SEO Prompts

Produce an SEO content brief for [company or website], targeting the primary keyword [keyword] (Intent: [informational, commercial, transactional]). Secondary keywords: [secondary keywords]. Target audience: [audience]. Internal pages to link to: [relevant existing pages].

The brief must include: a unique angle compared to current top-ranking results (SERP landscape: [what you know about the SERP]), a title tag (under 60 characters), a meta description (under 155 characters), a complete Hn structure with specific points and estimated word count for each section, a FAQ section addressing common queries, key entities and lexical terms to include, internal links with recommended anchor text, and E-E-A-T signals to highlight (author expertise, primary sources, proof points).

Target length: justify based on search intent rather than an arbitrary word count.

A page on my site is stuck at [average position] for the keyword [keyword] since [duration]. URL: [URL]. Current content or structure: [page content or Hn]. Search Console data: [impressions, clicks, CTR if known]. Competitors ranking above: [what you know about the top results].

Diagnose in order: Search Intent alignment (does the page format and content match the user need?), content completeness (missing sub-topics), title and meta tags (check for low CTR), structure and readability, and internal link equity (does the page receive enough internal links with relevant anchors?).

Provide a prioritized action plan: each item with estimated impact (High/Medium/Low), required effort, and rewritten text for short elements (Title, Meta, H1, Intro). Do not suggest keyword stuffing.

Build a semantic cluster for [site or company] on the topic [topic], with the business goal of [goal, e.g., generating leads for X service]. Primary keyword for the pillar page: [pillar keyword]. Constraints: [number] pieces of content maximum over [period].

Deliver: the pillar page (keyword, intent, angle, Hn summary), cluster pages organized by sub-topic (for each: target keyword, intent, working title, role in the buyer journey), a precise internal linking map (who links to whom, with which anchors, avoiding cross-links that dilute authority), and a recommended production order starting with quick-win opportunities.

Present the architecture as an indented list and the linking map as a table: Source -> Target -> Anchor. Highlight keywords proposed by deduction that need verification in a keyword research tool.

Rewrite the title tags and meta descriptions for the following pages on [site], targeting [audience]. For each page, I provide: URL, target keyword, current title, current meta, and page type (product, category, article): [list of pages].

Rules: Titles between 50-60 characters, keyword near the start without sounding robotic, include a real differentiator ([differentiators: price, speed, reviews, specialty]), no two titles should follow the exact same template. Meta descriptions between 140-155 characters, click-oriented (concrete promise, no fluff), with a call to action adapted to the page intent.

Present the results in a table: URL, New Title (with character count), New Meta (with count), and a one-sentence justification.

Organic traffic for [site] has dropped by [percentage] since [date]. Context: [recent events: redesign, migration, CMS change, known Google update, new competitors, usual seasonality]. Available data: [Search Console/GA4 findings: affected pages, affected queries, drop pattern].

Guide me through the diagnosis by probability: first, measurable technical causes (indexing, redirects, robots.txt, canonicals, load speed), then algorithmic causes (correlation with a specific update, pattern of affected pages), then competition and SERP changes (who took the positions and with what format).

For each hypothesis: provide the specific test to run, the tool to use, and the result that confirms or eliminates the cause. Do not conclude without verification. End with an ordered checklist of actions to perform today.

You are a technical SEO consultant. My site [site] has approximately [number] pages. Available data: Search Console Coverage report ([indexed, excluded, reasons]), Screaming Frog crawl export ([main observations: status codes, depth, duplicates]).

Analyze the gap between crawlable, indexable, and actually indexed pages. For each Search Console exclusion reason (Discovered - currently not indexed, Crawled - currently not indexed, Duplicate, Google chose different canonical), explain the probable cause in MY context and the appropriate fix.

Deliver: A table with Reason, Affected Volume, Probable Cause, Fix, and Priority (High/Med/Low). Then, list the first 5 actions in order, with the expected measurable result in Search Console and a reasonable observation timeframe. Flag anything that cannot be determined without further data.

I am preparing a migration for [site]: [nature of change: redesign, domain change, URL structure change, merger]. Planned date: [date]. Here is a sample of the current and target structures: [URL examples before/after].

Build the redirect plan: mapping rules by pattern (regex or simple rules) rather than URL-by-URL where possible, handling pages without equivalents (redirect to parent category or return 410, include selection criteria), and forbidding redirect chains or loops.

Deliver: A table with Source Pattern, Redirect Rule, Target URL, Type (301), and Notes; a list of high-value pages to handle manually (based on [Search Console/GA4 data]); and a post-launch checklist (verification crawl, 404 monitoring in GSC, sitemaps, internal link updates) with a 4-week calendar.

