Writing & content

Here is my article [text], images described or attached [material], existing captions [captions] and verified image provenance [notes]. For each caption, separate directly visible information from background facts and interpretation. Rewrite it to support the article without inventing a location, identity, date or cause. Keep an illustrative or AI-generated image clearly labelled where relevant. Flag permissions or provenance questions rather than treating a credit as permission. Return revised captions and questions for the editor. Ask which image carries the article's main factual claim.

Make it yours: Keep original source records; do not infer provenance from the image style.

Our confirmed opening hours change from [old] to [new] on [date]. Here is an inventory of website pages, booking messages, directory listings and printed material we control [list], with approved exceptions [details]. Identify exact wording to update and locations needing owner confirmation. Do not assume an external directory changed because our website did, invent holiday hours or edit accounts. Return a channel-by-channel checklist with effective dates and verification steps. Ask which old listing causes the most customer confusion before prioritising the work.

Make it yours: Include automated confirmations and image-based notices in the inventory.

We no longer sell [product]. Here are its current pages, internal links, relevant Search Console exports [data], approved alternatives [facts] and site constraints [details]. Make a page-by-page decision brief distinguishing factual availability updates, useful retained guidance and candidate redirects for technical review. Do not invent an equivalent replacement, assume every old URL should point to the homepage or claim rankings will recover. Preserve information customers need about past purchases. Ask whether support documentation must remain accessible before proposing changes; do not publish them.

Make it yours: Confirm any technical redirect decision with the actual URL inventory and site owner.

This product FAQ currently mixes questions from first-time buyers and professional installers [text]. Here are verified specifications [facts], actual customer questions [questions] and audience labels [labels]. Group answers by the reader's job while preserving a shared factual source. Suggest clear navigation and concise answers that do not expose beginners to unexplained jargon or hide important limitations. Do not invent compatibility, installation instructions or SEO results. Return a revised structure and ask which question both groups need answered before deciding what belongs in the shared introduction.

Make it yours: Keep technical installation guidance with the qualified source, not an invented simplified instruction.

Here are FAQ questions and answers from my site [text], verified policy/product facts [facts] and actual customer wording [questions]. Identify answers covering the same need and suggest a clearer shared answer with links or subheadings where needed. Preserve exceptions, audience differences and confirmed conditions; do not merge questions merely because they share keywords. Do not invent policies or claim an SEO gain. Return a proposed merge map and exact factual questions for the owner. Ask which answer currently contradicts another before editing the copy.

Make it yours: Keep old useful links and question wording in mind when reviewing a merge.

Here is my actual service [facts], current contact page [copy], approved contact route [route] and examples of enquiries missing useful details [redacted examples]. Rewrite the page so visitors know the few details needed for a helpful first response. Separate required from optional information and state only our confirmed response arrangements. Do not ask for sensitive documents, invent turnaround guarantees or add unnecessary form fields. Ask which missing detail most often prevents a reply before deciding what to request.

Make it yours: Collect only what the first response genuinely needs.

Here is our current not-found page [copy], verified navigation destinations [URLs], common broken-link requests [redacted paths] and available search feature [facts]. Draft a helpful error page with two or three real next steps, plain language and no fake search function. Do not invent redirects, promise a page exists or expose private URL parameters. Separate copy improvements from technical issues the developer must check. Ask which destination most often goes missing before prioritising the links.

Make it yours: Verify every suggested link and keep technical status-code checks separate from the wording.

I need an author introduction for [article topic]. Here are the author's approved biography, relevant firsthand experience, editorial role and disclosure preferences [facts]. Draft a short introduction linking genuine experience to the article's scope, with limitations where needed. Do not invent credentials, imply professional advice, add unverified awards or promise SEO gains. Separate source research from personal experience and mark missing evidence. Ask which specific experience the author can substantiate before choosing what to feature.

Make it yours: Have the author approve the text and verify every credential before publication.

Here are the actual places my business serves [list], confirmed travel-charge rules [rules], exceptions [facts] and customer questions [questions]. Draft a clear service-area page with a location check, understandable boundaries and the next enquiry step. Do not invent towns, imply a permanent local office or promise a universal travel price. Separate confirmed coverage from areas needing approval. Ask which boundary customers most often misunderstand before writing the opening.

Make it yours: List only real coverage and avoid creating pretend local offices for search traffic.

