SEO · On-page optimization
The Best Prompt for On-Page SEO
The best prompt for on-page SEO reviews a real page against a single target query and the reader behind it. This prompt takes the page text, its current title and meta description and the query, diagnoses how well the page matches intent, then returns a ranked list of concrete edits with the current wording and a suggested replacement side by side. It does not use keyword density targets or add facts the page does not contain.
On-Page SEO Review Prompt
Reviews one existing page against its target query and returns specific before-and-after edits to the title, headings, opening, coverage, links and images.
- Works with
- ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini
- Difficulty
- Beginner
- Complexity
- Multi-part reply
- Variables
- 6
- Version
- 1.0
Customize this prompt
Fill in what you know. Anything left blank stays as a [bracketed placeholder]. Nothing you type leaves your browser.
6 variables · fields marked * matter most
# Your job Act as an on-page SEO editor. Review one page against one target query and tell me exactly what to change. Favor edits that help the reader find and trust the answer; that is also what search engines are trying to reward. # The page URL: [Page URL] Target query: [Target query] Who searches this and what they want: [Searcher and what they want] Current title tag and meta description: [Current title tag and meta description] Other pages on the site I could link to or from: [Related pages on your site] <page_content> [Page content] </page_content> # Review, in this order 1. Intent match. In three sentences: what the searcher wants, what this page gives them, and the gap. If the page is the wrong type for the query (for example a product page for a how-to query), say so first, because wording edits will not fix that. 2. Title tag and H1. Do they describe the page accurately and distinctly? Propose one replacement for each if needed. 3. Opening. Does the first screen of text answer or clearly promise the answer to the query? Rewrite the opening paragraph if not. 4. Headings and structure. List the headings as they stand. Flag vague, duplicated or out-of-order ones and give replacements. 5. Coverage. Name questions a searcher would still have after reading. For each, say where a new passage should go and what it must cover. Also flag sections that do not serve the query and could be cut or moved. 6. Trust. Point to claims with no visible support, missing authorship or dates, and anything that reads as written for search engines instead of people. 7. Links and images. Suggest internal links using only the pages I listed, with descriptive anchor text. Note images that need alt text and describe what the alt text should convey. # Constraints - Work only from page_content. Do not add facts, statistics, prices or quotes. Where new information is needed, write [ADD: what is needed]. - No keyword density or keyword count advice. Never suggest repeating the query unnaturally. - Do not comment on speed, code or backlinks; you cannot see them. - Make no promises about rankings. # Output A. Intent verdict (three sentences) B. Change table: Element | Current | Suggested | Why | Priority (high, medium, low) C. Coverage gaps and cuts D. The three edits to make first
Use it when you are
- Improving a page that gets impressions for a query but few clicks or visits
- Reviewing a draft before publishing to check it answers the target query
- Giving a writer specific edit notes instead of a plugin score
- Checking whether a page is the right type for the query it targets
Why this prompt works
Intent is judged before a single word is edited
The most common reason a page underperforms for a query is that it is the wrong kind of page. Putting the intent verdict first, and telling the model to say so when the page type is wrong, saves you from polishing headings on a page that needs a different format altogether.
Current and suggested wording sit side by side
Advice like 'make the title more descriptive' is hard to act on. The change table requires the existing text and a replacement in adjacent columns with a reason, so each row is an edit you can accept, adjust or reject in a minute.
Missing information becomes a placeholder, not an invention
When a page lacks a detail the searcher needs, a model's instinct is to write it. The [ADD: ...] marker turns that instinct into a note for someone who knows the facts, keeping fabricated specifics out of a page that carries your name.
Old habits are ruled out by name
Keyword density targets and forced repetition still appear in model output because they are common in older SEO writing. Google's guidance describes keyword stuffing as a spam practice and asks for content written for people, so the prompt excludes those suggestions explicitly.
How to use it
- Copy the page text with its headings labeled by level. Include image file names or captions if you want alt text suggestions.
- Pick one target query. If the page targets several unrelated queries, that is a finding in itself; run the prompt for the most important one.
- Describe the searcher in a sentence: who they are and what they want to walk away with.
- List a few related pages so internal link suggestions point to URLs that exist.
- Apply the three first edits, then work down the change table by priority.
- Fill every [ADD: ...] placeholder with verified information before publishing.
AI model compatibility
| Model | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT | Expected to work | If the change table is cut short, ask it to continue from the last completed row. |
| Claude | Expected to work | Paste the page text inside the page_content tags with heading levels marked (H1, H2, H3) so structure survives the copy and paste. |
| Gemini | Expected to work | The numbered review order matters; keep it when you edit the prompt so intent is judged before wording. |
“Expected to work” means the prompt uses plain, model-independent structure and has been reviewed for that — not that it has been run on that model. A model is marked Tested only when a test record is published below.
Worked example
Scenario: An illustrative case: a furniture retailer's guide that appears in search for a how-to query but opens with company history.
