The Blog Post Prompt Pack

I want to write a blog post about [TOPIC] for [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION, e.g. 'founders of service businesses with 5 to 50 staff']. My site covers [YOUR CONTENT NICHE].

Search for the 5 most common arguments or framings on this topic. Then list 5 angles that are NOT those, that take a contrarian, specific, or underrepresented position. For each, write one sentence that captures the argument and one sentence on why a reader would find it more useful than the generic take.

Constraints:
- Do not suggest 'tips' listicles or 'ultimate guide' framings
- Each angle must have a clear argument, not just a topic
- Avoid angles that require specialist technical knowledge the audience is unlikely to have
- Do not use these words in your output: game-changer, supercharge, unlock, leverage

Here is the angle I am considering for my blog post: [PASTE ANGLE FROM PROMPT 1]

My target reader is [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION]. They are likely already aware of [WHAT THEY KNOW]. Their main frustration with content on this topic is usually [FRUSTRATION, e.g. 'it is too vague to act on'].

Answer three questions:
1. Will this angle feel new to someone who has read 10 articles on this topic? Explain why or why not.
2. What is the one objection a sceptical reader will raise in the first 30 seconds?
3. What does the reader need to believe for this argument to land? Is that belief reasonable to assume?

Be direct. If the angle is weak, say so and suggest a sharper version.

Constraints:
- Do not be diplomatic if the angle is generic
- Each answer should be 2 to 4 sentences
- No bullet-point lists in your answers, write in prose

I am writing a blog post with this angle: [CONFIRMED ANGLE]

For an audience of [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION] on a site about [YOUR NICHE].

Write 6 title options. Each must:
- Be under 65 characters
- Contain a specific, concrete promise or argument (not a vague benefit)
- Avoid words like 'ultimate', 'complete', 'everything you need', 'best'
- Not start with 'How to' unless the how-to is genuinely specific

For each title, write one subheading under 120 characters that adds the context the title leaves out.

Then bold the one pairing you recommend and say in one sentence why it beats the others.

Constraints:
- No exclamation marks
- No em dashes or en dashes in any title or subheading
- Titles must read like a human wrote them for this specific audience, not for search engines

My working title is: [CHOSEN TITLE FROM PROMPT 3]
My target reader is searching for things like: [2 OR 3 SEARCH PHRASES YOUR READER MIGHT USE]

I want to rank for [PRIMARY KEYWORD] but I do not want to water down the angle to do it.

Tell me:
1. Where to put [PRIMARY KEYWORD] naturally in the title, first paragraph, and one H2 without it reading like keyword-stuffing
2. Two to three related phrases to include once each in the body to help topical depth
3. Whether the current title already works for search or needs a small adjustment to include the primary term

Constraints:
- Do not suggest changing the angle to chase search volume
- Do not suggest adding the keyword if it makes the title worse
- Give me the adjusted title if one is needed, not just advice to adjust it

I am writing a blog post with this title: [TITLE]
Angle: [ANGLE]
Audience: [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION]
Target word count: [WORD COUNT, e.g. 1,200 or 1,800]

Build me a post structure that makes a single argument from opening to close. Not a tips list. Not a roundup. A structure where each section builds on the last and the reader ends with a specific belief or action they did not have before.

For each section, write:
- The H2 heading (in the voice of someone who knows what they are talking about, not SEO-optimised filler)
- One sentence on what this section argues or does (not what it covers)
- The transition logic: why this section must follow the one before it

Constraints:
- No more than 5 main sections plus intro and conclusion
- Each section must have a job beyond 'provide information'
- Do not include a 'What is [topic]' section unless the definition is itself the argument
- No filler sections like 'Why this matters' or 'Final thoughts'

Here is my post structure: [PASTE STRUCTURE FROM PROMPT 5]

For each main section (not intro or conclusion), write a brief that tells me exactly what to put in it. The brief should include:
- The core point the section makes (one sentence, as a claim not a topic)
- The evidence, example, or mechanism that proves the point
- Any specific detail, number, or real-world reference that would make this feel concrete
- What the reader should think or feel at the end of this section

I will use these briefs to write the actual content in the next step.

