20 Claude Prompts for SEO That Drive Rankings

<context> I run a [type of business, e.g. B2B SaaS for project management] targeting [audience, e.g. mid-market engineering teams]. My domain authority is approximately [DA, e.g. 35]. My seed keywords are: [SEED KEYWORD 1], [SEED KEYWORD 2], [SEED KEYWORD 3]. </context> <task> Expand each seed keyword into 15-20 long-tail variations organized by search intent (informational, commercial, transactional, navigational). For each keyword variation, provide: 1. The full keyword phrase 2. Estimated search intent 3. Difficulty assessment (low/medium/high) relative to my DA 4. A suggested content format (blog post, comparison page, landing page, tool page) </task> <constraints> - Prioritize keywords a site with DA [DA] can realistically rank for within 6 months - Include at least 5 question-based keywords per seed (how, what, why, best, vs) - Exclude branded competitor terms unless used in "vs" or "alternative to" format - Flag any keywords where the SERP is dominated by aggregators (Reddit, Quora) — those are opportunity signals </constraints> <format> Return as a markdown table grouped by seed keyword, sorted by difficulty (easiest first within each group). </format>

<context> My site is [YOUR DOMAIN]. My top 3 organic competitors are: 1. [COMPETITOR 1 DOMAIN] 2. [COMPETITOR 2 DOMAIN] 3. [COMPETITOR 3 DOMAIN] My site currently ranks for keywords related to: [LIST YOUR TOP TOPIC AREAS]. My domain authority is approximately [DA]. </context> <task> Identify keyword gaps — topics and keywords my competitors likely target that I do not cover. For each gap: 1. The keyword or topic cluster 2. Which competitor(s) likely rank for it 3. Estimated business value (high/medium/low) based on how closely it maps to purchase intent for [my product/service] 4. Content type needed to compete (pillar page, blog post, comparison page, glossary entry) 5. Priority ranking (1-5) based on a combination of business value and ranking feasibility </task> <constraints> - Focus on gaps where at least 2 of 3 competitors have coverage — these are validated topics, not flukes - Separate "quick win" gaps (thin competitor content I can beat) from "investment" gaps (strong competitor content requiring a 2000+ word piece) - Ignore vanity keywords with no commercial relevance to my business - Include at least one "blue ocean" topic cluster that none of my competitors cover well </constraints> <format> Return two tables: "Quick Wins" (top 10) and "Strategic Investments" (top 10), each sorted by priority. </format>

<context> I have a list of keywords I'm evaluating for my [INDUSTRY] site. I need to understand the true search intent behind each to plan the right content format and avoid ranking mismatches. </context> <task> Classify each keyword below by its primary and secondary search intent. For each keyword provide: 1. Primary intent: informational / commercial investigation / transactional / navigational 2. Secondary intent (if mixed): what the searcher might also be looking for 3. SERP feature prediction: what Google likely shows (featured snippet, listicle, product cards, local pack, video carousel, PAA) 4. Correct content format: the page type that matches this intent (how-to guide, comparison table, product page, category page, tool/calculator, listicle) 5. Intent mismatch risk: flag if ranking a blog post when Google wants a product page (or vice versa) </task> <constraints> - Be precise about mixed intent — many keywords look informational but have commercial sub-intent - Consider "intent shift" — keywords that have changed intent over time (e.g. "best CRM" used to be informational, now Google shows product listings) - If a keyword has local intent signals, flag it </constraints> Here are my keywords: [PASTE KEYWORD LIST, ONE PER LINE]

<context> I'm planning the content architecture for a [NEW SITE / SITE REDESIGN / CONTENT HUB] in the [INDUSTRY] space. I have [NUMBER] keywords from my research that I need to organize into a logical site structure. </context> <task> Cluster these keywords into topic groups that should share a single page or content hub. For each cluster: 1. Cluster name (this becomes the pillar topic) 2. Primary keyword (highest value keyword in the cluster) 3. Supporting keywords (keywords that belong on the same page or in the same hub) 4. Recommended URL slug 5. Content hierarchy: Is this a pillar page, cluster page, or supporting article? 6. Internal linking direction: which clusters should link to which </task> <constraints> - Keywords with near-identical intent should be on ONE page, not split into separate thin pages (avoid keyword cannibalization) - Each cluster must have a clear parent-child relationship for internal linking - Flag any orphan keywords that don't fit a cluster — these may need a new topic or should be excluded - Suggest a maximum of 3 levels of hierarchy (pillar → cluster → supporting) - The final structure should be navigable by a human in 3 clicks or fewer from the homepage </constraints> <format> Return as a visual hierarchy using indented markdown, then a summary table showing: Cluster | Primary KW | Page Count | Recommended URL Path. </format> Here are my keywords: [PASTE FULL KEYWORD LIST]

