Supply what research cannot know
SEO Researcher returns research, not a finished article. Your writing agent needs your product facts, experience, examples, editorial voice, and constraints. Provide actual first-party material: interview notes, experiments, screenshots, customer questions, or documented processes. Do not ask it to invent first-hand experience.
Draft from this brief and completed SEO Researcher job [job ID].
Use our supplied product facts and examples as the authority for our
business. Follow [voice, audience, structure, length constraints].
Do not run fresh research unless a specific evidence gap requires it.
Answer the main question early. Explain tradeoffs and when advice
changes. Add concrete examples supported by the supplied material.
Verify material claims against the actual sources you can access.
If a source is unavailable, identify the gap; do not imply you read it.
Return the draft plus an editorial evidence note. Do not publish.Make passages understandable on their own
Name the subject, explain the answer directly, and put qualifications near the claim. A comparison table needs consistent dimensions and dates, not arbitrary winners. A process needs actionable steps and a way to know whether they worked. Clear passages help readers and make excerpts less ambiguous; they do not ensure that an AI system will cite the page.
Keep evidence and prose separate during review
Maintain a working claim ledger: claim, supporting URL or first-party artifact, date, whether the source directly supports it, and any limitation. Use concise attribution in the draft where it helps the reader; keep unresolved items in the editorial note rather than disguising them as finished facts.
Avoid fabricated quotations, reviews, statistics, credentials, personal use, and outcomes. Do not copy competitor wording or turn a competitor’s assertion into your own verified fact. Where claims change quickly, verify the date and actual source. Where the packet is partial, narrow the draft to what can be supported.