You are a technical SEO expert. Here are my site's indexing directives for [site]: robots.txt content ([paste file]), known noindex rules ([affected pages/templates]), canonical tag logic ([how they are generated]).

Review the consistency of the setup: pages blocked from crawling but intended for indexing, noindexed pages receiving significant internal links, canonicals pointing to blocked or noindexed pages, and contradictory combinations (noindex + self-canonical blocked, Disallow on CSS/JS resources needed for rendering).

Deliver a table: Directive, Location, Problem, Concrete Indexing Consequence, Exact Fix (rewritten robots.txt line, corrected tag). End with 3 Search Console checks (URL Inspection tool) to confirm each fix, and note cases where Google's behavior can only be monitored, not guaranteed.

My site [site] is a [type: e-commerce, media, service, local business] and currently underutilizes structured data. Existing page templates: [list: home, category, product, article, contact...].

Propose a schema.org tagging plan: for each template, list relevant types (Organization, Product, Article, FAQPage, BreadcrumbList, LocalBusiness...), required and recommended properties, and actual eligibility for Rich Results based on Google documentation (distinguish between what produces a rich snippet and what only aids understanding).

Deliver: A table with Template, Schema Types, Key Properties, Rich Result Potential (Yes/No/Variable); then complete JSON-LD code for the 2 priority templates with [placeholders] for my values; finally, the validation procedure (Rich Results Test, Search Console report) and common tagging errors to avoid (self-attributed reviews, off-page FAQs, hidden data).

You are a web performance consultant. Here is the data for [site]: Search Console Core Web Vitals report ([flagged URLs or groups, metric at fault]), PageSpeed Insights results for main templates ([scores and diagnostics]), technical stack: [CMS/framework, hosting, CDN].

First, distinguish between field data (CrUX) and lab data, explaining which one Google uses for rankings. Then, for each degraded metric (LCP, INP, CLS), identify probable causes in MY stack and appropriate fixes.

Deliver a table: Fix, Target Metric, Affected Templates, Expected Gain (High/Med/Low, no invented figures), Implementation Difficulty, and Owner (Front-end, Back-end, Ops). Rank by gain/effort ratio. End with the top 3 fixes to implement first, including how to measure before/after and the delay before field data reflects the change.

You are a technical SEO analyst. I have a server log export for [site] over [period], filtered for Googlebot user-agents. Here is what I observe: [hit distribution by directory, status codes, most crawled URLs, presence of parameters].

Guide the analysis: verify hits are from official Googlebot IPs, analyze crawl distribution between strategic vs. low-value pages (parameters, filters, deep pagination, resources), check the proportion of non-200 status codes, and compare crawl frequency of important pages to their update frequency.

Deliver: A table with Observation, Volume/Proportion, Interpretation, Corrective Action (robots.txt, linking, deletion, redirect); then a prioritized list of actions to redirect crawl budget toward [priority pages], each with the log metric to monitor next month. Do not conclude anything not supported by the data.

My site [site] exists or will exist in multiple versions: [list of language/country pairs, e.g., en-US, en-GB, fr-FR]. Current structure: [subdirectories, subdomains, or separate domains]. Content is [fully translated / partially / identical across some regions].

Build the hreflang plan: map correspondences between versions (including x-default and the choice of the target page), recommend the best implementation method (HTML tags, HTTP headers, or XML sitemap) with justification, and provide the exact code for one example page in each version using [placeholders] for URLs.

List classic errors to check: non-reciprocal annotations, invalid language-country codes, hreflang to noindexed or redirected pages, and conflicts with canonicals. End with a verification table: Check, Tool (crawler, GSC), Expected Result. Clarify what hreflang does and does not do (it guides versions, it doesn't boost rankings).

You are a technical SEO consultant. My site [site] currently has [description of sitemaps: single file, index, CMS auto-generated...]. Approx volume: [number of URLs]. Search Console Sitemap report shows: [Submitted vs Indexed URLs, errors].

Audit: check for URLs that shouldn't be there (redirects, 404s, noindex, non-canonicals, parameters), missing important pages, freshness of lastmod (real vs. fake, as misleading lastmod is counterproductive), file size/limits, and declaration in robots.txt and GSC.

Deliver: A table with Observation, Severity, Fix; the target sitemap structure (split by content type with an index to isolate indexing rates in GSC); and generation rules for my developer or [CMS] config to keep the sitemap clean without manual intervention.

My site [site] is built with [framework: React, Vue, Angular, or CMS with heavy JS]. Current rendering mode: [Client-side only, SSR, Hybrid, Unknown]. Symptoms: [poor indexing, empty snippets in Google, content missing from cache...].