<context> My site is [DOMAIN] in the [INDUSTRY] niche. Brand name for title tag suffix: [BRAND NAME]. My target audience is [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION]. </context> <task> Generate optimized title tags and meta descriptions for each page below. For every page provide: 1. Title tag (under 60 characters, primary keyword front-loaded) 2. Meta description (under 155 characters, includes primary keyword, ends with a clear benefit or CTA) 3. H1 tag (if it should differ from the title tag for user experience) 4. Character count for each element Pages to optimize: [LIST PAGES WITH TARGET KEYWORDS, e.g.: 1. /blog/project-management-tips → "project management tips" 2. /features/time-tracking → "time tracking software" 3. /vs/competitor-name → "your product vs competitor"] </task> <constraints> - Every title tag must be unique — no duplicates across the batch - Front-load the primary keyword, but keep titles readable to humans - Meta descriptions must create a reason to click — not just describe the page - Include brand name using " | [BRAND]" format (only if it fits within 60 chars) - For comparison pages (/vs/), use the format "[Your Brand] vs [Competitor]: [Key Differentiator]" - Flag any target keyword that seems mismatched for the page type </constraints> <format> Return as a markdown table: Page | Target KW | Title Tag (chars) | Meta Description (chars) | H1 </format>

<context> I have a [blog post / landing page / product page] targeting the keyword "[PRIMARY KEYWORD]". The page currently [ranks at position X / doesn't rank / is new]. Secondary keywords I want to incorporate: [SECONDARY KW 1], [SECONDARY KW 2], [SECONDARY KW 3]. </context> <task> Design an optimized H1-H4 header structure for this page that: 1. Includes the primary keyword in the H1 naturally 2. Works secondary keywords into H2s and H3s without stuffing 3. Matches the search intent (what the searcher actually wants to learn or do) 4. Creates a logical information flow that keeps readers scrolling 5. Targets featured snippet opportunities where applicable For each header, indicate: - The header level (H1/H2/H3/H4) - The header text - Which keyword it targets (or "engagement" if it's for UX, not SEO) - Whether it could trigger a featured snippet (and what type: paragraph, list, table) </task> <constraints> - One H1 only — always - H2s should map to distinct subtopics, not variations of the same point - Include at least one H2 that targets a People Also Ask question - Every H2 section should be independently valuable (if someone jumps to it from the table of contents) - Don't force keywords into headers where they read awkwardly — natural language always wins </constraints> Here's my current page content (or outline): [PASTE CURRENT CONTENT OR ROUGH OUTLINE]

<context> My site is [DOMAIN] with approximately [NUMBER] published pages. I'm currently working on [NEW PAGE URL / TITLE] targeting "[PRIMARY KEYWORD]". My site covers these main topic areas: [TOPIC 1], [TOPIC 2], [TOPIC 3]. </context> <task> Create an internal linking strategy for this page in two directions: INBOUND (pages that should link TO this new page): - Identify 10-15 existing pages/topics on my site that should add a contextual link to this new page - For each, suggest the exact anchor text and where in the existing content the link would fit naturally OUTBOUND (pages this new page should link TO): - Identify 8-10 existing pages/topics this new page should reference - For each, suggest the anchor text and the section of the new page where the link belongs For every link recommendation, provide: 1. Source page (URL or topic) 2. Target page (URL or topic) 3. Suggested anchor text (keyword-rich but natural) 4. Placement context (which paragraph or section) 5. Link priority (high/medium/low based on topical relevance) </task> <constraints> - Anchor text should vary — never use the same exact anchor text for every link to one page - Prioritize links from high-traffic existing pages to the new page - Every outbound link should serve the reader, not just pass PageRank - Flag any potential orphan pages that have no inbound internal links - Maximum 3-5 internal links per 1000 words to avoid over-linking </constraints>

