Review the article below as a senior editor and search-intent strategist. Do not rewrite the whole piece unless I ask. I need an evidence-based editorial memo that makes the article more useful to its intended reader and better aligned with its target search. ARTICLE: [ARTICLE DRAFT] TARGET KEYWORD: [TARGET KEYWORD] INTENDED READER: [INTENDED READER] SEARCH INTENT OR COMPETING-PAGE NOTES: [SEARCH INTENT NOTES] SOURCES, PRODUCT FACTS, OR INTERNAL NOTES: [SOURCE NOTES] First, identify the likely intent behind the target keyword: informational, commercial investigation, transactional, navigational, or mixed. State what a reader must be able to learn, decide, or do after reading. Compare that need with the draft’s actual promise in its title, introduction, headings, examples, and conclusion.
Then produce a review memo with these sections:
1. Verdict (100 words maximum): publish, revise, or rebuild, with the three strongest reasons.
2. Reader-value gaps: specific unanswered questions, missing context, weak examples, jargon, unsupported jumps, or advice that is too broad to act on.
3. Structure and flow: assess the headline, opening, heading order, paragraph logic, repetition, and conclusion. Cite the relevant section or a short quoted phrase for every issue.
4. Search-intent and keyword fit: flag keyword stuffing, irrelevant subtopics, missing subtopics, and places where the keyword should not be forced.
5. Accuracy and trust: list every claim that needs a source, qualification, date, jurisdiction, or expert review. Do not invent citations.
6. Prioritized revision plan: 5–10 edits in impact order, each with the exact change and why it matters.
7. Optional replacement outline: only if the current structure cannot support the intended intent.
Self-check before answering: distinguish facts stated in the draft from your editorial inferences. Flag any recommendation that relies on a claim not supported by [SOURCE NOTES]. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.Fill in
| Placeholder | What to enter | Example |
|---|---|---|
| [ARTICLE DRAFT] | Paste the complete article draft, including its title and headings. | Title: How to Choose Payroll Software for a 25-Person Company. Draft explains features, pricing models, implementation, and a shortlist. |
| [TARGET KEYWORD] | Enter the primary search phrase the article should rank for. | payroll software for small business |
| [INTENDED READER] | Describe the reader’s role, knowledge level, and reason for searching. | A U.S. operations manager at a 10–50 employee company replacing manual payroll. |
| [SEARCH INTENT NOTES] | Paste notes on the desired search intent, competitor patterns, or the page’s intended angle. | Commercial investigation; readers want a practical comparison and buying criteria, not a generic definition of payroll. |
| [SOURCE NOTES] | Paste approved sources, internal facts, links, or leave a note that none are available. | Product pricing was checked on vendor sites on September 10, 2026; legal tax guidance must link to IRS sources. |
How to use
- Paste the full draft rather than isolated paragraphs so the model can judge the argument and structure.
- Add the real target keyword and the reader’s decision or question; these determine what counts as a useful gap.
- Check every accuracy flag against your source notes before changing a factual claim.
- Follow up with: “Turn revision items 1–5 into tracked replacement copy, preserving only claims supported by my notes.”
Variations
News article check
Use this for a timely news or analysis article where attribution and freshness matter.
Review this news article for editorial fairness, attribution, and reader clarity. ARTICLE: [ARTICLE]. EVENT DATE AND LOCATION: [EVENT DETAILS]. APPROVED REPORTING AND SOURCES: [SOURCES]. AUDIENCE: [AUDIENCE]. Produce: a 75-word verdict; a claim-by-claim attribution table; missing context or affected viewpoints; chronology errors; loaded or ambiguous wording; and a prioritized edit list. Preserve the distinction between confirmed facts, allegations, analysis, and predictions. Do not add facts or sources. Flag anything requiring an editor, legal review, or a current source check. Ask up to 3 questions only if an input is missing.
Thought leadership review
Use this for an executive byline or opinion piece that needs a clear, defensible point of view.
Edit-review this executive byline. DRAFT: [DRAFT]. CORE THESIS: [THESIS]. TARGET READER: [TARGET READER]. AUTHOR’S FIRSTHAND EVIDENCE: [EVIDENCE]. Identify where the thesis is buried, where the piece repeats familiar advice, and where an example needs operational detail. Produce a 700-word maximum memo with: thesis test, argument map, credibility risks, passages to cut or tighten, and a revised outline. Keep opinions distinct from claims of fact. Do not invent anecdotes, customer results, or market data. Flag assertions the author cannot support. Ask up to 3 questions only if needed inputs are absent.
Content refresh audit
Use this when updating an older article that has lost traffic or may contain stale guidance.
Audit this older article for a content refresh. ARTICLE: [ARTICLE]. ORIGINAL PUBLISH DATE: [DATE]. TARGET QUERY: [QUERY]. CURRENT PRODUCT OR POLICY CHANGES: [CHANGES]. Search-performance notes: [PERFORMANCE NOTES]. Return a refresh brief with: sections that remain sound, sections likely stale, facts needing a current source, missing reader questions, a new heading plan, and a prioritized update checklist. Separate changes required for accuracy from changes intended to improve relevance. Do not claim current facts without material in [CHANGES]. Ask up to 3 clarifying questions only if a required input is missing.
Tips
- Treat a target keyword as evidence of a reader need, not a phrase to repeat; the review should test whether the article resolves that need.
- Give the reviewer approved source notes when claims involve prices, laws, health, security, or statistics; an editorial model cannot verify your internal facts.
- Ask for section-level citations to the draft so a long review becomes an actionable edit list instead of vague feedback.
- For a business review, require the model to separate a missing proof point from a missing explanation; the fix is different.
FAQ
Can AI review an article for factual accuracy?
It can identify claims that need verification and compare them with sources you provide. It should not be treated as a fact-checker without current, authoritative source material.
Should I include competitor articles?
Include notes on what competing pages cover if they reveal the reader’s expected questions. Do not ask the model to copy their wording or structure.
Will this prompt rewrite my article?
No. It produces a review memo and an outline only when the existing structure cannot meet the intent.