---

name: seo-article-writer description: Write SEO-optimized long-form articles targeting specific keywords using the They Ask You Answer Big 5 framework (Marcus Sheridan). Articles are categorized by Big 5 type (Cost, Problems, Versus, Best/Reviews, How-To) and structured accordingly. The "answer first" rule applies to every article. Use when the user asks for an SEO article, blog post for ranking, "rank for keyword X", organic content, search-optimized post, pillar page, or content for organic traffic. Includes keyword targeting, search intent matching, internal linking suggestions, and meta tags. For improving an existing article, see copy-review. For deciding what to write about, see social-calendar pillars and icp-research. For repurposing it, see content-repurposer. metadata: grounded_in: - "They Ask You Answer - Sheridan" reads: - knowledge/brand/voice.md - knowledge/icp/personas.md - knowledge/services/ - knowledge/markets/positioning.md - knowledge/content-library/ writes: - output/seo-article/

seo-article-writer

Writes long-form articles tuned for organic search. Built on They Ask You Answer: the companies that answer buyer questions honestly - especially the uncomfortable ones about price, problems, and competitors - win the most qualified organic traffic and trust.

Different from thought leadership: optimizes for search intent and keyword coverage, not contrarian POV.

When to use

• "Write an SEO article on "
• "Build a pillar page for "
• "Rank for "
• "Create content that ranks"
• "Write organic blog content on X"

Inputs needed

• Primary keyword (required): the head term to rank for
• Search intent: informational, commercial, transactional, navigational (default: ask the user, or infer)
• Target length: 1500, 2500, or 3500 words (default: 2500 for pillar, 1500 for supporting)
• Existing top 3 SERP results: paste URLs or have the skill use WebFetch
• Internal pages to link to: list URLs from the user's site

Framework: They Ask You Answer - Big 5 (Marcus Sheridan)

Buyers ask questions. Companies avoid answering the hard ones (price, problems, competitors) because they're afraid of the answer. The companies that answer honestly dominate organic search and build more trust than any competitor that hedges.

The Big 5 content types

Type	Triggers	Why it works	Honesty requirement
1. Cost and Price	"How much does X cost?" / "Price of Y"	Most searched, least answered. Companies hide it. Brave ones dominate.	Give real ranges. Explain what drives price up or down. Never say "contact us for pricing."
2. Problems	"Problems with X" / "Downsides of Y" / "Is X worth it?"	Buyers research problems before buying. Honest companies build more trust than defensive ones.	Enumerate real limitations. Add context. Do not hide.
3. Versus and Comparisons	"X vs Y" / "X or Y" / "Best X for [use case]"	High-intent search. Buyers are close to a decision.	Structured comparison table. Include competitors. Be fair. Recommend based on fit, not brand bias.
4. Best and Reviews	"Best X for [situation]" / "Top Y tools" / "X alternatives"	Buyers want trusted recommendations.	Include options you don't sell. Readers trust it more. Excluding competitors signals bias.
5. How-To	"How to do X" / "How to [achieve outcome]" / "Step-by-step guide"	Educational, early-funnel, authority-building.	Answer the question directly. Do not make them read 800 words to get to the answer.

Every article must be categorized as one of the Big 5 before the outline is built.

Publishing priority when the user has no single keyword in mind

Sheridan's argument in They Ask You Answer is that the value of a topic tracks how much the company would rather not write it. Use that as the ordering rule, worst-avoided first.

Priority	Type	Why it goes first	The objection you will hear
1	Cost and Price	Highest search volume, lowest supply, and the question every buyer asks first	"We don't publish pricing"
2	Versus and Comparisons	Late-funnel, and someone else is already writing it about you	"We don't want to name competitors"
3	Problems	Builds more trust than any claim, and pre-qualifies bad fits out	"We don't want to highlight our weaknesses"
4	Best and Reviews	Wins the shortlist search, but needs editorial independence to be believed	"We can't recommend a competitor"
5	How-To	Safest and easiest, which is exactly why the SERP is already full of it	None, which is the tell

Decision rule: if the user wants to start at 5, say so plainly. How-To is the type with the most existing competition and the weakest purchase intent. Starting there feels productive and usually moves nothing. Recommend the highest-priority type the user will actually approve, and name the trade they are making.