<context> My page is a [PAGE TYPE: blog post / product page / FAQ page / how-to guide / local business page / recipe / event page] at [URL] targeting "[PRIMARY KEYWORD]". The page is about: [BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PAGE CONTENT]. </context> <task> Generate the correct JSON-LD structured data for this page. Include: 1. The primary schema type that matches this content 2. All required properties filled with realistic placeholder data based on my description 3. All recommended properties that could earn rich results in Google 4. Nested schemas where applicable (e.g. FAQPage inside an Article, AggregateRating inside Product) After the JSON-LD, provide: - Which Google rich result this schema targets (FAQ dropdown, How-to steps, star ratings, breadcrumbs, etc.) - A testing checklist: 3 things to verify in Google's Rich Results Test - Any additional schema types I should consider adding to this page </task> <constraints> - Use JSON-LD format only — not Microdata or RDFa - Follow Schema.org specifications exactly — no invented properties - Include @context and @type at minimum - For Article types, always include author, datePublished, dateModified, and image - For Product types, always include offers with price, priceCurrency, and availability - Escape special characters properly in the JSON </constraints> <format> Return the JSON-LD inside a code block, followed by the rich result explanation and testing checklist. </format>

<context> I'm creating a [blog post / guide / landing page] targeting "[PRIMARY KEYWORD]" for my [INDUSTRY] site. My target audience is [AUDIENCE]. The page should support our business goal of [GOAL: driving signups / generating leads / building authority / ranking for a topic cluster]. Competitors ranking for this keyword include [COMPETITOR URL 1], [COMPETITOR URL 2]. </context> <task> Create a comprehensive SEO content brief with: 1. KEYWORD STRATEGY - Primary keyword and placement rules - 10-15 secondary keywords to weave in naturally - 5 semantic/LSI terms to include for topical depth 2. SEARCH INTENT ANALYSIS - What the searcher wants when they type this query - What they expect to see on the page (format, depth, specifics) - What would make them bounce vs. stay 3. CONTENT OUTLINE - Recommended H1 - Complete H2/H3 structure with notes on what each section should cover - Word count recommendation (based on what's ranking, not arbitrary targets) - Suggested media (images, tables, charts, embedded tools) 4. COMPETITIVE EDGE - What the top 3 results cover that we must match - What they're missing that we can add (our unique angle) - One "10x element" — a section, tool, or resource that would make our page definitively better 5. ON-PAGE SEO SPECS - Title tag, meta description, URL slug - Internal links to include (with anchor text) - External authority sources to reference - Schema markup type to implement 6. CTA STRATEGY - Where to place CTAs within the content - CTA copy suggestions aligned to [GOAL] </task> <constraints> - The brief should be usable by a writer who knows nothing about SEO — no jargon without explanation - Don't pad the word count recommendation — base it on what actually ranks, not "longer is better" - Every section in the outline must earn its place — if it doesn't serve the searcher's intent, cut it - The unique angle must be genuinely differentiated, not "we'll just write it better" </constraints>

<context> I need to create a "[PRODUCT A] vs [PRODUCT B]" comparison article for my [INDUSTRY] site. My site [sells/reviews/covers] [PRODUCT CATEGORY]. Our audience is [AUDIENCE DESCRIPTION] evaluating these options. We [have a preference for one / are neutral / sell one of them]. </context> <task> Create a comparison article brief with: 1. KEYWORD TARGETS - Primary: "[PRODUCT A] vs [PRODUCT B]" - Long-tail variations (e.g. "[A] vs [B] for [use case]", "[A] vs [B] pricing", "[A] or [B] for [audience]") - Related comparison keywords to capture (alternatives, reviews) 2. ARTICLE STRUCTURE - H1 with the comparison keyword - Quick verdict section (above the fold — searchers want the answer fast) - Side-by-side comparison table (features, pricing, pros/cons) - Detailed breakdown sections for each major comparison dimension - "Best for" recommendations by use case or audience segment - FAQ section targeting People Also Ask queries 3. COMPARISON DIMENSIONS - List 8-10 specific dimensions to compare (not vague categories like "features" — break it down into specific capabilities) - For each dimension, note which product likely wins and why - Flag any dimensions where the answer depends on the user's situation 4. OBJECTIVITY CHECKLIST - Ensure both products get at least one "win" - Include genuine weaknesses of the product we prefer - Cite specific features, pricing tiers, and limitations — not vague praise 5. CONVERSION STRATEGY - Where to place affiliate links or CTAs - How to recommend without being pushy </task> <constraints> - The quick verdict must appear within the first 200 words — don't bury the answer - The comparison table must be concrete: pricing numbers, feature availability (yes/no/partial), plan limits - Never use "both are great options" as a cop-out — give a clear recommendation with reasoning - If we sell one of the products, disclose that and still give an honest comparison - Include a "when to choose [A]" and "when to choose [B]" section — not everything is one-size-fits-all </constraints>

