AI prompts for writers and bloggers

Outline an article.

TOPIC: [TOPIC]
THE POINT I WANT TO MAKE: [YOUR ARGUMENT - not the topic, the claim]
READER: [WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY ALREADY KNOW]
WHAT THEY SHOULD DO OR THINK DIFFERENTLY AFTER READING: [OUTCOME]
LENGTH: [WORD COUNT]
WHAT I KNOW THAT OTHERS DO NOT: [YOUR EXPERIENCE, DATA, OR ANGLE]

Produce:

1. THE THESIS in one sentence, phrased so that a reasonable person could disagree with it. If nobody could disagree, it is a topic, not a thesis - tell me and propose three sharper ones.

2. THE OUTLINE - sections with: the heading, the claim that section makes, the evidence or example supporting it, and the word budget. Each section must advance the argument. If a section does not, cut it.

3. THE OPENING - three options: a specific scene or example, a counterintuitive claim, or a question the reader has already asked themselves. No 'in today's fast-paced world'.

4. WHAT TO CUT - the obvious sections a generic article would include that add nothing here. Naming them stops you writing them.

5. THE OBJECTION - the strongest counter-argument a smart reader will have. Where in the structure do you address it? An article that ignores the obvious objection reads as naive.

6. WHAT ONLY YOU CAN WRITE - given what I told you I know, the parts of this article that could not be written by someone without that knowledge. This is the whole value of the piece; make sure the outline gives it room.

Do not produce a listicle unless the content is genuinely a list.

Write the opening for this piece.

WHAT THE ARTICLE ARGUES: [THESIS]
READER: [WHO AND WHAT THEY CARE ABOUT]
HOW THEY ARRIVED: [search result / newsletter / social link / sent by a colleague]
MY CURRENT OPENING: [PASTE, or 'none yet']
TONE: [DESCRIPTION OR EXAMPLE]

Write five different openings, each under 90 words, each a different approach:

1. THE SPECIFIC SCENE - a concrete moment, with detail. No abstraction.
2. THE CONTRADICTION - something the reader believes, and why it is wrong
3. THE COST - what the reader is losing right now by not knowing this
4. THE DIRECT ANSWER - state the conclusion immediately, then explain. Best for search arrivals.
5. THE QUESTION THEY ALREADY HAVE - phrased in their words, not yours

For each: one line on who it works for and what it risks.

Rules:
- No 'in today's world', 'in an era of', 'we all know that', 'imagine if', 'have you ever'
- No defining a term the reader already knows
- No explaining what the article will cover. Just start.
- The first sentence must contain something specific: a number, a name, a moment, or a claim

Then: given how the reader arrived, which of the five you recommend and why. Search arrivals want the answer; newsletter readers will tolerate a scene.

Turn my notes into a draft. Preserve my voice - do not smooth it into generic prose.

MY NOTES (messy, unordered):
"""
[PASTE]
"""

A SAMPLE OF MY WRITING, so you can match the voice:
"""
[PASTE 200-400 WORDS YOU HAVE WRITTEN]
"""

TARGET LENGTH: [WORDS]
READER: [WHO]
THE POINT: [WHAT IT SHOULD ARGUE]

Before writing, tell me:
- THE VOICE ANALYSIS - from my sample: sentence length and variation, how formal, whether I use contractions, first or second person, how I use humour if at all, my typical paragraph length, and two or three habits that are distinctively mine.

Then write the draft, following that analysis.

Rules:
- Use my own phrasings from the notes wherever they work. My rough phrasing is usually more alive than a polished replacement.
- Where my notes are just a fragment, expand it rather than replacing it.
- Do not add transitions I would not write. Do not add a conclusion that restates the article.
- Mark [THIN] anywhere the notes do not give enough to write the section properly. Do not invent content to fill it.
- Mark [CHECK] on any factual claim derived from my notes that I should verify.
- No em-dash-heavy rhythm unless my sample uses it. No tricolons unless my sample uses them.

After the draft, list: the three places where you were least confident of matching my voice.

Line edit this. Preserve the author's voice.