This is my service [verified facts], typical customer decision [decision], questions asked before booking [examples] and what preparation information I can genuinely provide [material]. Outline a short practical page that helps visitors assess readiness and understand the next step without pushing an unsuitable booking. Separate self-checks from matters needing professional advice. Do not invent eligibility rules, testimonials or guarantees. Ask what visitors need to know before they can decide whether to enquire.

Make it yours: Give useful preparation information rather than hiding every answer behind a sales form.

Customers ask [question] after reading our page [text]. Here are anonymised enquiries [examples], confirmed service facts [facts], writing sample [sample] and optional Search Console data [export with dates]. Identify the answer missing or buried on the page, propose its location and write the replacement section. Keep prices and scope within supplied facts. Separate enquiry evidence from search evidence; never invent keyword volume or promise rankings. Give a before-and-after checklist and a simple way to record whether the same question continues after the edit.

Make it yours: Include enquiries that did not turn into sales.

Use these anonymised customer questions and our verified business facts and policies [material] to draft an FAQ for [page and audience]. Group duplicate questions by the same need, retain meaningful differences and show which source question supports each entry. Give a direct short answer, useful detail and the next step. Ask about missing facts instead of inventing guarantees, prices or rules. Leave unrelated questions off this page and identify where they belong. Do not promise search rankings or FAQ rich results. Return drafts for policy and factual review, not publication.

Make it yours: Remove customer identifiers and include only facts you are authorised to state publicly.

Use these images and the surrounding page text [material] to propose alt text and, where useful, visible captions. Explain what each image contributes to the reader's task. Describe only visible relevant details, flag unreadable text and distinguish an informative image from a decorative or redundant one. For charts, identify when a full accessible text explanation is needed rather than squeezing all data into a short label. Do not infer people's identity, mood or sensitive traits, invent product specifications or stuff search terms into descriptions. Return drafts to compare with the originals.

Make it yours: Provide page context: the same image can serve different purposes. Keep synthetic image disclosures in the visible caption where relevant.

Use my old URL inventory, new page inventory, supplied traffic or backlink evidence and page descriptions [files] to draft a migration mapping. Match pages by reader intent and actual content, not just URL similarity. For each old URL show a suitable existing target or an unresolved review item, the evidence and the reason. Flag proposed chains, loops, missing targets and many unrelated pages mapped to the home page. Do not invent traffic, assume a deleted page should redirect or guarantee preserved rankings. Return a draft and test checklist; do not implement redirects, delete pages or publish changes.

Make it yours: Check important old pages and inbound links before approving mappings. Keep query strings and trailing-slash policies explicit.

Help me draft a leaking-tap service page for my plumbing business in [real service area]. Here are our actual services, process, opening times, pricing policy and voice sample: [facts]. Address what customers need to know before contacting us, what information to provide and what the visit includes. Use plain language, a clear title and contact call to action. Do not invent reviews, qualifications, emergency availability, prices or keyword search volumes. Mark missing facts for me to supply.

Make it yours: Only include locations you genuinely serve and claims you can support.

Analyse my Search Console exports, page inventory and business goals [files]. First check date ranges, search type, filters, country, device, dimensions and whether query and page data are actually joined. Do not join separate aggregate tables as if each query belongs to a page. Compare available clicks, impressions, CTR and average position with appropriate weighting. Rank five page-improvement hypotheses by evidence, reader value and effort, showing supporting rows and missing checks. Do not invent search volume, traffic forecasts or guaranteed rankings.

Make it yours: Export comparable periods and supply query-by-page data if you want that mapping; remove sensitive queries.

Investigate this page's Search Console data for two supplied periods [exports and filters]. Check comparable date coverage, search type and dimensions. Separate changes in impressions, CTR and average position, and show absolute changes with calculations. Break down only by dimensions present. Account for low counts and possible seasonality without claiming causation. Distinguish data findings from hypotheses requiring page history, indexing checks or current search-result inspection. Do not diagnose a Google penalty from a traffic drop alone.

Make it yours: Include page changes and comparable prior-year data if available; different report aggregations may not reconcile.

Use this page's content and its correctly filtered query data [files] to propose three title and description options. Identify the real reader task and keep claims consistent with the page. Use relevant query language naturally, without stuffing or inventing benefits. Explain trade-offs and note that Google may show different title links or snippets. Do not assume low CTR proves the title is at fault; identify other factors to check. Return drafts, not live edits.