<context> I have an existing article at [URL] targeting "[PRIMARY KEYWORD]". It was published [DATE] and last updated [DATE]. Current performance: - Position: [CURRENT RANKING] - Monthly organic traffic: [TRAFFIC] - Trend: [declining / stagnant / slowly growing] - Word count: [CURRENT WORD COUNT] The page has [NUMBER] backlinks from [NUMBER] referring domains. </context> <task> Create a content refresh brief that will recover or improve rankings: 1. FRESHNESS AUDIT - Identify outdated statistics, tools, or references that need updating - Flag any information that may now be inaccurate (algorithm changes, industry shifts, discontinued products) - List sections that can be cut (thin, redundant, or off-topic) 2. COMPETITIVE GAP ANALYSIS - What do pages currently ranking above me cover that I'm missing? - What new subtopics or questions have emerged since the original publish date? - Are there new SERP features (PAA, featured snippets) I should target? 3. REFRESH ACTION PLAN - Sections to rewrite completely (with new outline) - Sections to update with fresh data (list specific stats to replace) - New sections to add (with H2/H3 structure) - Sections to remove or merge - New media to add (updated screenshots, charts, infographics) 4. TECHNICAL UPDATES - Updated title tag and meta description - New/updated schema markup - Internal linking opportunities (new pages published since original article) - Redirect check: any broken outbound links to fix 5. REPUBLISH STRATEGY - Should we update the existing URL or create a new page? - Update the dateModified or fully republish with a new date? - Promotion plan for the refreshed content </task> <constraints> - Preserve the page's existing backlinks — don't recommend a URL change unless the slug is badly wrong - The refresh should improve depth without padding word count — if the page can be shorter and better, say so - Prioritize changes by expected ranking impact: what will move the needle most? - Include a timeline estimate for the refresh (quick edits vs. full rewrite) </constraints>

<context> I'm building a pillar page for the topic cluster "[PILLAR TOPIC]" on my [INDUSTRY] site. This pillar will be the hub connecting [NUMBER] cluster articles I plan to write. My audience is [AUDIENCE]. My goal is to rank for "[PRIMARY KEYWORD]" and become the definitive resource on this topic. </context> <task> Create a pillar page brief with: 1. PILLAR PAGE STRUCTURE - Recommended format: ultimate guide / what-is explainer / how-to hub / resource page - H1 and recommended URL slug - Complete H2/H3 outline (every section this pillar must cover to be comprehensive) - Word count target (based on what's ranking for the primary keyword) - Above-the-fold elements: what the reader sees before scrolling 2. TOPIC CLUSTER MAP - List 10-15 cluster articles this pillar should link to - For each cluster article: title, target keyword, and how it relates to the pillar - Linking architecture: which cluster articles link back to the pillar and to each other - Identify any cluster articles that should exist but aren't in my plan 3. KEYWORD DISTRIBUTION - Primary keyword: where and how often it appears on the pillar - Secondary keywords: assigned to specific H2 sections - Cluster keywords: kept for their own articles (don't cannibalize) - Clear rules for what the pillar page covers vs. what it delegates to cluster articles 4. DIFFERENTIATION STRATEGY - What makes this pillar better than existing top-ranking content? - Unique elements to include: original data, proprietary framework, interactive tool, downloadable template - Expert quotes or data sources to cite for authority 5. ON-PAGE SPECS - Title tag, meta description - Table of contents: yes/no and format - Schema type (often Article with hasPart for sections) - CTA placements for [GOAL: email capture / free trial / demo request] </task> <constraints> - The pillar must be comprehensive but not exhaustive — link out to cluster articles for deep dives - Never duplicate the same content on the pillar and a cluster article — the pillar summarizes, the cluster goes deep - Every cluster article must link back to the pillar page (hub-and-spoke model) - The pillar should be scannable: use tables, bullet lists, and callout boxes — not a wall of text - Include a realistic publishing timeline for the full cluster (pillar first, then clusters over X weeks) </constraints>

<context> My site is [DOMAIN] built on [PLATFORM: WordPress / Next.js / Shopify / Webflow / custom]. It has approximately [NUMBER] pages. My main concerns are [LIST CONCERNS: slow load times / indexing issues / duplicate content / migration fallout / etc.]. I have access to [TOOLS: Google Search Console / Screaming Frog / Ahrefs / etc.]. </context> <task> Generate a prioritized technical SEO audit checklist customized to my platform and concerns. For each item include: 1. What to check 2. How to check it (specific tool, report, or method) 3. What "good" looks like (the benchmark or pass criteria) 4. What to do if it fails (specific fix, not just "improve it") 5. Priority level (critical / high / medium / low) 6. Estimated time to fix Organize the audit into these sections: - Crawlability & Indexation (robots.txt, sitemap, crawl errors, noindex tags) - Site Speed & Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) - URL Structure & Redirects (chains, loops, 404s, parameter handling) - Duplicate Content (canonicals, pagination, faceted navigation) - Mobile & Rendering (mobile-friendliness, JS rendering, lazy loading) - Structured Data (schema errors, missing markup) - Security (HTTPS, mixed content, hreflang for international) </task> <constraints> - Tailor checks to my specific platform — a Shopify audit is different from a Next.js audit - Skip checks that don't apply to my site size or type - Put critical issues first (anything blocking indexing or causing ranking loss) - Include the exact GSC report path or Screaming Frog filter for each check - If a fix requires a developer, flag it and estimate complexity (simple / moderate / complex) </constraints> <format> Return as a markdown checklist (- [ ]) grouped by section, with each item containing the fields above. </format>