TEXT:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

AUTHOR'S INTENT: [WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE]
REGISTER: [formal / conversational / technical / literary]
WHAT NOT TO TOUCH: [ANYTHING OFF LIMITS]

Edit for:
1. Sentences that are longer than their content justifies
2. Weak verbs propped up by adverbs ('walked slowly' → 'ambled')
3. Passive voice where the actor matters
4. Nominalisation ('made a decision' → 'decided', 'provides assistance' → 'helps')
5. Filler: 'in order to', 'the fact that', 'it is important to note', 'needless to say', 'basically', 'essentially'
6. Repeated sentence openings and repeated rhythm
7. Vague quantifiers: 'many', 'several', 'various', 'a number of'
8. Mixed or dead metaphors
9. Ambiguous pronouns

Output as a table: Original | Edited | Reason. Then the clean edited text.

Rules:
- Do NOT make every sentence the same length. Varied rhythm is a feature.
- Do not remove the author's characteristic constructions even if unconventional. If a habit is deliberate, leave it and note it.
- Do not simplify vocabulary the reader will know.
- Do not impose your own preferences about em-dashes, semicolons or sentence fragments.
- Flag anything you changed where you are unsure whether it was intentional style.

At the end: the three edits that most improved it, and the one change you considered but did not make because it would have cost the voice.

Cut this draft. Target: [TARGET WORD COUNT] from [CURRENT WORD COUNT].

DRAFT:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

WHAT MUST SURVIVE: [THE ESSENTIAL POINTS]

Work in this order:

1. WHOLE SECTIONS - anything that does not advance the argument. Cutting a paragraph beats trimming ten sentences. Name what you cut and why.
2. THE RUN-UP - openings of sections that clear their throat before saying something. Usually the first one or two sentences of each section can go.
3. RESTATEMENT - the same point made twice in different words. Keep the better one.
4. HEDGING - 'I think', 'it seems', 'arguably', 'somewhat', 'quite', 'really', 'very', 'in order to', 'the fact that'. Cut unless the uncertainty is real and load-bearing.
5. EXPLAINING THE OBVIOUS - things this specific reader already knows.
6. SENTENCE-LEVEL - tighten what remains.

Output:
- THE CUT VERSION at the target length
- WHAT WENT - a list of cut sections with one line each on why
- WHAT I PROTECTED - anything I said must survive that was hard to keep, and how you kept it
- WHAT GOT BETTER - the places where cutting improved the argument rather than just shortening it
- WHAT I WOULD CUT NEXT if you need to go further, and what it would cost

Do not cut specificity. Examples, numbers and names are what make writing worth reading; cut the connective tissue around them instead.

Write headline options.

WHAT THE PIECE ARGUES: [THESIS]
READER: [WHO]
WHERE IT WILL APPEAR: [blog / newsletter subject / social post / search result]
PRIMARY KEYWORD IF SEO MATTERS: [KEYWORD, or 'not relevant']
THE MOST INTERESTING THING IN THE PIECE: [THE BEST BIT]

Write 12 headlines across these approaches, three each:

A. THE SPECIFIC CLAIM - states the conclusion. Works in search and for busy readers.
B. THE UNEXPECTED - something the reader does not expect to be true
C. THE USEFUL - what the reader gets, concretely
D. THE CURIOSITY GAP - but honest. It must be answered by the piece, and the answer must be worth it.

For each, note the character count.

Then assess:
- SEARCH: which work if someone is searching for this. Keyword placement, length under 60 characters for full display.
- SOCIAL: which would be clicked in a feed.
- EMAIL: which work as a subject line - shorter, more personal, no clickbait because it damages sender reputation.
- THE HONEST TEST: for each, does the piece actually deliver what the headline promises? Mark any that overclaim. An overclaiming headline gets the click and loses the reader.

Finally: your top pick for each destination, and the one you would avoid despite it being the most clickable, and why.

No 'the ultimate guide', no 'you won't believe', no 'here's why', no numbers unless the piece is genuinely a list of that many things.

This draft is too generic. Diagnose it and tell me what to add.

DRAFT:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

WHAT I ACTUALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS: [YOUR EXPERIENCE, EXAMPLES, DATA, STORIES]
READER: [WHO]

Produce:

1. THE GENERIC SENTENCES - quote every sentence that could appear in any article on this topic by any author. These are the ones to fix.

2. THE ABSTRACTION LADDER - for each, what the concrete version would be. 'Businesses struggle with communication' → what business, what communication, what happened. Where I have given you the specific, write the replacement. Where I have not, write [NEED: the specific thing required].

3. THE MISSING PROOF - claims stated without evidence. For each: what would make it credible - a number, an example, a named case, a quote, or a description of a specific instance.

4. WHAT YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT IN THE DRAFT - from what I told you, the specifics I have that did not make it in. This is usually where the article's value is hiding.