Constraints:
- Write the evidence/example as a real suggestion, not a placeholder like '[insert case study here]'
- If a section needs a number or stat, either provide a real one or tell me what kind to look for
- Keep each brief to 5 to 8 sentences
- Do not write the section content yet, write the brief only

I am writing a blog post titled: [TITLE]
Argument: [ANGLE]
Audience: [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION]

Write a brief for my intro and conclusion before I draft the full post.

For the intro brief:
- The opening move (not a question, not a stat, not 'In today's world'). What is the first thing I say and why will it hold the reader?
- What problem or tension I name in paragraph 1
- The promise I make to the reader (what they will have by the end)
- What I do NOT say in the intro that most posts on this topic say

For the conclusion brief:
- The one belief I want the reader to leave with
- The action I want them to take (specific, low-friction)
- Whether I end on a statement or a question, and why

Constraints:
- No generic opening moves (no starting with a question, no starting with a definition, no starting with a quote)
- The conclusion must not summarise the post. The reader just read it.
- The action CTA must be specific enough that the reader knows exactly what to do next

Write the opening for my blog post using this brief: [PASTE INTRO BRIEF FROM PROMPT 7]

Title: [TITLE]
Audience: [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION]
Voice notes: [DESCRIBE YOUR VOICE, e.g. 'direct, warm, British spelling, short sentences, no jargon']

The opening should be 120 to 180 words and do three things: hook the right reader, name the real problem, and make a clear promise about what the post delivers.

Constraints:
- Do not start with a question
- Do not start with a statistic unless it is specific, sourced, and surprising
- Do not use the phrase 'In this post' or 'In this article'
- Do not use em dashes or en dashes
- No exclamation marks
- British English spelling
- Write in first person if the voice is personal brand, third person if the voice is brand/publication
- The first sentence must not start with 'I', 'If', 'When', or 'Most'

Write the section of my blog post using this brief: [PASTE ONE SECTION BRIEF FROM PROMPT 6]

Section heading: [H2 HEADING]
Post title: [TITLE]
Target length for this section: [WORD COUNT, e.g. 200 to 280 words]
Voice notes: [YOUR VOICE DESCRIPTION]

The section should make its core point, support it with the evidence or example from the brief, and end with the reader in the mental state described in the brief.

Constraints:
- Do not repeat anything already said in the opening
- No sub-bullet lists unless the content is genuinely list-type (steps, items, options)
- If you use an example, make it specific (named tool, real scenario, specific number)
- Do not close the section with a transition sentence like 'Now let us look at...' The next heading does that job
- No em dashes or en dashes
- No passive voice where active works
- British English spelling

[Repeat this prompt for each body section, pasting the relevant brief each time.]

Write the conclusion for my blog post using this brief: [PASTE CONCLUSION BRIEF FROM PROMPT 7]

Post title: [TITLE]
Core argument: [ANGLE]
Target length: 100 to 150 words
Voice notes: [YOUR VOICE DESCRIPTION]

The conclusion should land the one belief the reader leaves with and give them a single specific next action. It should not summarise the post.

Constraints:
- Do not start with 'In conclusion', 'To summarise', 'Wrapping up', or any equivalent
- Do not list the sections the reader just read
- The CTA must be specific. 'Start today' is not specific. 'Open the tool and run [specific action]' is specific.
- No exclamation marks
- No em dashes or en dashes
- British English spelling
- The last sentence should feel like an ending, not a trailing thought

I have written each section of my blog post separately. Please assemble them into a single continuous draft. Do not add any new content. Do not add transition sentences between sections. Do not change any wording.