Make it yours: Supply actual query-to-page data, not unrelated site-wide queries; no guaranteed CTR uplift.

Compare the supplied query-by-page export for [article] with its current text [text]. Group visible queries by user task, distinguish relevant needs from off-topic queries and show evidence rows. Identify questions the article answers poorly and propose specific sections using information we can substantiate. Treat missing queries as unknown, not proof of zero demand. Do not invent search volumes or add irrelevant FAQs solely for keywords.

Make it yours: Check query privacy omissions and export coverage before interpreting the sample as complete.

Use these correctly joined query-by-page observations and the two page texts [files]. Compare overlapping intent, landing pages and period changes. Distinguish legitimate multiple coverage from possible confusing overlap; do not label every shared query cannibalisation. Check canonical and index evidence only if supplied. Recommend options with risks, including keeping both pages distinct. Do not delete, merge or redirect pages without separate approval and a migration review.

Make it yours: Separate page-level aggregates cannot prove which queries overlap; supply the relevant dimension combination.

Compare my mobile and desktop Search Console exports for [page group and periods]. Check consistent filters and query mix before interpreting CTR or average position differences. Separate observed changes from hypotheses. Use supplied page screenshots and performance evidence to suggest checks for mobile readability, task completion and technical problems. Do not claim Search Console alone measures conversion, page speed or usability. Return a prioritised investigation list with evidence needed for each.

Make it yours: Add analytics or performance reports separately if you want those questions investigated.

Use this audit, current service page, verified business facts and relevant Search Console evidence [files]. Produce an edit plan showing current passage, proposed replacement, reason, supporting evidence and priority. Keep service area, qualifications, prices and availability accurate. Mark missing facts rather than inventing them. Separate content edits from technical fixes requiring developer review. Draft a revised opening and one useful section; do not publish or alter the site.

Make it yours: A prompt about improving your results does not grant access to your account or authorise live changes.

Evaluate these documented page changes [change log] against the supplied before/after Search Console data. Check dates, filter consistency, query and country mix, seasonality and time available after the change. Recalculate CTR from clicks and impressions where valid; do not average row CTRs or positions without the required weighting. Report observed changes, possible confounders and what remains inconclusive. Do not claim causation or invented return on investment. Suggest the next measurement or reversible test.

Make it yours: Keep a dated change log and recognise export limits; performance shifts are not proof of one cause.

Use this interview transcript to identify claims, concrete examples and unusual observations relevant to [reader question]. Reference timestamps. Separate the interviewee's opinion from demonstrated evidence. Propose an article angle that depends on their specific insight rather than a generic topic overview.

Make it yours: Check permission and quotation accuracy before publication.

Review this opening for a reader trying to [task]. Identify how long it takes to answer their main question. Write three alternatives: direct answer, concrete problem and useful example. Keep the claims supported by [source]. Explain which fits the page's purpose best.

Make it yours: State the query or question that brought the reader to the page.

Use this page inventory and article to suggest internal links. Match each link to a reader's likely next question. Provide the target, a descriptive anchor and the reason it belongs at that point. Avoid links to near-duplicate pages and flag missing supporting content.

Make it yours: Provide real page paths rather than asking for invented URLs.

Create a content brief for [reader question] for [audience]. Include the decision the page should enable, evidence required, a useful worked example and links to related existing pages [list]. Separate this from keyword-volume research; do not invent search demand or promise rankings.

Make it yours: Supply real search data when available.

Analyse this redacted Search Console export for [period]. Group queries by intent and map them to existing pages [inventory]. Keep impressions, clicks and position distinct. Identify overlap, irrelevant queries and gaps supported by the data. Do not call an average position a guaranteed ranking.

Make it yours: Keep comparison periods and filters consistent.

Review this homepage copy for [business, customer]. Can a new visitor identify the offer, who it suits, evidence, exclusions and next action? Quote unclear passages and propose targeted revisions using approved facts only. Keep SEO wording subordinate to understandable language.

Make it yours: Include the real offer and customer objections.

Draft a page brief for [service] genuinely available in [area]. Use these local facts and service limits [facts]. Explain access, scheduling and practical questions. Do not fabricate local experience or produce near-identical doorway pages for places we do not serve.

Make it yours: Verify locations and service availability.

Use these anonymised customer questions and approved offer details to propose three campaign messages. For each identify the specific objection, proof required and appropriate call to action. Do not invent testimonials or urgency. Make the concepts differ in argument, not only phrasing.