5. THE ONE PARAGRAPH TO REWRITE - if I only fix one, which, and the rewritten version.

6. THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEM - if the draft is generic because it is trying to cover too much, say so. Breadth is the most common cause of vagueness, and no amount of sentence editing fixes it. Propose the narrower piece.

Do not rewrite the whole draft. Tell me what is missing, because I am the one who has the specifics.

Help me update this article.

ARTICLE:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: [DATE]
WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE: [WHAT YOU KNOW]
HOW IT IS PERFORMING: [TRAFFIC, RANKINGS, ANY DATA]
WHY I AM UPDATING IT: [it's ranking and stale / it stopped ranking / it's wrong now]

Produce:

1. WHAT IS NOW WRONG - factually incorrect, referring to things that no longer exist, or describing a state of affairs that has changed. Quote each.

2. WHAT IS DATED WITHOUT BEING WRONG - references, examples, tools, prices, screenshots, and phrasings that mark this as old even though the substance holds.

3. WHAT IS MISSING - developments since publication that a reader would expect to see covered. Mark anything you are not certain about as [VERIFY].

4. WHAT STILL HOLDS - the parts that are as true as they were. Protect these; the instinct when updating is to rewrite everything, and that usually loses the good bits.

5. STRUCTURAL CHANGES - what should be reordered. Often the once-novel part is now background and should be compressed, while a formerly minor point is now the main event.

6. THE UPDATE PLAN - ranked by (impact / effort). Distinguish: must fix (wrong), should fix (dated), and nice to have.

7. DATE HANDLING - whether to update the published date, add an update note, or both. If the piece ranks, warn about what changes risk: substantially rewriting a ranking page can cost the ranking. Say which of your recommended changes carry that risk.

8. YEAR IN THE TITLE - if the title contains a year, say whether to update it or remove the year entirely. Removing it is usually better for evergreen content.

Do not rewrite from scratch. This piece has history; preserve what works.

Write a newsletter issue.

NEWSLETTER: [WHAT IT IS ABOUT, WHO SUBSCRIBES]
ISSUE TOPIC: [THIS WEEK'S SUBJECT]
WHAT I WANT TO SAY: [MY NOTES OR ARGUMENT]
LENGTH: [WORDS]
MY VOICE: [PASTE A PREVIOUS ISSUE, or describe]
WHAT I AM PROMOTING, IF ANYTHING: [PRODUCT/EVENT/POST, or 'nothing']

Structure:

1. SUBJECT LINE - five options. Specific, under 50 characters, no clickbait, no emoji unless my voice sample uses them. Never 'Newsletter #47'.
2. PREVIEW TEXT - the line after the subject in the inbox. It must add to the subject, not repeat it. Most newsletters waste this entirely.
3. THE OPENING - straight into the idea. No 'hope you had a great week', no weather, no apology for the gap since the last issue.
4. THE BODY - one idea, developed. Not five links with a sentence each.
5. THE PRACTICAL PART - something the reader can use this week.
6. THE CLOSE - one call to action if there is one. Never three.

Rules:
- Write to one person, not a list. 'You', not 'everyone'.
- One idea per issue. A newsletter covering four topics is remembered for none.
- If I am promoting something, it goes after the value, clearly marked, once, without a fake segue.
- No 'in this issue' contents list for anything under 1,000 words.
- Do not manufacture a personal anecdote. If my notes have one, use it; if not, do not invent one.

Then: the one sentence a reader would forward, and whether the issue delivers on the subject line.

Plan a page to rank for this keyword.

TARGET KEYWORD: [KEYWORD]
WHAT CURRENTLY RANKS: [PASTE THE TOP 5 TITLES AND WHAT EACH IS, or describe them]
MY SITE: [WHAT IT IS, AUTHORITY LEVEL]
WHAT I CAN OFFER THAT THEY CANNOT: [YOUR ADVANTAGE - data, experience, a tool, access]
MY CONVERSION GOAL: [IF ANY]

Produce:

1. THE INTENT READING - from what currently ranks, what does the searcher actually want? The SERP is Google telling you what it thinks the intent is; match it or do not rank. Classify: are the results guides, listicles, tools, product pages, comparisons, forum threads?

2. THE FORMAT REQUIRED - if the top results are all tools and I write an article, I will not rank regardless of quality. State plainly what format this keyword demands.

