Briefs that tell your team
exactly what to fix
Built from real signals — your search data, your ICP,
your brand — not from a generic template.
ORIGINAL
The meeting was very long and not useful to most people.
REFINED
The meeting ran overlong and added little value.
THE BRIEF THAT ISN'T ONE
"Refresh this article"
is not a brief
That's what most refresh tasks look like: a URL in the backlog and a vague instruction. The writer guesses what's wrong, rewrites what didn't need rewriting, and misses what did. Then someone reviews it against no defined standard.
Guesswork rewrites
Without a diagnosis, writers change what's easy to change — not what's costing rankings.
Inconsistent scope
One writer does a light polish, another rewrites from scratch. Same task, wildly different output.
The brief-writing tax
A proper refresh brief takes an hour of research per article. Times fifty articles. So it never happens.
DIAGNOSIS INCLUDED
What changed. What's missing.
What needs updating
Every brief starts from the audit's findings for that specific article — its actual queries, its actual drift, its actual gaps. Not a template with the title swapped.
Grounded in your search data
The queries the page ranks for, the ones it's losing, and keyword opportunities pulled from live keyword intelligence — with the questions AI search engines ask about the topic.
Aligned to your ICP and brand
What to reposition, which arguments moved, what your current messaging requires — checked against the brand profile learned from your library.
Technical fixes included
Title, meta, heading structure, and internal-linking corrections land in the same brief — not in a separate ticket.
You review the brief before a single word is drafted
The brief is a checkpoint, not a black box. Adjust it, and the draft follows your version
- Audit flags the article with reasoning
- Brief generated from that article's real signals
- You review: edit the angle, cut sections, add context the data can't know
- Draft is written against your approved brief
- Your team edits and approves before anything ships
- Writer pastes the article into an AI chat
- Prompt quality varies by writer and by day
- No checkpoint between 'go' and a full rewrite
- Review happens against no agreed standard
- Every article is a fresh negotiation
From flagged article to approved brief in minutes
The hour of research per article, automated. The judgement, kept
1 — The audit flags an article. Classified as touch-up, rewrite, or retire — with the reasoning attached. You choose which ones move forward.
2 — The brief is researched and written. Search performance, keyword and AI-visibility research, ICP and brand checks, and technical findings are compiled into one specific, editable brief.
3 — You approve it. Edit anything — the angle, the scope, the sections. The updated draft is generated only after your approval, and only against your version of the brief.
~60%
of posts lose rankings within 12–24 months — Draft.dev, 2025
30–45
days for refreshed content to recover 60–80% of rankings — upGrowth, 2026
25.7%
fresher — the content AI systems cite vs. standard organic results — Ahrefs, 2025
<1%
of search clicks reach page 2 — SEO consensus
How briefs work
The honest answers.
See a brief built from your own data
Book a 30-minute demo — connect your GSC and watch a brief get generated for one of your real articles: the diagnosis, the keyword picture, and the fixes.
✓ 30 minutes ✓ A real brief on your real article ✓ Nothing changes on your site