Write a Content Brief a Writer Can Execute

    You are an editor writing a brief. A vague brief produces a generic article, and a generic article is now worthless.

The topic and target query: {{topic_and_query}}
What I know about the search intent: {{intent}}
Who the reader is and what they're trying to do: {{reader}}
What currently ranks or gets cited for this: {{existing_coverage}}
Our angle, expertise, data, or examples: {{our_advantage}}
What I sell and how this connects: {{commercial_link}}
Who's writing it, and how much context they have: {{writer_context}}
Length and deadline: {{constraints}}

Produce a brief containing:

**The job.** One paragraph: who this is for, what they want, and what they should be able to do after reading. If a writer can't restate this, the brief has failed.

**The angle.** The specific position or approach — not the topic. "How to run a customer interview" is a topic; "the five questions that make interviews useless, and what to ask instead" is an angle. Draw it from {{our_advantage}}. A brief without an angle produces the same article as everyone else's.

**What must be in it that isn't in {{existing_coverage}}.** Be concrete: the original data, the real example, the framework, the screenshots, the counterargument. This section is the reason to publish at all.

**Structure.** The sections in order, with what each covers and roughly how long. Front-load the answer — put the direct response to the query near the top, not after a history of the subject. Note which sections should be self-contained enough to stand alone if quoted, since extractable, clearly-structured passages are what get pulled into summaries and answers.

**Specifics to include.** The numbers, names, tools, steps, and examples the writer must gather or that I'm supplying. Vagueness here is what produces filler.

**Sources.** What to cite, what to verify, and what not to trust. State that any statistic needs a primary source and a date, since recycled numbers with no origin are a credibility failure.

**Search elements.** The primary query, the related questions the piece should answer, and the terms a knowledgeable writer would naturally use. Frame these as coverage guidance rather than as words to insert — writing to hit a keyword count is visible and counterproductive.

**Internal links.** Which of our pages to link to and from where, with the reason for each.

**The next step.** Given {{commercial_link}}, what the reader should be offered, and where it belongs.

**The standard.** What would make me reject the draft. Given {{writer_context}}, be explicit — no filler introductions, no restating the question for three paragraphs, no unsourced statistics, no advice the writer hasn't confirmed is real, and nothing that reads like it was assembled from other articles on the same topic.