AI Prompt Library for SEO

Act as a senior technical SEO consultant. Audit the following page for on-page SEO and AI-search readiness.

URL: [PASTE URL]
Target query: [PRIMARY KEYWORD]
Page HTML or full text: [PASTE CONTENT]

Evaluate: title tag and meta description quality, heading hierarchy, whether the opening paragraph directly answers the target query in the first 60 words, internal link opportunities, structured data gaps, and how easily an AI engine could extract and cite a self-contained answer from this page.

Return: a prioritized issue list (critical / important / minor), the specific fix for each issue, and a rewritten title + meta description + opening paragraph.

Create a detailed content brief for an article targeting: [PRIMARY KEYWORD]

Audience: [WHO READS THIS AND WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW]
Search intent: [informational / commercial / comparison]
Our angle or unique data: [WHAT WE KNOW THAT COMPETITORS DON'T]

The brief must include: a working title under 60 characters, a meta description under 160 characters, an H2 outline where each H2 is a question or claim (not a vague label), the specific point each section must prove, 5 FAQ questions real users ask, entities and terms that must appear for topical completeness, and 8-12 internal link ideas described by topic.

Format the opening section so its first 40-60 words directly answer the main query — it should survive being quoted alone by an AI engine.

Cluster the following keywords by search intent and topic.

Keywords:
[PASTE KEYWORD LIST, ONE PER LINE]

Rules: group keywords that one page could rank for together; separate informational from commercial intent even when wording is similar; name each cluster with its head term; flag keywords that deserve their own dedicated page; flag keywords that are too ambiguous to target.

Return a table: cluster name | intent | keywords | recommended page type (guide, comparison, landing page, glossary entry) | priority (high/medium/low) with one-line justification.

Write 5 title tag options (under 60 characters) and 3 meta description options (under 160 characters) for this page.

Page topic: [TOPIC]
Target query: [PRIMARY KEYWORD]
What makes this page different: [DIFFERENTIATOR]
Brand name to append: [BRAND]

Rules: the target query or a close variant must appear in each title, front-loaded where natural; no clickbait, no unsubstantiated superlatives; each description must state a concrete benefit or takeaway, not describe the page ("Learn about X" is banned).

Then validate them in the free meta tag generator at plain-intelligence.com/resources/tools/seo-meta-tag-generator/ to check pixel-safe lengths.

Read the following article and generate 5 FAQ entries optimized for answer engines.

Article: [PASTE ARTICLE TEXT]

Rules: questions must be phrased the way real users type or speak them; each answer must be 40-80 words, self-contained (understandable without the article), and start with the direct answer before any nuance; do not repeat information across answers; do not invent facts not present in the article.

Return the 5 Q&A pairs, then the same content as valid FAQPage JSON-LD.

Generate JSON-LD structured data for this page.

Page type: [Article / FAQ / Product / LocalBusiness / Organization]
Page URL: [URL]
Page content: [PASTE KEY DETAILS OR FULL TEXT]

Rules: only include properties whose values actually appear in the content I gave you — never fabricate dates, ratings, prices, or author names; use ISO 8601 for dates; nest publisher/author objects correctly; if two schema types apply, combine them in one @graph.

Return only the final script tag, then a bullet list of any recommended properties I should add data for.

I want to understand why AI engines cite competitors instead of my page for this query.

Query: [QUERY]
My page: [PASTE MY PAGE TEXT OR URL]
Competitor page that gets cited: [PASTE COMPETITOR TEXT OR URL]

Compare the two pages on: directness of the answer (how many words before the query is answered), extractability (self-contained passages an engine can lift), factual density (specific numbers, dates, named entities per section), structure (headings that match sub-questions), and evidence of expertise (first-hand data, named author).

Return: the 3 biggest gaps, and the specific rewrite for my page's weakest section.

Analyze this published article and tell me exactly what to update to make it current and more competitive.

Article (published [ORIGINAL DATE]): [PASTE ARTICLE]
Today's date: [DATE]
What changed in this space since publication: [ANY KNOWN CHANGES, OR "unsure - flag likely stale claims"]

Identify: claims and statistics that are likely outdated, sections a current top-ranking page would have that this one lacks, questions readers now ask that the article ignores, and internal links to add.