3. WHAT ALL THE TOP RESULTS COVER - the table stakes. Omit any of these and the page looks incomplete.

4. WHAT NONE OF THEM COVER - the gap. This is where the page can win.

5. THE OUTLINE - sections in the order the searcher needs them. Lead with the answer; searchers arriving from Google want it immediately, not after 600 words of context.

6. THE ANSWER BLOCK - the 40-60 word direct answer to the query, to sit immediately under the H1. Written to stand alone if quoted.

7. TITLE AND META - three title options under 60 characters, and a meta description under 155 that describes the page honestly rather than teasing.

8. WHAT WOULD MAKE THIS BETTER THAN THE TOP RESULT - specifically, using my stated advantage. If I have no advantage over the current results, say so plainly - that is a reason to pick a different keyword rather than to write a page that will not rank.

9. INTERNAL LINKS - what should link to this page, and where it should link.

Do not recommend writing a longer version of what already ranks. Length is not a differentiator.

Build a style guide from these samples.

SAMPLES OF OUR WRITING:
"""
[PASTE 3-5 PIECES YOU CONSIDER GOOD EXAMPLES]
"""

WHO WILL USE THIS GUIDE: [WRITERS, THEIR EXPERIENCE]
WHAT WE PUBLISH: [CONTENT TYPES]
KNOWN INCONSISTENCIES THAT ANNOY US: [IF ANY]

Produce a practical style guide, derived from the samples rather than from general best practice:

1. VOICE - three to five adjectives, each with a quote from the samples demonstrating it, and a counter-example of what it is not.

2. THE RULES WE ALREADY FOLLOW - inferred from the samples: person (first/second/third), contractions, sentence length range, paragraph length, formality, how we address the reader, humour and how much.

3. MECHANICS - a decision on each, matching the samples: variety of English, serial comma, numerals vs words, capitalisation of headings, em-dash spacing, how we write dates, times, currency and percentages, how we introduce acronyms.

4. WORDS WE USE AND DO NOT USE - our terms for our own concepts, banned jargon, and words that appear in the samples characteristically.

5. STRUCTURE PATTERNS - how our pieces typically open, how headings are phrased (questions, statements, noun phrases), typical length by content type, how we handle lists.

6. INCONSISTENCIES FOUND - where the samples disagree with each other. For each: the options, and a recommendation. These are the decisions the guide needs to make.

7. THE ONE-PAGE VERSION - the ten rules that matter most. A 40-page style guide is not read; a one-pager is.

8. EXAMPLES - three before/after pairs showing off-guide and on-guide writing.

Derive everything from the samples. Where the samples are silent, say so and propose rather than asserting.

Check this for errors before I publish it.

THE CONTENT:
"""
[PASTE]
"""

WHAT IT IS: [ARTICLE / REPORT / PRESENTATION / POST]
AUDIENCE: [WHO, AND HOW EXPERT]
WHAT I AM SURE OF: [THE CLAIMS YOU KNOW ARE SOLID]
WHAT I AM LESS SURE OF: [THE ONES YOU ARE GUESSING AT]

Produce a table: Claim | Type | Risk if wrong | How to verify | Priority.

Identify:

1. EVERY FACTUAL CLAIM - including the ones stated so confidently they read as background. The dangerous errors are in assertions nobody thought to check.

2. EVERY NUMBER - and for each: is the source stated, is the unit clear, is the period specified, is the comparison basis given? Check any arithmetic present. Verify that percentages are consistent with the figures they derive from.

3. INTERNAL CONTRADICTIONS - places where the piece says two incompatible things, or where a figure in one section does not match the same figure elsewhere.

4. OVERSTATEMENT - claims stronger than the evidence given. Look for: 'proves', 'always', 'never', 'all', 'the most', 'significantly', and causal language attached to correlational evidence.

5. UNSOURCED ASSERTIONS - anything that sounds like a fact but has no attribution, especially statistics and historical claims.

6. THE DATE PROBLEM - anything that will be wrong within a year: current figures, 'recently', 'the latest', named versions, prices, and positions people hold. Flag for either a date stamp or rephrasing.

7. THE THINGS I SAID I WAS LESS SURE OF - assess each specifically. Where my uncertainty should be visible in the text and is not, say so.

8. WHAT AN EXPERT WOULD OBJECT TO - given my stated audience, the claims a knowledgeable reader would challenge, and whether they would be right.

9. THE HIGHEST-RISK ERROR - the one that would most damage credibility if wrong. Verify this one first.

10. WHAT I CANNOT CHECK - be explicit that I cannot verify facts against current sources. This is a list of what to check, not a confirmation that anything is correct.