You’ve published what feels like great content, but it’s not ranking. Google Search Console shows a sea of confusing data. You’re left guessing: is it the title? The meta description? Or a deeper technical flaw you can’t see? Trial-and-error SEO wastes weeks.
This isn’t another vague “write better content” tip. The prompt below is a systematic audit tool. Feed it a URL, and it returns a structured breakdown of on-page and technical SEO issues, complete with prioritized fixes. It turns data overload into an actionable repair list.
📋 The Prompt
**Provide your analysis in this exact structure:**
1. **Executive Summary (1-2 sentences):** State the primary SEO strength and the single most critical issue to fix immediately.
2. **On-Page SEO Analysis:**
* **Title Tag & Meta Description:** Evaluate length, keyword placement, and click-through appeal. Provide an improved version.
* **Header Hierarchy (H1-H3):** Check for proper structure, keyword relevance, and logical flow. Identify any missing or misused headers.
* **Keyword Analysis:** Identify the primary target keyword and 2-3 secondary keywords. Assess their prominence in the first 100 words, headers, and body.
* **Content Quality & E-E-A-T Signals:** Analyze depth, originality, and whether it demonstrates Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. Suggest one concrete addition to boost E-E-A-T.
* **Internal Linking:** Note the number and relevance of internal links. Recommend 1-2 specific, relevant internal links from [this site] to add, explaining why. (For example, if the article is about content basics, linking to a guide on creating SEO-friendly content would provide deeper value).
* **Readability & UX:** Assess sentence/paragraph length, use of multimedia, and mobile-friendliness (based on text structure).
3. **Technical & Performance Snapshot (Identify Likely Issues):**
* **Page Speed Indicators:** Based on content structure, flag common culprits (e.g., unoptimized image descriptions, render-blocking JS likely).
* **Indexability Checks:** Identify any obvious text-to-HTML ratio issues or thin content risks.
* **Core Web Vitals Assessment:** Predict potential CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) or LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) issues from the described content layout.
4. **Action Plan (Prioritized):**
* **P0 (Fix within 24 hours):** List the 1-2 most critical issues from above.
* **P1 (Fix this week):** List 2-3 high-impact improvements.
* **P2 (Optimize next month):** List 1-2 strategic enhancements for long-term gains.
5. **One Strategic Question:** Pose one insightful question about the site's broader content strategy or technical setup that this analysis surfaces.
How It Works
Why This Prompt Cuts Through the SEO Noise
Generic AI commands like “check SEO” get you generic, shallow lists. This prompt works because it enforces a consultant-grade framework. It mimics how a top agency would bill for an audit.
The mandated structure forces the AI to move beyond observations and into diagnosis and prescription. By requiring a “Primary SEO Strength,” it starts positively, building credibility. The “single most critical issue” creates immediate focus, preventing overwhelm.
The real magic is in the subsections. Asking for an “improved version” of the title tag forces generative action, not just critique. The E-E-A-T analysis pushes the AI to evaluate Google’s quality rater guidelines, a layer most prompts miss. The specific internal linking request ties the page into your site’s topical authority, a key ranking factor. This is foundational when you’re building an online business from the ground up.
Finally, the prioritized action plan (P0, P1, P2) translates analysis into a project management ticket. It tells you what to do now versus what to plan for. The concluding “Strategic Question” elevates the output from a page fix to a business insight, perhaps about site architecture or understanding SEO algorithms at a deeper level.
Pro Tips & Variations
Pro Tips & Customization
To Go Deeper: Add “Assume a Core Web Vitals mobile score of ‘Needs Improvement'” to the prompt. This biases the technical snapshot towards mobile-specific fixes. You can also specify a target keyword in brackets to see how well the page aligns with your intent.
Common Pitfall: The AI may hallucinate technical details it cannot truly know (like exact server response times). It’s best at identifying probable issues based on content patterns. Treat those as hypotheses to verify with real tools like PageSpeed Insights.
For Different Outputs:
– Competitor Analysis: Run the prompt on a competitor’s top-ranking page. Replace the action plan with a “Gap Analysis” section comparing your page to theirs.
– Content Brief Generation: After analyzing a weak page, instruct: “Using the deficiencies identified, generate a detailed content brief to rewrite this page for topical authority.”
– Site-Wide Strategy: Run it on 3-5 pillar pages. Then ask the AI to synthesize the recurring issues in the “Strategic Questions” to identify systemic problems.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can this prompt replace tools like Ahrefs or SEMrush?
No. It’s a complementary analysis layer. This prompt interprets and prioritizes. It excels at turning observations from those tools (or GSC) into a clear action plan. Use it to make sense of your data, not as the primary data source.
How accurate is the technical assessment without crawling the site?
Treat it as a highly educated prediction engine. It spots red flags (e.g., ‘page has no subheaders’ predicts poor structure, which often correlates with low scores). Always validate technical guesses with a real crawler or Chrome DevTools.
The AI keeps giving me a different 'most critical issue.' Why?
This often means your page has several equally severe flaws. This is useful information! It suggests you need a broad overhaul, not a single tweak. Run the prompt twice, average the P0 items, and tackle those first.
Can I use this for a page that hasn't been written yet?
Not directly. It needs content to analyze. However, you can reverse-engineer it: Use the prompt on a competitor’s page to create a brief, then use that brief to write your superior version.
The internal linking suggestion seems off. Should I trust it?
Use it as a brainstorming aid. The AI suggests links based on semantic relevance from the content it sees. It might miss deeper context. Evaluate its suggestion—if it logically helps a user or builds topic clusters, use it. If not, discard it and use your judgment.
