On-Page SEO Optimization of an Existing Draft
Audit a draft against its target keyword and return specific, line-level fixes rather than generic advice.
Audits an existing page or draft against its target keyword and intent, returning line-level fixes across title, headings, opening, coverage, internal links and readability, each with the exact replacement text rather than generic guidance.
Ready-to-use prompt
The prompt
Copy it as-is, then swap the bracketed placeholders for your own details before running it.
Role: You are an SEO editor optimising an existing draft.
Context:
- Draft or page text: {{page_text}}
- Primary keyword: {{primary_keyword}}
- Secondary keywords: {{secondary_keywords}}
- Search intent: {{search_intent}}
- Internal links available: {{internal_links}}
Task: Return an optimisation report with these sections, each as a table of specific fixes:
1. Title and H1 - current, problem, replacement
2. Heading structure - missing, mis-ordered or vague headings, with rewrites
3. Opening 100 words - does it answer the query immediately, if not supply a rewrite
4. Coverage gaps - subtopics the intent demands that the draft omits
5. Keyword usage - places where the primary term should appear naturally, and any stuffing to remove
6. Internal links - anchor text and the exact sentence to place each in
7. Readability and structure - paragraphs to split, lists or tables to introduce
8. Anything to cut
Rules:
- Every recommendation must quote the current text and supply the replacement.
- No generic advice such as "add more detail" without saying which detail.
- Never suggest a keyword density target.
- Preserve the author's voice in every rewrite.
- For missing content, quote the insertion anchor and provide its complete replacement including the addition.
- Use only supplied internal-link destinations; mark unsupported coverage claims as requiring verification.
- Ensure replacements remain consistent when applied together; mark satisfactory sections as no change.
Finish with: the three changes with the highest expected impact, ranked.Estimated results
Editor's note
Why this prompt matters
Ask a model to optimise a page and you usually get advice you already knew: add more detail, use the keyword in headings, improve readability. None of it is actionable because none of it points at a line. This prompt bans that output. Every recommendation must quote the current text and supply the replacement, which turns the audit into a patch you can apply in fifteen minutes. It also refuses to give keyword density targets, because chasing a density number is how good drafts get ruined.
Anatomy
Prompt engineering breakdown
Role
Context
Goal
Constraints
Output format
What you'll get
Expected output
Example: a meeting-agenda draft
Generic scenario: the target keyword is “how to write a meeting agenda,” with informational intent. The draft offers general meeting advice but no usable agenda-building sequence. Available internal links are /meeting-notes and /action-items. The fixes below preserve its direct, conversational voice; they do not assume access to ranking data or competing pages.
1. Title and H1
These can share wording here: the page promises one straightforward task, not two different benefits.
| Current | Problem | Replacement | |---|---|---| | Title: “Better Meetings” | Too broad to identify the task. | “How to Write a Meeting Agenda: A Practical Checklist” | | H1: “Make meetings count” | Hides what readers will learn. | “How to Write a Meeting Agenda” |
2. Heading structure
Keep the existing order, but make the headings describe actions rather than abstract stages.
| Current | Problem | Replacement | |---|---|---| | “Preparation” | Does not identify the first decision. | “Define the outcome before listing topics” | | “The details” | Gives scanning readers no useful signal. | “Give each topic an owner and a time limit” |
3. Opening 100 words
The opening delays the answer. Replace its first paragraph; retain the practical example that follows it.
| Current | Replacement | |---|---| | “Meetings are part of working life. Some are useful and others are not. Preparation makes the difference.” | “To write a meeting agenda, state the outcome you need, list only the topics that support it, and give each topic an owner and a time limit. Share the agenda beforehand so participants know what to prepare.” |
4. Coverage gaps
The missing element is a concrete agenda item, not another paragraph about preparation. Use the existing sentence as the insertion anchor.
