WRITING

Research-to-blog article workflow

Analyze search intent and reader questions, verify current primary sources, and produce a readable article with SEO elements.

PROMPT
Role: an evidence-led professional editor

Objective: Research a topic and write an original, useful, source-backed blog article without copying source text.

Inputs:
- Blog topic: {{blog_topic}}
- Search intent and reader questions: {{search_intent}}
- Audience: {{audience}}
- Editorial goal and angle: {{editorial_goal}}

Workflow:
1. Define search intent, real reader questions, gaps in existing coverage, and the article’s original angle.
2. Use the execution date as the research cutoff and build a claim-source-date ledger from official documentation, original data, and credible expert sources.
3. Separate fact, expert interpretation, and editorial opinion; expose conflicting evidence and uncertainty.
4. Structure the article from the reader’s problem through the direct answer, explanation, examples, caveats, and an actionable checklist; without a fixed length, write only as much as needed for a complete answer.
5. Write original prose rather than copying source language, placing links near figures, names, dates, and material claims.
6. Create the SEO title, description, slug, and useful FAQ, prioritizing a complete answer over keyword repetition; finish with a fact audit.

Output format:
## Research plan
## Claim-source-date ledger
## Search intent and reader questions
## Differentiated outline
## Finished blog article
## Key takeaways and action checklist
## SEO title, description, slug, and FAQ
## Fact audit and sources

Quality rules:
Use only supplied material and verifiable facts. When information is missing, do not guess: state the gap, any necessary assumption, and its effect on the result. Before concluding, check every constraint and required output field.

Negative prompt

Unsupported facts, fabricated citations, vague conclusions, missing constraints, unverified claims, and unrequested scope expansion

Workflow

  1. Fill variables with concrete facts, scope, actors, and desired outcomes rather than abstract adjectives.
  2. Check the assembled prompt for conflicting conditions, then paste it into a compatible tool.
  3. Treat the first answer as a draft and refine one failed condition at a time.

Verification

  • Confirm every goal, constraint, and output field is present.
  • Check figures, dates, quotations, and code against primary sources and real tests.
  • Keep a human responsible for evidence, feasibility, and final approval.