Make it yours: Distinguish customer quotations from your interpretation.

Plan three emails for [audience and offer]: explain fit, answer a real objection and invite a next step. Use [approved facts and voice sample]. Give each email one job and one action. No fake scarcity, invented customer stories or unsupported outcomes. Return drafts for review, not sending.

Make it yours: Check consent and applicable requirements before using a mailing list.

Audit this article [text, original date] against [current sources]. Identify obsolete instructions, unsupported claims and missing reader steps. Propose a focused rewrite preserving the original publication history and recording the actual update. Do not substitute a new date for substantive improvements.

Make it yours: Do not invent an original date if it is unknown.

Compare this proposed copy [copy] with the approved evidence [documents]. Extract measurable, comparative and implied claims. For each mark supported, qualified or unsupported and show the passage. Suggest narrower wording where needed; do not certify legal compliance or invent substantiation.

Make it yours: Important advertising claims need appropriate professional review.

Review the opening of [draft] for [reader]. What practical question brought them here? Cut broad scene-setting that does not help answer it. Write two alternative openings using only [verified facts]: one direct answer and one concrete situation. Do not invent a scene or a personal anecdote.

Make it yours: Supply the real reader question and the facts behind the piece.

Mark abstract claims in this draft, such as innovative, seamless, powerful or customer-focused. For each ask what observable detail would justify it. Replace the claim only when my supplied evidence supports a concrete version; otherwise remove it or leave a question. Do not replace one vague adjective with another.

Make it yours: These words are not proof of AI use; assess whether they say anything useful.

Turn my own spoken notes [transcript] into [format] for [reader]. Remove accidental repetition and unclear references, but preserve my position, useful phrasing and uncertainty. Separate factual gaps from editing choices. Do not add expertise, emotions or experiences I did not express.

Make it yours: Use your own recording or material you have permission to edit.

Read this paragraph [paragraph] for rhythm and comprehension. Identify repeated sentence patterns that make it monotonous. Suggest changes where emphasis or logical relationships justify a different length or structure. Preserve necessary technical terms and qualifications; do not add random fragments, slang or intentional errors.

Make it yours: Say whether the piece is a formal report, an email or a conversational article.

Audit this article [article] for paragraphs and conclusions that repeat an earlier point without adding evidence or a next action. Propose cuts with reasons. Preserve qualifications, counterarguments and information needed by a scanning reader. Do not shorten merely to reach an arbitrary word count.

Make it yours: State what the reader should know or do after reading.

Assess this text for [reader and purpose]. Quote vague wording, repetitive structures, excessive enthusiasm and unsupported authority. Explain each as an editorial issue, not evidence that AI wrote it. Do not give an AI percentage. Prioritise three revisions that improve usefulness without changing the facts.

Make it yours: A human can write generic prose, and AI-assisted prose can be carefully edited.

Translate my message [text] from [language] into [language] for [recipient]. Preserve the directness, warmth and degree of certainty in my original. Use natural phrasing without inserting promotional language or extra politeness that changes the relationship. Explain any phrase with no close equivalent and offer two options.

Make it yours: Specify region and relationship; do not assume one universal natural style.

Help me write a concise process note for [editor, client or teacher] using only this actual record [tasks, drafts, tools and my revisions]. Distinguish my research and decisions from AI drafting or editing assistance. Do not claim the piece was unaided or invent checks. Flag questions about the applicable disclosure policy.

Make it yours: Keep a real revision record; this prompt cannot reconstruct missing history.

Use [source files] to outline an article for [audience] answering [reader question]. Start with the useful answer, then propose sections that resolve the reader's follow-up questions. Link each factual claim in the outline to a source section. Mark evidence gaps. Use [voice sample] as tone guidance without copying its phrases.

Make it yours: Give a specific reader question and at least one reliable source.

Review this article for factual freshness and usefulness: [article]. Identify dated features, broken references, unsupported claims and questions the current reader still needs answered. Check changeable facts against current official sources. Give a table of the original claim, evidence, proposed revision and reason. Then rewrite only the sections that need changing.

Make it yours: Preserve the original publication date and add an update date only after substantive review.

Edit the draft below for clarity and structure while preserving its tone and claims. Flag unsupported statements instead of inventing evidence. Return the revised version followed by five concise editorial notes: [draft].

Make it yours: Describe the audience and give one paragraph that captures the intended voice.