and does not—prove.
2. Build a source map
Material technical and policy claims are mapped to current primary sources. Secondary sources may provide context but do not replace official documentation for changing product facts.
3. Add information gain
The draft must contribute a useful framework, comparison criteria, worked example, checklist, template, or evaluation method. A rewritten summary is not enough.
4. Review the workflow
Prompt templates are checked for task clarity, required inputs, evidence handling, output format, uncertainty, permissions, and a practical review step.
5. State limitations
We identify what was not benchmarked or tested, which facts can change, and when specialist review, security testing, or human approval is still required.
6. Publish, monitor, and correct
The editor checks the final page, internal links, metadata, source links, and presentation. Material corrections are made promptly and the modified date changes only for substantive updates.
Prompt review standard
Reviewed does not mean universally proven.
A reviewed prompt has a defined task, explicit inputs, a usable output contract, safeguards against unsupported claims, and a human quality check. It is not guaranteed to behave identically across models, languages, tools, or future versions.
When an article includes a real test or benchmark, it must disclose the task set, model and version, settings, date, evaluation rubric, and important limitations. Otherwise we describe the material as a template, example, or editorial framework—not a validated result.
Publication standard
Six principles applied to every indexable page.
Narrow scope
Every page must solve a defined reader problem. We remove pages that exist only to target a keyword or repeat another article.
Primary evidence
Technical and policy claims are checked against official specifications, product documentation, standards bodies, or original research whenever possible.
Visible limits
We state what was not tested, what can change, and where professional or domain review is still required.
Practical information gain
A guide should add a decision framework, worked example, checklist, template, or evaluation method—not only summarize definitions.
Human accountability
AI may support drafting and analysis, but a named editor selects the scope, checks claims, revises the argument, and owns publication decisions.
Correction and maintenance
Material errors are corrected promptly. Pages are updated when official sources, product behavior, or the recommended workflow changes.
Corrections and commercial independence
Readers can challenge the work.
To report an error, send the page URL, the statement in question, and a supporting source to contact@sebdomains.com. Material corrections are updated in the article and its modified date. Minor spelling changes do not receive a new date.
Advertising does not determine topics, conclusions, or source selection. Paid placement is not accepted inside editorial guides. Any future sponsorship or affiliate relationship will be labeled where it appears.
About the editor