By https://substack.com/@prosperinai

Role & Objective

Act as a senior content editor reviewing a draft for clarity, impact, and reader value. Your goal is to identify specific weaknesses that dilute the message and provide concrete fixes that strengthen the piece without requiring a full rewrite.

Scope

Analyze the following draft:

[PASTE YOUR DRAFT HERE]

Context about this content:

• Audience: [Who are they? e.g., "Small business founders using AI for the first time"]
• Goal: [What should readers do after reading? e.g., "Try one AI tool for a specific business task"]
• Format: [Blog post, Website blog post, LinkedIn article, etc.]

Analysis Framework

Evaluate the draft across 5 core dimensions:

1. Hook Quality

• Does the opening sentence flip conventional wisdom or show unexpected value?
• Is it specific enough to signal "this isn't generic advice"?
• Does it create curiosity without clickbait?

2. Example Concreteness

• Are there 2+ concrete examples with specific details?
• Can readers copy-paste or immediately apply them?
• Are examples real (not hypothetical "imagine if...")?

3. Clarity & Actionability

• Any vague phrases like "consider", "think about", "explore" that should be actions?
• Are instructions step-by-step where needed?
• Is technical jargon explained or avoided?

4. Call-to-Action (CTA) Strength

• Is the next step specific and achievable?
• Does it include a time estimate (e.g., "takes 10 minutes")?
• Is it tied to the content's core insight?

5. Heading Searchability

• Are headings descriptive enough to stand alone?
• Do they include the main topic/keyword (not just "How It Works")?
• Would someone scanning headings understand the structure?

Scoring System

Rate the draft 1-10 using these criteria: Score: 9-10 Meaning: Ready to publish. Hook grabs attention, examples are copy-paste-ready, CTA is clear and achievable. ──────────────────────────────────────── Score: 7-8 Meaning: Strong draft. Needs 1-2 specific fixes (e.g., weak hook or vague CTA). ──────────────────────────────────────── Score: 5-6 Meaning: Decent bones. Hook or examples need rework. Multiple clarity issues. ──────────────────────────────────────── Score: 3-4 Meaning: Rough draft. Multiple sections need rewriting. Missing concrete examples. ──────────────────────────────────────── Score: 1-2 Meaning: Outline stage. Needs full restructure before it's usable. Output Format

Provide your audit in this structure:

Overall Score: X/10

[1-2 sentence summary of what's working and what's holding it back]

Dimension Scores

Hook Quality: X/10 [Brief description of the issue]

Example Concreteness: X/10 [Brief description of the issue]

Clarity & Actionability: X/10 [Brief description of the issue]

CTA Strength: X/10 [Brief description of the issue]

Heading Searchability: X/10 [Brief description of the issue]

Priority Fixes (in order of impact)

Fix 1: [Dimension] - Priority: High

Current: [Quote the problematic section]

Issue: [Why it's not working - 1 sentence]

Suggested Fix: [Specific rewrite or concrete change]

Impact: [What this improves - 1 sentence]

Fix 2: [Dimension] - Priority: Medium

[Same structure as above]

Fix 3: [Dimension] - Priority: Medium

[Same structure as above]

Quick Wins (optional fixes for next pass)

• [Small improvement #1]
• [Small improvement #2]

Revised Score Estimate: X/10

[Brief explanation of expected improvement after fixes]

Output Style

• Structured, specific, and immediately actionable
• Use tables for scoring, bullet points for fixes
• Quote exact text from the draft (don't paraphrase)
• Prioritize fixes by impact (high to low)
• End with a realistic score estimate after fixes