Here are the sections in order:

[OPENING]

[SECTION 1]

[SECTION 2]

[SECTION 3]

[SECTION 4 if applicable]

[SECTION 5 if applicable]

[CONCLUSION]

Present the assembled draft with:
- The title as an H1
- Each section heading as an H2
- No other formatting changes
- No editorial notes or comments in the output

Constraints:
- Do not add words
- Do not smooth transitions
- Do not 'improve' anything
- Output the assembled draft only

Read this blog post draft and flag every sentence or phrase that has an AI-writing tell. I will fix each one manually.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

For each flag, quote the exact phrase, name the tell (e.g. hedge language, filler opener, passive construction, generic adjective, over-explanation of the obvious), and suggest one alternative phrasing.

Common AI tells to flag:
- Sentences starting with 'It is worth noting that'
- Phrases like 'in the world of', 'at the end of the day', 'it goes without saying'
- Over-hedged claims ('can sometimes', 'may potentially', 'could possibly')
- Adjective stacking ('comprehensive, practical guide')
- The word 'delve' or 'dive into'
- Any sentence that defines a term the audience already knows
- Any paragraph that takes 4 sentences to say something that needs 1
- Transition phrases that state the obvious ('Now that we have covered X, let us look at Y')

Constraints:
- Quote the exact phrase, do not paraphrase
- Give one specific replacement, not 'consider rewriting this'
- If a paragraph has multiple tells, list each one separately
- Do not flag things that are actually fine

Rewrite this blog post draft so every paragraph is as tight as it can be without losing the argument. Remove all filler words, hedge language, and sentences that repeat what the previous sentence already said.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

Rules for this rewrite:
- If a sentence exists only to transition to the next point, delete it
- If a paragraph makes its point in the first sentence, cut everything after that unless it adds specific evidence
- Replace every instance of 'very', 'really', 'quite', 'just', 'simply', 'basically'
- Replace every passive construction with an active one where the subject is clear
- Cut any sentence that starts with 'It is important to' or 'It is worth'

Constraints:
- Do not change the argument or add new points
- Do not change the voice
- Show me the tightened draft only, not a comparison
- British English spelling
- No em dashes or en dashes in the rewrite

Read this blog post draft and flag every place where a specific detail, number, example, or named tool would make the point land harder. Then write the specific version for each.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

For each flag:
- Quote the vague phrase
- Write a specific replacement (with a real example, a real number, a real tool name, or a real scenario)
- If the specific detail needs the writer to verify it, mark it [VERIFY] so they know to check before publishing

Examples of vague versus specific:
- Vague: 'This can save you a lot of time.' Specific: 'For a 1,500-word post, this step typically cuts your editing time from 45 minutes to around 15.'
- Vague: 'Many businesses struggle with this.' Specific: 'Most service businesses I work with hit this problem at the 6-month mark, when they have published enough content to notice patterns but not enough to rank.'
- Vague: 'Use an AI tool to help with this.' Specific: 'In Claude, paste your draft and run the compression prompt in Section 4 of this pack.'

Constraints:
- Do not make up statistics. If the specific detail needs a real number, either provide a plausible one based on common knowledge or mark it [VERIFY]
- Do not add examples that require insider knowledge the reader does not have
- Keep each replacement to one or two sentences

Read this blog post draft and check it against my voice profile below. Flag anywhere the post drifts from my voice. Then rewrite only those sentences.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

My voice profile:
- [DESCRIBE YOUR VOICE: e.g. 'Direct, warm, first person, British spelling, short sentences, conversational but not casual, no jargon, no hype language, confident without being aggressive']
- Words I never use: [LIST YOUR BANNED WORDS]
- Sentence patterns I use: [e.g. 'I often start a new paragraph with a short punchy sentence. Then follow with the explanation. Like this.']
- Tone: [e.g. 'Think of a knowledgeable friend who gives you the straight answer, not a consultant billing by the hour']