Return a prioritized change list with the exact new text for the two highest-impact edits. Do not suggest rewriting sections that are still accurate — preserve what works.

Find internal linking opportunities for this article.

Article text: [PASTE ARTICLE]
My site's other pages (URL — topic, one per line):
[PASTE LIST]

Rules: suggest links only where the surrounding sentence genuinely relates to the target page; anchor text must be descriptive (no "click here", no exact-match keyword stuffing); maximum one link to any single target; prefer linking from specific claims to the page that supports them.

Return a table: sentence or phrase in my article | target URL | suggested anchor text | why this link helps the reader. Then flag any of my listed pages that this article should NOT link to, with the reason.

Audit this page for E-E-A-T signals the way a search quality rater would.

Page text: [PASTE PAGE]
Author info available on the site: [BIO, CREDENTIALS, OR "none published"]
Page type: [article / product review / YMYL (medical, financial, legal) / other]

Evaluate: evidence of first-hand experience (specific details only a practitioner would know), demonstrated expertise (accurate, current, appropriately nuanced claims), authoritativeness (author identity, citations to primary sources), and trust (contact info, disclosures, verifiable claims).

Return: strong / adequate / weak for each of the four dimensions with the specific evidence found or missing, and the 3 changes that would most improve trust. Do not suggest inventing credentials or experience — only surfacing what genuinely exists.

Analyze the search intent behind this query and tell me what page would satisfy it.

Query: [QUERY]
What currently ranks (titles or pasted results): [PASTE TOP RESULTS, OR "unknown"]

Determine: the dominant intent (informational / commercial investigation / transactional / navigational), whether intent is mixed and in what proportion, the searcher's likely situation and prior knowledge, the format the current results suggest is preferred (guide, list, comparison, tool, product page), and the questions the searcher will have immediately after this one.

Return: a one-paragraph intent summary, the page type I should build, and the 3 things that page must do in its first screen to satisfy the intent.

Create a brief for an honest "[OPTION A] vs [OPTION B]" comparison page.

What I know about A: [FACTS, PRICING, LIMITS]
What I know about B: [FACTS, PRICING, LIMITS]
My relationship to either option: [none / affiliate / it's my product — must be disclosed]
Audience: [WHO IS DECIDING, AND WHAT THEY'RE DECIDING BETWEEN]

The brief must include: a verdict-first opening (40-60 words naming which option suits which user — no fence-sitting), a comparison table using only criteria that actually differentiate them (skip criteria where they tie), "choose A if / choose B if" sections, pricing reality including gotchas, and 5 FAQs deciders actually ask.

Rules: every factual claim must trace to what I provided or be flagged [VERIFY]; disclose any relationship in the opening; no fabricated ratings, review counts, or user numbers.

Help me decide which AI crawlers to allow or block for my site.

Site type and business model: [e.g., publisher earning from ads / SaaS earning from signups / portfolio]
My goal: [be cited in AI answers / protect content from training / mixed]
Current robots.txt: [PASTE, OR "default - allow all"]

Explain the trade-off for MY situation: which bots feed AI answers that can send referral traffic (search and retrieval bots), which are training-only crawlers, and what blocking each one actually costs or protects. Cover at minimum: GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, and CCBot.

Return: a recommended per-bot allow/block list with one-line reasoning for each, the exact robots.txt lines to add, and what to re-check in 6 months. If a recommendation depends on facts you don't have, say so instead of guessing.

Turn this SEO data into a plain-English report a non-SEO stakeholder will actually read.

Data (paste from GA4 / Search Console / rank tracker): [PASTE NUMBERS]
Period compared: [e.g., June vs May]
What we changed this period: [WORK SHIPPED]
Audience: [CEO / client / wider team]

Rules: lead with the one-sentence answer to "is this working?"; translate every metric into what it means for the business, never just restate it; separate "what happened" from "what we'll do about it"; if the data can't support a conclusion, say so plainly rather than spinning it; no jargon without a one-line explanation.

Return a 5-section report: headline verdict, what improved, what declined and why (or "cause unclear"), what we're doing next, and what we need from you.