15 SEO Prompts for ChatGPT & Claude (Each One Actually Run)

Rewrite this page's title tag to compete in the SERP shown. First state what the competing titles collectively promise and what none of them offers that this page genuinely delivers. Then write three candidate titles that lead with that gap, describe the page honestly, and are short enough to display without truncation in search results. For each candidate, say which searcher it wins and which it loses. Do not promise anything the page content cannot support, and do not predict rankings or click-through changes. Finish by recommending one candidate and why. Page summary: {{page}} Target query: {{query}} Competing titles: {{serp}}

Write a meta description for this page. It must promise only what the page copy shown actually delivers, name the concrete thing the searcher gets, and read as a sentence a person would click — not a keyword sequence. Keep it short enough that search results will not cut it off mid-thought. Write three candidates: one benefit-led, one specificity-led (numbers, named items from the page), one question-answering. Flag any candidate that makes a claim you could not point to in the copy, then recommend one. Page copy: {{copy}} Target query: {{query}}

Rewrite this page's introduction so the searcher's question is answered in the first two sentences, using only facts already present in the page. The direct answer comes first; context and nuance follow it, not the other way round. Keep every fact traceable to the copy provided — if the page never actually answers the query, say that plainly instead of writing an answer for it. Preserve the page's voice; do not add marketing language that is not there. Output the rewritten intro, then one sentence on what you moved and why. Current intro and page facts: {{page}} Query: {{query}}

This page ranks but is not clicked. Using the search result it currently shows (title, description, URL) and the competing results around it, diagnose why: title promises the wrong thing for the query, description repeats the title instead of adding a reason, a competitor owns the click with something concrete (a number, a current year, a named brand), or the query's clicks are going to a SERP feature rather than any result. Commit to the most likely cause and say what evidence in the SERP supports it over the alternatives. Only then propose the fix for that cause. Do not predict a CTR number. Our result: {{result}} Query and position: {{query}} Surrounding SERP: {{serp}}

Rewrite this section so its opening directly and completely answers the query in a form that makes sense quoted alone, without the rest of the page. Definition queries get the definition first; how-much queries get the number and its range conditions; how-to queries get the steps as a tight list. Everything must come from the section's existing facts — no new claims. After the rewrite, show the exact passage a search engine would most plausibly extract. Do not promise the snippet will be won; ranking on page one is a precondition you either have or do not. Section: {{section}} Query: {{query}}

Classify each keyword by the searcher's actual need: informational (wants to understand), commercial (comparing before a purchase), transactional (ready to act), or navigational (wants a specific site). Judge from the words themselves and say which word carries the signal — modifiers like best, vs, price, near me, how, why. Where a keyword is genuinely ambiguous, label it mixed and state both readings rather than forcing one. Then group the list into page-sized sets: keywords one page can satisfy together, keywords that need separate pages, and navigational terms to leave alone. Keywords: {{keywords}}

Cluster these keywords into pages: each cluster is a set one page can rank for together because a searcher typing any of them wants the same thing. Name each cluster's page (working title and the primary keyword), list its member keywords, and state the shared need that justifies the grouping. Keywords that look similar but want different things go in different clusters — say which word told you. Mark keywords too weak or too far from the site's topic to deserve a page as skip, with the reason. Do not invent search volumes; if volumes are provided, use them to order clusters, not to create them. Keywords: {{keywords}}

Build a writer-ready brief for this keyword from the SERP evidence provided. Commit to: the dominant intent and the page type that serves it; the angle this page takes that the ranking pages do not, grounded in what the SERP actually lacks; the sub-questions the page must answer, ordered by how the searcher's need unfolds; and the evidence the writer must gather before drafting — the specific tests, numbers, or examples that make the page citable rather than another summary. Name what the brief deliberately excludes and why. Do not specify a word count; the coverage list is the length. Keyword: {{keyword}} SERP: {{serp}}

From this SERP evidence, first state the dominant intent in one sentence and name which results prove it. Then outline a page that serves that intent: headings in searcher order — the committed answer early, supporting detail after, edge cases last — with one line per section stating what it must establish and what evidence it needs. Where the SERP shows a secondary intent worth serving on the same page, mark that section as serving it; where the secondary intent needs its own page, say so instead of bloating this one. Keyword: {{keyword}} SERP: {{serp}}

Compare our page against the competitor page that outranks it. List what they cover that we do not, what they evidence that we merely assert (their tests, numbers, screenshots versus our claims), and what they do worse — thin sections, stale facts, padding — because the gap analysis must cut both ways to be trusted. Then name the three additions to our page that would most change what a reader gets from it, each tied to a specific gap you found. Do not recommend copying their structure; recommend closing evidence gaps. Work only from the two pages as provided. Our page: {{ours}} Theirs: {{theirs}}

This page used to earn traffic and is fading. Write the refresh brief: which facts have gone stale and what current information replaces them; which sections the queries it still gets impressions for actually want, versus sections nobody asked for; what the page must add to beat whoever took its position — grounded in the competitor evidence provided, not guessed. Keep the URL and everything that still works; list what survives untouched so the refresh does not become a rewrite. If the evidence says the topic itself died, say that instead — a perfect refresh of a dead query recovers nothing. Page, stats, and competitor evidence: {{evidence}}

Give a verdict on this page: keep as is, refresh, consolidate into another page, or remove. Use the evidence provided — its traffic history, whether the topic still gets searched, whether the content is accurate today, and what else on the site overlaps it. State the verdict first, then the evidence that drove it, then what would change your mind. For refresh, name the specific sections that are stale. For consolidate, name the receiving page and the redirect. For remove, confirm nothing links to it that would break, and note removal is for pages with no salvageable value — not just low traffic. Page and evidence: {{evidence}}

These pages from one site get impressions for overlapping queries. For each query group, name the page that should own it and the evidence — which page already performs better, which page's content actually satisfies the query, not which was published first. Then per page: what it keeps, what it cedes, and the change that enacts the decision — retitle away from the ceded query, add the section that justifies ownership, or consolidate and redirect if a page ends up owning nothing. Note where apparent cannibalization is actually fine because the queries differ more than their wording suggests. Pages with their query data: {{data}}

This copy was written for a search engine and reads like it. Rewrite it for a person: keep the topic's natural vocabulary — the words a knowledgeable writer would use anyway — and remove the mechanical repetition, the variant-phrase stacking, and the sentences that exist only to hold a keyword. Information content must survive: every fact in the original appears in the rewrite. Show the rewritten copy, then list the phrases you cut and the repetition count for the worst offender so the change is auditable. Copy: {{copy}}

Given a target page and the copy of a source page, find the places in the source copy where a link to the target genuinely helps the reader — a moment where they would want the thing the target page has. For each placement: quote the sentence, show it rewritten with the link, and use anchor text that says what the target delivers in natural words — no bare 'click here', no keyword-exact anchors that read as inserted. If the source copy has no honest place for the link, say so; a forced link is worse than none. Target page: {{target}} Source copy: {{source}}