Writing & Content

Exact prompt

Create an evidence-led outline for the article below before drafting any prose.

Topic and intended outcome:
{{topic}}

Audience and prior knowledge:
{{audience}}

Source notes and confirmed facts:
{{source_notes}}

Editorial constraints:
{{constraints}}

Instructions:
1. Define the reader's central question and the practical change the article should enable.
2. Inventory the supplied evidence, noting which claims have direct support and which remain assumptions or gaps.
3. Propose a logical through-line with sections that each answer one distinct reader question.
4. Place examples, caveats, counterpoints, and definitions where the reader needs them rather than in a detached catch-all section.
5. Remove sections that repeat the same purpose or cannot yet be supported.
6. Suggest descriptive headings without using vague clickbait.
7. Attach the relevant source note or research gap to every factual section.

Return the reader promise, evidence map, detailed outline, research gaps, and a short explanation of the sequence. Do not create facts, quotations, statistics, or citations that are absent from the source notes.

Replace before use

Topic and outcome{{topic}}

The subject and what the reader should understand or be able to do afterward.

Audience{{audience}}

The intended reader, their context, and what they already know.

Source notes{{source_notes}}

Verified facts, quotations, links, observations, and attribution details available for the article.

Editorial constraints{{constraints}}

Length, voice, format, deadline, exclusions, or publication standards.

Exact prompt

Revise the draft below for clarity and structure while preserving its supported meaning and the author's recognizable voice.

Draft:
{{draft}}

Audience and purpose:
{{audience_purpose}}

Voice and editorial rules:
{{style_constraints}}

Instructions:
1. Diagnose the draft's main claim, reader promise, structural problems, repetition, and missing transitions before editing.
2. Mark sentences whose meaning or factual basis is ambiguous instead of silently resolving them.
3. Reorder ideas so context precedes conclusions and each paragraph performs one clear job.
4. Replace abstract or inflated phrasing with specific language supported by the draft.
5. Shorten unnecessary setup, repeated conclusions, and empty intensifiers without flattening useful nuance.
6. Preserve quotations, technical terms, uncertainty, and attribution exactly unless a change is explicitly explained.
7. Do not introduce new factual claims.

Return a concise diagnosis, the revised draft, a change log grouped by structural and sentence-level edits, and questions that require the author's decision. Point out any section that should be cut rather than polished.

Replace before use

Draft{{draft}}

The complete text to revise, including headings when available.

Audience and purpose{{audience_purpose}}

Who will read it and what the text should help them understand or do.

Voice and editorial rules{{style_constraints}}

Tone, terminology, formatting, length, and statements that must remain unchanged.

Exact prompt

Audit the claims in this draft against the source material I provide. Do not use unstated knowledge as evidence.

Draft to audit:
{{draft}}

Source material:
{{sources}}

Publication context:
{{publication_context}}

Instructions:
1. Extract consequential factual claims, numbers, dates, quotations, causal statements, comparisons, and statements about people or organizations.
2. Classify each claim as supported, partly supported, unsupported, contradicted, opinion, or not verifiable from the supplied material.
3. Link each classification to the exact supplied source item and passage when that passage is present. If only a link or citation is supplied, mark it for manual verification rather than implying access to its contents.
4. Check whether the draft preserves scope, uncertainty, time period, population, and correlation-versus-causation limits.
5. Identify quotation changes, missing attribution, stale information, and links that require a manual check.
6. Suggest the smallest accurate rewrite for weak claims without laundering uncertainty into confidence.
7. Escalate sensitive claims for appropriate editorial or professional review.

Return a claim ledger, high-risk issues first, proposed corrections, and a publication checklist. Never invent a citation or claim to have opened a source that was not supplied.

Replace before use

Draft{{draft}}

The article, script, newsletter, or other text whose claims need review.

Source material{{sources}}

Source excerpts, notes, data, links, dates, and attribution details available as evidence.

Publication context{{publication_context}}

Audience, jurisdiction, publication date, risk level, and editorial requirements.

Exact prompt

Build a sustainable editorial plan from the goals, audience needs, existing assets, and actual production capacity below.

Editorial goals:
{{goals}}

Audience needs and evidence:
{{audience_needs}}

Existing content and ideas:
{{content_inventory}}

Capacity and constraints:
{{capacity}}

Instructions:
1. Translate each goal into a reader outcome and a measurable editorial signal without treating traffic as the only form of value.
2. Group ideas by the audience question they answer and remove duplicates or ideas with no clear reader need.
3. Score candidates qualitatively for usefulness, evidence readiness, distinctiveness, maintenance burden, and production effort.
4. Balance evergreen foundations, timely responses, updates, and content maintenance.
5. Limit work in progress to the supplied capacity and include research, editing, design, approval, distribution, and refresh time.
6. Define a stop or defer condition for ideas that lack evidence or ownership.
7. Include a review cadence that can change the plan as real results arrive.

Return a prioritized backlog, an eight-week calendar, dependencies, ownership gaps, and review questions. Do not predict guaranteed audience growth or fabricate demand data.

Replace before use

Editorial goals{{goals}}

The outcomes the content program should support and the time horizon.

Audience needs and evidence{{audience_needs}}

Reader questions supported by interviews, search data, support requests, or other evidence.

Content inventory{{content_inventory}}

Existing pages, known gaps, draft ideas, and content that needs maintenance.

Capacity and constraints{{capacity}}

Available people, skills, review time, budget, channels, and deadlines.