<context> I'm migrating my site from [OLD PLATFORM/DOMAIN] to [NEW PLATFORM/DOMAIN]. The migration type is [domain change / platform change / URL restructure / HTTPS migration / subdomain consolidation]. I have approximately [NUMBER] URLs that need to be mapped. My top traffic pages are: [LIST TOP 10-20 URLS BY TRAFFIC] </context> <task> Create a complete redirect mapping strategy: 1. REDIRECT MAP - For each URL pattern, define the redirect rule (old URL → new URL) - Group by pattern type: exact match, regex pattern, directory-level - Specify redirect type: 301 (permanent) for each 2. PRIORITY TIERS - Tier 1 (Day 1): Pages with organic traffic or backlinks — must be redirected before launch - Tier 2 (Week 1): Indexed pages with no traffic but have backlinks - Tier 3 (Month 1): All remaining indexed URLs - Never redirect: Pages that should return 410 Gone (truly deleted content) 3. REDIRECT RULES (Platform-Specific) - Write the actual redirect rules for [NEW PLATFORM]: - For Apache: .htaccess rules - For Nginx: server block rules - For Next.js: next.config redirects array - For Vercel/Netlify: _redirects file or config - Include regex patterns where applicable 4. TESTING PLAN - Pre-launch checklist (what to verify before DNS switch) - Launch day monitoring (what to watch in GSC and analytics) - Post-launch validation: how to confirm all redirects work - Rollback plan if something goes wrong 5. COMMON PITFALLS - Redirect chains to avoid - Parameter handling (UTMs, query strings) - Trailing slash consistency - Mixed case URL handling </task> <constraints> - Never redirect everything to the homepage — that destroys link equity - Preserve URL structure where possible to maintain internal linking - Every page with at least one backlink MUST have a 1:1 redirect to the most relevant new page - Test redirect rules for syntax errors before providing them - Include a redirect for the XML sitemap URL itself </constraints>

<context> My site is [DOMAIN] on [PLATFORM]. Current Core Web Vitals from PageSpeed Insights: - LCP: [VALUE, e.g. 3.8s] (target: <2.5s) - INP: [VALUE, e.g. 280ms] (target: <200ms) - CLS: [VALUE, e.g. 0.18] (target: <0.1) - Total page weight: [SIZE, e.g. 3.2MB] - Number of requests: [COUNT] My page loads [SPECIFIC RESOURCES: large hero image, 4 third-party scripts, web fonts, video embeds, etc.]. </context> <task> Create a prioritized page speed optimization plan: 1. QUICK WINS (implement this week) - Changes that require minimal dev effort but measurable impact - Expected improvement for each (estimated ms or score improvement) 2. HIGH-IMPACT CHANGES (implement this month) - Image optimization strategy (format, sizing, lazy loading, CDN) - Third-party script audit: which to defer, async, or remove entirely - Font loading strategy (font-display, subset, preload) - CSS/JS optimization (critical CSS, code splitting, tree shaking) 3. ADVANCED OPTIMIZATIONS (requires development) - Rendering strategy changes (SSR, SSG, ISR — specific to my platform) - Caching strategy (browser cache headers, CDN configuration, stale-while-revalidate) - Resource hints (preconnect, prefetch, preload — with specific resources to target) 4. CLS-SPECIFIC FIXES - Identify likely CLS causes based on my page description - Specific fixes with code examples where applicable For each recommendation: - Expected CWV impact (which metric improves and by how much) - Implementation complexity (low / medium / high) - Code snippet or configuration example </task> <constraints> - Recommendations must be specific to my platform — not generic advice - Don't recommend removing essential third-party scripts (analytics, chat) — recommend deferring them - Quantify expected improvements where possible, not just "this will help" - If a recommendation trades UX for speed (e.g. removing animations), flag the tradeoff - Order by impact-to-effort ratio, not just impact </constraints>