| Current | Replacement | |---|---| | “Write down the topics.” | “Write down the topics as questions or decisions. For example: ‘Which launch tasks are blocked? Owner: project lead. Time: 10 minutes. Outcome: assign a next step for each blocker.’” |
5. Keyword usage
Do not add the exact phrase to every heading. Remove the draft’s conspicuous repetition instead.
| Current | Replacement | |---|---| | “A meeting agenda helps meeting agenda participants follow the meeting agenda.” | “An agenda helps participants follow the discussion.” |
6. Internal links
| Current | Replacement | |---|---| | “Take notes and follow up.” | “Use meeting notes to record decisions, then assign action items with owners and deadlines.” |
7. Readability and structure
| Current | Replacement | |---|---| | “Add a topic, an owner, a time limit and an outcome for every item.” | “For each item, include:\n- Topic\n- Owner\n- Time limit\n- Expected outcome” |
8. Anything to cut
| Current | Replacement | |---|---| | “Everyone knows meetings matter.” | Delete this sentence; no replacement. |
Three highest-impact changes
- Rewrite the opening to answer the query immediately.
- Add the worked agenda item so readers can apply the instructions.
- Align the title and H1 with the task.
These are editorial priorities, not predicted ranking gains.
Under the hood
Why this prompt works
The quote-and-replace requirement is what makes the output usable: it forces the model to read the actual draft rather than pattern-match against generic SEO advice. Prioritising the opening 100 words targets the part of the page that decides whether a searcher stays, and the explicit cuts section counteracts the default bias toward adding length. Preserving the author's voice in rewrites keeps the optimisation from flattening the page into the same tone as every other result.
Model fit
Best AI models for this prompt
Claude
Best at preserving author voice in rewrites, and the most willing to recommend cutting rather than adding.
ChatGPT
Fast across long drafts. Hold it to the quoting rule or it drifts into generic advice.
Gemini
Useful when you paste the top competing page beside your draft for a comparative audit.
When to use
- After confirming intent for a page ranking around positions 5–20.
- Before publishing a complete draft written without SEO input.
- During a refresh after checking why organic performance declined.
- At editorial handoff, when an author needs replacements rather than an audit checklist.
When not to use
- When the page targets the wrong intent; resolve that first.
- When the draft is under 200 words and needs development.
- When organic discovery is not a goal for the page.
- When diagnosing indexing or ranking losses requires analytics, crawl data or live search results.
- When specialist claims need human verification before rewriting.
Get more from it
Pro tips
- 1
Paste the full draft, preserving headings; label the title separately from the H1.
- 2
Reject fixes without exact source quotes. For insertions, require a quoted placement anchor.
- 3
Apply the top three fixes first; log the date and compare performance over a suitable observation window.
- 4
Flag distinctive phrases to preserve so rewrites do not flatten the author’s voice.
- 5
Supply internal-link URLs with destination summaries; reject anchors that misrepresent those pages.
- 6
Mark claims requiring verification before the model expands missing coverage.
- 7
For a second pass, paste the revised draft and request only unresolved issues, conflicting edits and accidental repetition.
Don't ship this
Common mistakes
✗ Accepting generic advice like add more detail.
Fix — Enforce the quote-and-replace rule for every row.
✗ Optimising a page with the wrong intent.
Fix — Fix the intent match first; on-page edits cannot rescue a format mismatch.
✗ Chasing a keyword density figure.
Fix — Place the term where it reads naturally and ignore density entirely.
People also ask
Frequently asked questions
Q.Will this rewrite my whole page?
No. It returns targeted fixes that quote your current text and supply a replacement, so you apply changes selectively and keep the parts that already work, along with the author's voice.
Q.What keyword density should I aim for?
None. Keyword density is not a ranking factor and optimising for it damages readable copy. The prompt is explicitly instructed not to give a density target, and instead names the places a term should appear naturally.
Q.My page ranks 15th — can on-page work fix that?
Often yes, if the intent match is right. When the format itself is wrong for the query, on-page edits will not close the gap and you need to change the page type instead. Check intent before optimising.