The brief missing between the list and the writer

• You hand the writer a keyword and hope for a miracle.
• Every piece comes out with a different structure and the site does not feel like a site.
• Writing the brief costs almost as much as writing the piece, so nobody writes it.

Bad content almost always starts with a bad brief.

1. 1

   It decides what type of page it is

   Guide, comparison, service page, product sheet, case study or glossary. The decision comes from which format dominates that query today, not from which format the team feels like writing.

2. 2

   It writes the skeleton

   Sections, subsections and the questions each must answer. A section that answers no specific question is surplus, so the brief comes out short rather than long.

3. 3

   It asks for the evidence up front

   Which figures, from which source and of which date are needed for the piece to be citable. Asking at commission time avoids the worst ending: a finished piece that must be redone because it cannot support what it claims.

• The full brief, with page type, URL, headline and metadata.
• The section outline with the question each one answers.
• The suggested internal links, which is what turns loose pages into a site.

• Anyone commissioning content from external writers who needs it to come out consistent.
• In-house teams that want to stop arguing about structure on every piece.
• Agencies delivering content plans that they want to be executable.

Available from Starter. The number of clusters you can turn into briefs at once grows by plan, and cost is per cluster processed, not per page you end up writing.

See the full pricing

Does the brief write the content?

No, and that is deliberate. A brief defines what must be answered and with what support; writing it is a different job, with a different tool if you want help. Mixing the two produces pieces that satisfy the brief and say nothing.

Can I change the structure it proposes?

Entirely. The brief is a starting point based on what dominates that query today, and there are cases where your different angle is precisely the advantage. What you should not change without thinking is the page type.

Are the internal links it suggests real?

They come from pages that already exist on your site, and from the other briefs in the same batch. Linking to something that does not exist is never suggested: a link to an imaginary page is a broken link the moment somebody applies it.

Does it help AI cite me or is it only for Google?

For both, and for the same reason: a page with sections that answer specific questions, with dated and attributed figures, is easier for a model to cite and easier to rank. The brief's evidence list is there precisely for that.