Guide the diagnosis: compare initial HTML (source) vs. rendered DOM, test with GSC URL Inspection tool (rendered screenshot vs. crawled HTML), verify internal links are true 'a' tags with 'href' (not onclick), ensure essential content doesn't require interaction (click, scroll) to load, and check that metadata (title, canonical) isn't rewritten inconsistently via JS.

Deliver: A table with Checkpoint, How to Test, Observation, Risk if failing; then possible fix strategies (SSR, Pre-rendering, Partial Hydration) with pros, cons, and effort, plus your argued recommendation for [framework].

You are an SEO consultant. My business [company] sells [product/service] to [target] in [geographic area]. I am starting SEO with no history. My 3 priority offers: [offers].

Build the keyword universe: start with problems my target audience describes in their own words (not internal jargon), list variations for each offer (generic, long-tail, questions, comparisons, [city] if relevant), and classify each by intent (Informational, Commercial, Transactional, Navigational) and stage in the buyer journey.

Deliver a table: Keyword, Intent, Parent Theme, Target Page (existing or new), Estimated Priority. Group keywords belonging to the same page to avoid duplicate content. Mark all volumes/difficulty as hypotheses to verify in [tool: GSC, Keyword Planner, Semrush...]: you do not have real-time data and must not invent figures. End with the top 10 keywords to target first and why.

I have exported a keyword list from [source: GSC, Semrush, Ahrefs] for [site], which sells [offer] to [target]. Here is the list with available data: [keywords with volumes, current positions, difficulty if known].

For each keyword, determine: dominant intent (flag mixed SERPs), business value (proximity to purchase for MY offer, not just raw volume), current target page or gap, and realistic effort (optimizing existing is cheaper than creating new).

Deliver: A table with Keyword, Intent, Business Value (High/Med/Low), Target Page, Action (Optimize/Create/Group/Ignore), and Priority Rank; then a summary in 3 batches (Quick wins on existing pages, High-stakes creations, Roadmap backlog) with reasoning. Hard rule: high-volume keywords unrelated to my offer rank behind modest keywords that convert.

An article on my site is losing ground. URL: [URL], published on [date], targeting [keyword]. 12-month GSC data: [clicks, impressions, position trends]. Current content: [paste text or Hn structure]. Subject changes since publication: [known updates or 'to be identified'].

Establish the refresh plan: outdated info to fix (dates, stats, screenshots, references), missing sub-topics now expected by users (deduce from search trends, flag those needing SERP analysis), sections to rewrite, merge, or delete, updating the title and intro without breaking what works, and internal links to add to/from the article.

Deliver: A table with Current Section, Verdict (Keep/Update/Rewrite/Delete), Specific Changes; the new complete Hn structure; rewritten elements (Title, Meta, Intro); and the rule for updating the publication date (only if changes are substantial).

I suspect cannibalization on [site]: multiple pages seem to compete for [keyword or theme]. Affected pages: [URLs with target keywords and GSC data: queries, positions, clicks]. Symptoms: [unstable rankings, wrong page ranking, no page gaining traction].

First, establish if it is true cannibalization: two pages on the same query only matter if they target the same intent. Analyze for each pair: actual intent covered, content overlap, and internal signals (linking, anchors) blurring the hierarchy.

Deliver: A table with Query, Competing Pages, True Cannibalization (Yes/No), Legitimate Page, Decision (Merge with 301, Differentiate angles, De-optimize one, Pillar page structure); then the execution plan for each: content to move, redirects, internal anchors to rewrite, and the GSC signal to confirm resolution.

I want to create a comparison page for [site]: [type: 'Us vs Competitor', 'Alternative to X', 'Best tools for Y']. My offer: [offer and real differentiators]. Compared items: [list of solutions/competitors with factual info]. Target: [audience] in [evaluation/decision] phase.

Build the page: Title and H1 aligned with comparison queries, intro stating methodology and verdict upfront, comparison table (criteria that REALLY matter to the target: [criteria], not just ones that favor us), sections per solution with pros and cons including ours (honesty builds credibility), verdict by user profile ('Choose X if...'), and FAQ.

Rules: No invented facts about competitors, mark uncertain features as [to verify], no disparagement, prices only if public and dated. Deliver the full structure with drafted copy for the intro, table, and verdict.

My site [site] targets [audience] in the [industry] field. I want to create a glossary to capture definition searches and fuel internal linking. Main business pages: [offer/product pages].