For each drift:
- Quote the phrase that does not sound like me
- Name why it does not fit (wrong register, too formal, too hedged, too hype, wrong vocabulary)
- Write the version that sounds like me

Constraints:
- Do not rewrite sections that are already on voice
- Do not improve content that has not drifted, only fix the drifts
- Present only the changes, not the full redrafted post

Read this blog post and audit every heading (H1, H2, H3) against these criteria. Rewrite any heading that fails.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

Criteria for each heading:
1. Does it tell the reader what the section argues, not just what it covers? ('Why your outline is costing you an hour per post' beats 'The outline'.)
2. Is it under 65 characters?
3. Does it avoid vague words like 'overview', 'tips', 'things to know', 'key points'?
4. If someone skimmed only the headings, would they still understand the post's core argument?
5. Does it use the natural language of the audience, not SEO-phrase language?

For each heading that fails, write a replacement that passes all five criteria.

Constraints:
- Do not change headings that pass all five criteria
- No em dashes or en dashes in any heading
- Heading rewrites must match the content of the section they introduce
- Do not suggest making all headings into questions. One or two questions are fine. All questions is a pattern.

Read this blog post draft and check the paragraph structure for screen readability.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

Flag:
1. Any paragraph over 100 words (suggest the natural split point)
2. Any section where three or more paragraphs in a row are the same length (monotonous rhythm)
3. Any place where two consecutive paragraphs open with the same word
4. Any place where the post has gone 400 words without a heading, subheading, or visual break

For each flag, give me the specific fix, not general advice.

Constraints:
- Do not change the content, only the paragraph structure
- Do not split paragraphs where the break would be mid-argument
- If a section needs a subheading, write the H3 text, do not just say 'add a subheading here'

Read this blog post and answer these four questions. Be direct.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

1. What is the one thing this post argues? Write it in one sentence. If you cannot, the post has a clarity problem.
2. Who is this post for? Be specific (not 'marketers' or 'business owners'). If you cannot name a specific reader, the audience is too broad.
3. What does the reader do differently after reading this? Name the specific action, not the general benefit.
4. Is there any section the reader could skip without losing the argument? If yes, name it and say whether to cut it or fix it.

Constraints:
- Answer each question directly in 1 to 3 sentences
- Do not hedge with 'it depends' unless you explain what it depends on
- If any answer reveals a problem, name the problem and tell me which prompt to rerun to fix it

Do a final line edit on this blog post. Fix only genuine errors. Do not make stylistic changes beyond what is listed below.

[PASTE FULL DRAFT]

Check for and fix:
- Spelling errors
- Subject-verb agreement errors
- Repeated words within the same paragraph (other than deliberate repetition for effect)
- Missing or misplaced commas that change meaning
- [BRITISH or AMERICAN] English consistency (flag any word that uses the wrong variant)
- Any remaining em dashes or en dashes (replace with a comma, a full stop, or restructure)
- Any curly or smart quotes (replace with straight quotes)

Present the corrected draft in full. Mark every change in [square brackets] so I can review each one.

Constraints:
- Do not rewrite for style
- Do not add words
- Do not change the argument
- If you are unsure whether something is an error or a stylistic choice, leave it and note it at the end

Write the following for this blog post. Use the post itself as your only source.

[PASTE FINAL DRAFT]

1. Meta description: 150 to 155 characters, includes the primary keyword [PRIMARY KEYWORD], reads as a genuine reason to click, not a summary of the post. No exclamation marks.

2. Excerpt (for the blog index page): 2 sentences, 40 to 60 words, written to make the right reader click through, not to explain what the post is about.

3. Social share title: An alternative title for when you share the post on LinkedIn or in a newsletter. 60 to 80 characters. May be more conversational than the SEO title. Should work without the context of the site.

Constraints:
- Meta description must not start with the word 'Learn' or 'Discover'
- Excerpt must not start with 'In this post'
- Social title must not duplicate the SEO title exactly
- No em dashes or en dashes in any output
- British English spelling