# Your job Act as an on-page SEO editor. Review one page against one target query and tell me exactly what to change. Favor edits that help the reader find and trust the answer; that is also what search engines are trying to reward. # The page URL: https://example.com/guides/standing-desk-height/ Target query: correct standing desk height Who searches this and what they want: Office workers setting up a new standing desk who want a quick way to find the right height Current title tag and meta description: Title: Standing Desks | Example Furniture Meta description: Shop our range of standing desks with free delivery. Other pages on the site I could link to or from: /standing-desks/ (category) /guides/monitor-height/ (guide) <page_content> Full guide text pasted with headings: an H1 of 'Standing Desks', two paragraphs about the company, then sections on desk benefits, height setup and accessories </page_content> # Review, in this order 1. Intent match. In three sentences: what the searcher wants, what this page gives them, and the gap. If the page is the wrong type for the query (for example a product page for a how-to query), say so first, because wording edits will not fix that. 2. Title tag and H1. Do they describe the page accurately and distinctly? Propose one replacement for each if needed. 3. Opening. Does the first screen of text answer or clearly promise the answer to the query? Rewrite the opening paragraph if not. 4. Headings and structure. List the headings as they stand. Flag vague, duplicated or out-of-order ones and give replacements. 5. Coverage. Name questions a searcher would still have after reading. For each, say where a new passage should go and what it must cover. Also flag sections that do not serve the query and could be cut or moved. 6. Trust. Point to claims with no visible support, missing authorship or dates, and anything that reads as written for search engines instead of people. 7. Links and images. Suggest internal links using only the pages I listed, with descriptive anchor text. Note images that need alt text and describe what the alt text should convey. # Constraints - Work only from page_content. Do not add facts, statistics, prices or quotes. Where new information is needed, write [ADD: what is needed]. - No keyword density or keyword count advice. Never suggest repeating the query unnaturally. - Do not comment on speed, code or backlinks; you cannot see them. - Make no promises about rankings. # Output A. Intent verdict (three sentences) B. Change table: Element | Current | Suggested | Why | Priority (high, medium, low) C. Coverage gaps and cuts D. The three edits to make first
What a good response should contain
- An intent verdict noting that the searcher wants a quick method and the page delays it behind unrelated introduction
- Replacement title and H1 that describe the guide instead of the product category
- A rewritten opening that leads with how to find the right height, using only information already on the page
- A coverage note with [ADD: ...] placeholders where details such as seated height or monitor position are missing
- Internal link suggestions limited to the two listed pages, with descriptive anchor text
This is an illustrative scenario showing how to fill in the prompt and what to look for. It is not a recorded model output. Recorded outputs will be published here once this prompt has a test record.
Testing and editorial review
Status: Untested. Reviewed for structure and clarity by the editorial team. No recorded model test yet.
No test record has been published for this prompt yet. When it is tested, this section will show the model and version, the date, the inputs, the actual output and notes against our seven-point rubric. We do not publish numerical scores.
| Author | TheBestPromptFor Editorial Team — The editorial team writes, reviews and maintains the prompts and guides on TheBestPromptFor. Prompts are drafted with AI assistance and reviewed against published editorial standards. |
|---|---|
| Published | November 15, 2026 |
| Last reviewed | November 15, 2026 |
| Last tested | Not yet tested |
| Version history |
|
Limitations and things to check
- The review covers text only. Layout, page speed, mobile rendering and markup are outside what the model can see.
- The model does not see live search results, so its reading of intent is an informed judgment. Check the current results for your query.
- Suggested rewrites reuse what is on the page. Gaps marked [ADD] need your expertise.
- Better on-page content does not guarantee higher rankings; many factors are outside the page.
Alternative prompts
SEO
Title Tag and Meta Description Prompt
Writes unique, accurate title tags and meta descriptions for a batch of pages, with options, character counts and a check against what each page says.
- ChatGPT
- Claude
- Gemini
SEO
Content Refresh Prompt
Audits an existing page section by section, decides whether to refresh, rewrite, merge or leave it, and lists what to keep, update, cut, add and verify.
- ChatGPT
- Claude
- Gemini
- Perplexity
SEO
SEO Content Brief Prompt
Produces a writer-ready brief: reader intent, the angle only you can offer, a purposeful outline, evidence to gather and clear acceptance criteria.
- ChatGPT
- Claude
- Gemini
- Perplexity
Content Writing
Editing and Proofreading Prompt
Edits a draft at the level you choose, protects the author's voice, and returns a change log plus queries instead of silent rewrites.
- ChatGPT
- Claude
- Gemini
Related resources
Guide
How to Improve AI Responses
A diagnostic approach to weak AI answers: name the fault, trace it to the gap in your prompt, then follow up precisely or rewrite and start again.
Guide
How to Write a Good AI Prompt
The five parts of a complete prompt (goal, context, task, constraints, output format), with a worked rewrite and a pre-send checklist.
Frequently asked questions
How many times should the keyword appear on the page?
There is no target number. Google's guidance warns against keyword stuffing and recommends writing naturally for readers. Use the words your audience uses in the title, headings and text where they fit, and spend the effort on answering the query completely.
Can I use this on a draft that is not published yet?
Yes. Leave the URL blank and paste the draft. The review works the same way, and catching an intent mismatch before publishing is cheaper than fixing it afterward. Skip the internal link suggestions if related pages are not live yet.
Does this replace an SEO plugin score?
It does a different job. Plugin scores check for the presence of elements; this review reads the page as a searcher would and proposes specific wording. Use plugin checks for mechanical issues and this prompt for substance.
Sources and references
- SEO Starter Guide — Google Search Central
- Creating helpful, reliable, people-first content — Google Search Central
- Google Search Essentials — Google Search Central
Was this prompt useful?
No account needed. Do not include personal information.