Build the project: list 30-50 candidate terms from [industry], ranked by proximity to my offer (terms searched by prospects in learning phase are better than technical jargon for peers); definition page template (direct 2-sentence answer for snippets, detailed explanation, concrete example, common mistakes, link to business page); architecture (URLs, index page by letter/theme, DefinedTerm schema evaluation).

Deliver: The term table (Term, Intent, Priority, Target Business Page), the drafted template for [example term], and editorial rules to ensure 50 definitions aren't repetitive. Note that search volumes must be verified in a tool.

You are an SEO Content Manager. Site: [site], quarterly business goal: [goal]. Production capacity: [number] pieces per month, written by [internal/freelance/mix]. Existing: [site state: offer pages, blog, content to refresh]. Identified themes: [list].

Build the quarterly calendar: balance commercial intent pages (direct goal support), informational content (linking to commercial pages), and refreshes (high effort/result ratio). Sequence logically: pillar page before cluster pages, seasonal content early enough to be indexed before [seasonal deadline].

Deliver a table: Week, Content, Type (New/Refresh), Target Keyword, Intent, Target Link Page, Writer, Status. Add monthly control points (brief validation, SEO review) and a quarterly review: which content to judge, on which GSC metrics, allowing time for pages to settle.

My page covers a sensitive topic (health, finance, legal, safety): URL [URL], topic [topic], on the site of [company and its actual legitimacy]. Current author: [author and qualifications, or 'not displayed'].

Audit E-E-A-T signals as a quality rater would: Experience (does the page show we've practiced what we preach?), Expertise (displayed qualifications, bio, expert review), Authoritativeness (who cites us, complete 'About' and legal pages), Trustworthiness (cited/dated sources, visible contact info, HTTPS, no unverified claims).

Deliver: A table with Signal, Present/Absent/Weak, Concrete Proof to add (no fluff: real bio, primary source, review process), and Effort. Rewrite short elements: author box, review mention, intro establishing legitimacy. Rule: never suggest displaying a qualification [company] doesn't actually hold.

I want to create or redesign the FAQ for [site], selling [offer] to [target]. Raw material: [recurring support questions, customer emails, sales objections, GSC question queries].

Build the FAQ: select questions worth an entry (real recurrence, search-friendly phrasing, useful pre/post-purchase), rephrase as the target audience asks them (no internal jargon), and write direct answers: answer in the first sentence, detail follow-up, 40-90 words.

Decide on architecture: which questions stay on the central FAQ, which deserve dedicated pages (broad topics), which integrate into product/offer pages. Deliver: Question table, drafted answer, location (Central/Dedicated/Product), internal link to include; then JSON-LD FAQPage schema for the central page, noting Google's current eligibility conditions.

I am preparing a YouTube video for [company] on [topic], targeting [query on YouTube and Google]. Audience: [target]. Expected duration: [duration]. Goal: [subscription, site visit, expertise demo].

Deliver the full brief: unique angle compared to existing videos ([what I know about competitors]), script structure with a 15-second hook (announce benefit, don't just introduce yourself), chapters with estimated timestamps, and a closing CTA.

Write SEO elements: 3 title options (under 60 chars, keyword at start, no clickbait), description (first 150 chars decisive, then chapters and link to [site page]), tags, and a one-sentence thumbnail concept. End with a publication checklist: subtitles, end screen, playlist placement.

You are a link building consultant. Site: [site], sector [industry], current link profile: [what I know: referring domains, competitor comparison]. Monthly budget: [budget]. Risk tolerance: [Cautious/Moderate], the site relies on organic traffic.

Build a 12-month strategy: mix of methods for MY sector (PR and data studies, quality guest posts, legitimate niche directories/associations, partnerships, unlinked mention recovery), natural and progressive acquisition pace, and link distribution (Home vs. Business vs. Content pages).

Deliver: A table by Quarter, Method, Link Target (range), Target Pages, Budget, Deliverables; domain qualification criteria (real organic traffic, topical relevance, active readership) and disqualifying signals (link farms, no traffic, systematic commercial anchors); finally, anchor rules by page type. Note Google's guidelines on paid links without moralizing: I want an informed decision.

I have exported backlinks for [site] from [tool: Ahrefs, Majestic, Semrush, GSC]. Data: [Referring domains, top domains, anchor distribution, top linked pages]. Competitors: [2-3 competitors with scale].

Analyze: link distribution (is Home page hogging everything?), anchor naturalness (brand vs. naked URL vs. exact match), domain quality (relevance, presumed traffic), velocity (recent gains vs. stagnant), and the gap with competitors (where are they beating me in terms of page types or sources?).

Deliver: A summary of 5 findings ranked by importance; a table with Finding, Evidence, Risk/Opportunity, Action; a list of potentially toxic links with a cautious stance on disavowal (rarely needed, only for blatant cases); and the top 5 acquisition opportunities deduced from competitor profiles.

I want to get links to [page to promote: study, guide, tool] on [site]. Targets: [media, niche blogs, partners] in [sector]. Value proposition: [unique data, free tool, unique synthesis].

Draft the campaign: initial email under 120 words (factual subject line, one sentence proving I read THEIR site with a required [personalization element], value for THEIR readers, clear request), then 2 follow-ups ([timing]) each adding a new element rather than just repeating, and a template response for financial compensation requests (my position: [position]).

Rules: No generic flattery ('I love your blog'), no lying about the relationship. Deliver the tracking table: Site, Contact, Sent Date, Follow-up 1, Follow-up 2, Response, Link obtained; and 3 criteria for when to stop following up.

My site [site] operates in [sector]. Potential linkers: [industry media, blogs, local press, institutions]. Resources: [internal data, expertise, budget, tools]. Past successes: [what worked or 'none'].

Propose 5 realistic link-bait concepts for MY sector, prioritizing resource-friendly ideas: study from anonymized internal data, annual benchmark, free calculator/tool, reference guide, or documented ranking. For each: why a third party would cite it (the 'busy journalist' test: does it have a stat or visual to grab?), who exactly would link, production effort, and lifespan (one-shot vs. recurring asset).

Deliver a comparison table: Concept, Link Target, Effort, Lifespan, Data Dependency; then a detailed production plan for the recommended concept, milestone by milestone, including the launch outreach angle.

You are a link building consultant. Site: [site], Brand: [brand]. Data: [backlinks to 404 pages from tool, existing redirects, brand mention search results].

Organize recovery into two tracks. One, broken links: backlinks pointing to deleted/moved pages; for each, decide between a 301 redirect to an equivalent page (default, no contact needed) or outreach to fix the link (reserved for high-value links where the target changed topics). Two, unlinked mentions: citations of [brand] in press/blogs without a link; short, cordial email requesting the link with the exact URL.

Deliver: A treatment table (Source URL, Dead Target, Estimated Value, Action, Target Destination); email templates for both cases (link fix, mention link) under 100 words; and a quarterly routine to prevent link rot accumulation.

My business: [company], activity [activity], in [city]. Current Google Business Profile state: [completion: categories, description, photos, hours, reviews, posts]. Competitors visible in local pack: [competitors].

Audit the profile field-by-field: primary category (most specific) and secondary categories, NAP consistency with site, factual description without stuffing, photo selection (real establishment/team photos, no stock), attributes, products/services, and pre-filled Q&A using real customer questions.

Deliver: A table with Field, Current State, Proposed Correction/Content (draft the copy: description, services); then a realistic monthly plan: Google Posts frequency with 3 examples for [news/offer], review solicitation (see dedicated strategy), fresh photos, and Q&A management. End with Google rules to follow (no keyword stuffing in name, no fake addresses) and 3 KPIs to track in profile insights.

My company [company] offers [service] in several cities: [list]. I want one page per city without producing cloned pages where only the city name changes, which Google eventually ignores.

Build a city page template with blocks that MUST be locally unique: local proof (projects/clients in [city] with photos, local reviews), real operational info (exact service area, lead times, local team), local service specifics if any (regulations, building types, climate per [activity]), and safe shared blocks (service intro, method, guarantees).

Deliver: The template Hn structure with the source of local info to collect for each block; a full drafted page for [example city] with [placeholders]; criteria for deciding if a city deserves a page (real presence/demand) vs. a mention on a 'service area' page; and linking between city pages, service pages, and Google Business Profiles.

My business [company] ([activity], [city]) currently has [number] Google reviews with a [rating] rating. Situation: [current collection pace, recent negatives, better-rated competitors]. Customer touchpoints: [email, SMS, counter, invoice].

Build the system: optimal solicitation moment in MY customer journey (right after [peak satisfaction]), channel and message (draft the copy: email and SMS, short, direct link), who asks (humans get more than bots), and pace for a steady flow rather than suspicious bursts. Note the rules: no buying reviews, no 'gating' (only asking happy customers is prohibited by FTC/CMA), no incentives.

Deliver response templates (5 models, 40-80 words each): detailed positive, textless positive, justified negative (acknowledge, fix, offer direct contact), unfair/dubious negative (factual, non-aggressive), and suspicious review report procedure for Google.

My business: [company], [current address], [phone]. History: [moves, name/number changes]. I want to check my local citation (NAP) consistency across the web.

Guide the audit: list locations to check by importance for [sector] (Google Business Profile, Yelp, industry-specific directories, local press, social media, my own site contact/legal pages, LocalBusiness schema), search method for existing citations (queries for old number, old address, name variants).

Deliver: An audit table to fill (Location, URL, Name, Address, Phone, Consistent Y/N, Action, Access); correction order (sources Google trusts most first); the canonical NAP format to use everywhere; and a semi-annual check routine. Stay factual on impact: consistency avoids confusion, it doesn't guarantee rankings.

I manage SEO for [site]. Category page to optimize: [URL], targeting [keyword], with [number] products. Current state: [title, text presence, sub-categories, GSC data if known]. Top-ranking competitors: [site types].

Optimize the page: Title and Meta oriented toward query and click, H1, USEFUL category text (buying guide: criteria, range differences, FAQs; placed without pushing products below the fold, with expanded text at bottom), sub-categories to build as real pages if demand exists ([sub-themes]), linking from menu, breadcrumbs, and sister categories.

Deliver: Title, Meta, H1, and drafted category text (300-500 words, no stuffing) with [placeholders]; a table of recommended sub-categories (Name, Query, New/Existing); and technical checks: pagination, canonicals for page 2+, and ensuring sort/filter parameters don't create crawl bloat.

My shop [site] sells [product type]. Problem: [duplicate manufacturer descriptions, too short, not ranking]. Example product: [product, features, target, target query].

Build the product page template: structure (H1 with discriminant attribute, benefits before features, pre-purchase FAQ block: compatibility, sizing, care, shipping), unique text even for similar products (method: angle by use case, buyer profile, or concrete difference), complete Product schema (price, availability, real reviews) for rich snippets.

Deliver: The fully drafted example page; the reusable annotated template; a catalog prioritization strategy (demand vs. margin matrix, minimal treatment for long-tail products); and rules for variants (one page with selector vs. ten near-identical pages).

My shop [site] ([product type]) handles end-of-life products poorly: [current: 404s, dead pages left as-is, mass home page redirects]. Volume: [scale]. Some return [seasonality], others are gone forever.

Build the decision tree: Temporary out-of-stock (keep 200, return date, alternatives, stock alert; do not delete), Replacement by newer model (301 to successor), Permanent discontinuation with equivalents (301 to closest category/product, not Home), Discontinuation without equivalent (410 after cleaning internal links), and the 'Backlink/Traffic' case (always check before choosing).

Deliver: The decision tree as a conditional list; a rule table (Situation, HTTP Code, Page Content, Availability Schema, Linking Action); and a monthly 404/Redirect monitoring routine in [tool: GSC, crawler].

My shop [site] generates faceted filter URLs: [examples: color, size, brand, price, combinations]. Situation: [all indexed/crawled, all blocked, or unmanaged]. Main categories: [categories].

Define the policy: a filter combination only deserves indexing if there is real search demand ([brand + category], [category + high-volume attribute]) AND it offers enough products; everything else (price, sort, multiple combinations, sizes unless exceptional) must stay out of the index without wasting crawl budget.

Deliver: A policy table by facet (Facet, Example URL, Probable Demand, Decision: Index/Noindex/Robots Block/Canonical to Category, Justification); technical implementation rules with limits (noindex is still crawled, robots block hides noindex, canonical is a suggestion); treatment for indexed facets: unique title, H1, short text, linking entry; and safeguards against combinatorial explosion.

My shop [site] has the following structure: [categories, depth, blog]. Suspected issues: [products >4 clicks from home, strategic categories under-linked, blog not driving sales]. Priority business pages: [categories/products].

Build the linking plan: from Home (which categories/selections get direct links, seasonal rotation), between categories (sister categories, sub-category blocks), from product pages (complementary/alternative products, breadcrumb path), from the blog (informational content linking to products/categories with descriptive anchors), and thematic selection pages for cross-category queries ([gift ideas, specific use cases]).

Deliver: A table of links to add (Source, Target, Location, Anchor, Goal) prioritized by impact on [priority pages]; generic rules for templates; and the method to measure depth before/after with a crawler.

My brand [brand] ([offer], market [market]) wants to know how it appears in AI assistant answers (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Google AI Overviews) for questions like [target queries].

First, build a measurement protocol: list 15-20 queries to test (buying/comparison questions, not just brand), tracking grid (Assistant, Query, Brand Mentioned Y/N, Rank, Cited Sources, Named Competitors), frequency, and interpretation precautions (non-deterministic answers, session variables).

Propose plausible improvement levers, honestly separating established facts (being cited by sources these engines use, clear factual pages, consistent brand mentions) from unproven hypotheses. Deliver: Protocol, tracking table, and a 5-track prioritized action plan with certainty levels.

My page [URL] covers [topic] and aims for both classic search and citation by response engines (AI Overviews, Perplexity, ChatGPT browsing). Current content: [paste text/structure].

Rewrite for citability without sacrificing human readability: each important section starts with a direct, self-contained answer (named entity, complete statement that remains true out of context), facts are dated and attributed ('According to [source], in [year]...'), key definitions/stats are in extractable sentences, lists/tables structure data, and the page displays author/update date.

Deliver: The rewritten page section-by-section; a before/after table of the 5 most reworked passages with justification; a list of claims lacking sources to be documented or removed. Be realistic: note that no technique guarantees citation; the goal is to increase probability.

I lead marketing for [company] ([sector], organic traffic share: [share]). Leadership wants a position on AI response engines: should we reallocate SEO budget, create a llms.txt file, or buy 'GEO' services?

Draft the arbitration note in three categories. Observable: our own data trends ([GSC clicks/impressions, referral traffic from assistants in GA4 if measurable]), AI Overviews presence on our queries. Established: fundamentals serving both worlds (factual reference content, authority, structured data, crawlability). Speculative: flag these explicitly, including llms.txt (adoption by engines not yet proven), without dismissing or overselling them.

Format: One page, structure: Findings / What we do / What we don't do / What we monitor (with KPIs and review date). No market figures without verifiable sources: mark [to source] where applicable.

You are a senior SEO consultant. I need to audit [site] ([type, size, business model]). Access: [GSC, GA4, crawler, logs]. Goal: [redesign decision, taking over SEO, budget prep].

Run the audit across 6 pillars: Technical (indexing, crawl, rendering, speed), Architecture & Linking, Content (intent coverage, quality, cannibalization, zombie pages), Authority (link profile), Competition (who is ranking and how), and Measurement (is tracking accurate?). For each pillar: specific checks in order, tools used, and how to distinguish a critical finding from an improvement point.

Deliver the reporting format: Executive Summary (10 lines: state, 3 major issues, 3 decisions needed), complete Findings Table (Pillar, Finding, Proof, Impact, Effort, Priority), and a 90-day roadmap. Rule: every finding must cite proof (data, URL, screenshot); an audit without proof is just an opinion.

Before writing content for [keyword] for [site], I want to read the SERP correctly. Here is the top 10: [for each: site type, title, format; plus features: AI Overview, featured snippet, PAA, images, videos, local pack, shopping].

Analyze: the real intent Google has identified (may differ from my assumption: the dominant format in the top 10 IS the verdict), the format I must adopt to be compatible (guide, comparison, product page, tool, video), SERP features stealing clicks and their impact on traffic potential, and feasibility for MY site (if the top 10 is dominated by high-authority giants, say so and suggest an accessible alternative).

Deliver: Intent verdict in 2 sentences, analyzed results table (Position, Player type, Format, Angle, Gap to exploit), argued Go/No-Go decision, and if Go: the format, unique angle, and target SERP feature.

My competitor [competitor] is beating me in organic visibility. My site: [site]. Observable data: [their top pages from tool, visible site structure, publication pace, backlinks].

Dissect methodically: which query segments they perform in (transactional, informational, brand, local) and where they are absent, which page templates drive their visibility, their content strategy (frequency, formats, depth, angles), identifiable link sources, and exploitable weaknesses (neglected segments, outdated content, poor intent matching).

Deliver: A 5-point strategy summary backed by URL examples; a table of takeaways (Observation, Proof, Transferable Y/N, How, Effort); 3 battles NOT to fight (where their lead is structural) and 3 spaces where overtaking them is realistic, with the first concrete step for each. No copying: transpose mechanisms, not content.

My team regularly launches [type: new pages, template redesigns, features] on [site]. We've had [past incidents: noindex left on prod, broken canonicals]. I want a systematic SEO checklist integrated into our workflow.

Build the checklist in three stages. Pre-launch (Staging): intended indexability (meta robots, robots.txt, canonicals), tags (Title, Meta, Hn), linking, redirects for URL changes, schema validity, performance. Day 0: removing staging blocks without carrying them to prod (the classic 'forgotten noindex'), sitemap submission, URL inspection on key pages. Following weeks: 404 monitoring, GSC coverage, position tracking for affected pages.

Deliver as a table: Check, How to Verify (tool/step), Expected Result, Blocking Y/N, Owner [team roles]. Include a 'Short Version' (10 critical checks) and 'Full Version'.

My SEO audit of [site] identified technical fixes for the dev team, who aren't SEO experts: [list of issues: missing canonicals, redirect chains, indexable parameters, duplicate titles, images without dimensions].

Turn each issue into an actionable ticket: explicit title, factual findings with example URLs and proof ([screenshot, status code, source snippet]), precisely described expected behavior (not 'improve canonicals' but the exact generation rule), scope (which templates, which exceptions), verification criteria for the dev, and impact-based priority.

Deliver: Tickets drafted one by one, ready to paste into [tool: Jira, Linear, GitHub], then a summary table (Ticket, Priority, Estimated Effort for team confirmation, dependencies, recommended order). Rule: no prescribing technical solutions if multiple implementations work; describe the result and let the team choose the 'how'.

I need to produce a monthly SEO report for [site] for [recipient: client, management]. Monthly data: [clicks, impressions, position trends, GA4 organic conversions, actions completed]. Context: [seasonality, ongoing actions, events: Google updates, redesigns].

Build the report: 5-line summary answering the reader's only question (is it growing and why?), metrics presented in trends and compared intelligently (MoM AND YoY for seasonality), honest explanation of variances (distinguish our actions vs. market vs. Google; say 'we don't know yet' when true rather than inventing causality), completed actions status, and next month's plan with expected outcomes.

Deliver: The full report structure with each section drafted using my data in [brackets], a metrics table (Metric, Value, Trend, One-sentence reading), and 3 golden rules for SEO data commentary (never conclude on one week, never use averages that hide the mix, always link to conversions).

I have an SEO backlog for [site]: [list: technical projects, content, netlinking, redesigns]. Real resources: [SEO man-days, dev access limited to X days/sprint, content budget]. Priority goal: [business goal].

Prioritize the backlog: evaluate each action on expected impact toward the goal (High/Med/Low, with reasoning, no invented figures), effort considering MY resource constraints (high-impact actions blocked by dev lack must be flagged), time-to-effect, and dependencies (content X only makes sense after indexing fix Y).

Deliver: The complete scoring table (Action, Impact, Effort, Time-to-effect, Dependencies, Score, Proposed Quarter); a 2-quarter roadmap across 3 tracks (Technical, Content, Authority); explicit trade-offs (what we WON'T do and why); and for each Q1 project, the success KPI and review date. Format: ready for an arbitration meeting.

I am asked to project organic traffic for [site] by [timeline] if we execute [SEO plan]. Starting data: [current organic traffic, growth history, current positions on target queries, estimated query volumes].

Build the projection refusing false precision: use a tier-based method (which pages can reasonably move to which position brackets, with conservative CTR ranges), three scenarios (Low, Base, High) with EXPLICIT hypotheses for each (production pace kept, no negative Google updates, constant seasonality), and factors beyond our control listed clearly.

Deliver: The projection table by scenario and quarter, a numbered list of hypotheses with their fragility, recalibration milestones (dates to compare real vs. projected), and a presentation paragraph for management that owns the uncertainty without making the projection useless. Formal prohibition of single-point figures without ranges.

I need to defend an annual SEO budget of [amount] to the management of [company], who focus on ROI and compare to [paid channel: Google Ads, social ads]. Data: [current organic traffic/conversions, paid channel CAC, customer LTV].

Build the case: what current organic traffic would cost if bought via CPC (calculate from MY data, explicit method, no invented CPCs), budget breakdown by line item (what, why, deliverables), honest time dynamics (SEO pays off late but marginal cost decreases, unlike paid: show this over [horizon]), risks of non-investment (paid dependency, competitor entrenchment, technical debt), and review points for management to judge progress.

Deliver: The case in 5 drafted sections, the budget table (Item, Amount, Deliverable, KPI), a 6-line summary slide, and prepared answers to 3 predictable objections ([objections, e.g., 'why not just Ads', 'what guarantees results']). Tone: factual, no guaranteed results, demonstrated mechanisms.

I want to organize SEO monitoring for [site] to detect issues quickly without living in tools. Resources: [GSC, GA4, rank tracker]. Critical business queries/pages: [list].

Build the setup: what to track continuously (priority query groups rather than individual fluctuating ranks, strategic pages, index coverage, 404s on traffic pages, response times), appropriate frequencies (daily for technical alerts, weekly for ranks, monthly for deep analysis), and alert thresholds separating noise from signals (a 2-place rank shift is nothing; a strategic page de-indexing is an emergency).

Deliver: The monitoring table (Element, Tool, Frequency, Alert Threshold, Severity, Response/Deadline), concrete configuration for native alerts ([GSC, GA4] and what they don't cover), and a 20-minute weekly routine with an ordered checklist.