Assignment selling, the reason the article has to be honest

Sheridan's second idea is that this content is not only for strangers arriving from search. Sales sends these articles to live deals before the call, so the article has to survive being read by someone who will then talk to a salesperson about it. That is the real quality bar here: would your own sales team send this to a prospect, and would the call afterwards be easier or harder? A hedged cost article makes that call harder, which is why "contact us for pricing" fails twice.

Process

1. Load context. Read knowledge/brand/voice.md, relevant knowledge/services/, and knowledge/content-library/ to find related pieces for internal linking.

2. Categorize the article. Identify which Big 5 type this article is:

   Big 5 Categorization
   
   Primary keyword: <keyword>
   Big 5 type: <Cost | Problems | Versus | Best/Reviews | How-To>
   Why this type: <one sentence>
   Honesty check: <what is the uncomfortable truth this article must address?>
   Answer-first target: <the direct answer to the headline question, in 2-3 sentences>
   

   If the keyword doesn't map to a Big 5 type, note it and proceed with standard intent-matching, but flag: "This article is not a Big 5 topic. It will rank but may not drive high-intent traffic."

3. Analyze the SERP. If the user provided top 3 URLs, use WebFetch to read each. Identify:

   • Average word count
   • Common H2 headings (the questions search expects answered)
   • Information gaps (what they all miss)
   • Format type (listicle, guide, comparison, definition)
   • Honesty gaps: are competitors hedging on price, problems, or comparisons?

   If the user did not provide URLs, ask them to paste the top 3 they're competing against.

4. Match Big 5 type to structure. Use the type-specific structure below. Override only if the SERP analysis shows a different format dominates:

   Cost and Price structure

   H1: How Much Does [X] Cost? ([current year] Pricing Guide)
   - Intro (answer first): give the range in the first paragraph. Do not hedge.
   - H2: What is the typical price range?
   - H2: What factors affect the price?
   - H2: What is included (and what costs extra)?
   - H2: How does [X] pricing compare to alternatives?
   - H2: Is [X] worth the cost?
   - H2: FAQ (pricing objections, contract terms, ROI)
   - Conclusion + CTA
   

   Honesty check: did you give a real number in the first 200 words, and did it come from knowledge/services/ or from the user? If you do not have the number, STOP and ask: "What is the actual price or range, and what moves it up or down?"

   Never estimate a price, infer one from competitors, or write a plausible range. A hallucinated price on a page built to rank is public, indexed, and gets quoted back to your own sales team by prospects. Waiting a day for the real figure always beats it. If the user genuinely cannot give a range, write [NEEDS INPUT: price range] and do not publish the article.

   Problems structure

   H1: [X] Problems: What to Know Before You Buy
   - Intro (answer first): acknowledge this exists. Name the top 3 problems upfront.
   - H2: Problem 1 (specific, not vague)
   - H2: Problem 2
   - H2: Problem 3
   - H2: Who [X] is NOT right for
   - H2: How to decide if [X] is still the right choice for you
   - H2: Alternatives if [X] isn't the fit
   - Conclusion + fair recommendation
   

   Honesty check: Did you name real problems, or did you write "some users find the learning curve steep"? Specific or rewrite.

   Versus and Comparisons structure

   H1: [X] vs [Y]: Which Is Right for You? (Honest Comparison)
   - Intro (answer first): give a one-sentence verdict based on use case. Do not make them read to find out.
   - H2: Quick comparison table (features, pricing, integrations, support)
   - H2: Where [X] wins
   - H2: Where [Y] wins
   - H2: Who should choose [X]
   - H2: Who should choose [Y]
   - H2: What users say (real quotes if available)
   - Conclusion: clear recommendation by use case, not by brand bias
   

   Honesty check: Did you recommend the competitor for use cases they're genuinely better at? If not, the reader will notice and bounce.

   Best / Reviews structure

   H1: Best [X] for [Situation]: [Year] Guide
   - Intro (answer first): name the top pick in the first paragraph. Explain why.
   - H2: How we evaluated (criteria + weighting)
   - H2: Best overall: [tool]
   - H2: Best for [use case]: [tool] (include options you don't sell)
   - H2: Best budget option: [tool]
   - H2: Comparison table (all tools side by side)
   - H2: How to choose (the decision framework)
   - Conclusion + CTA
   

   Honesty check: Is every tool on this list included because it deserves to be? Including only your own products or partners reads as advertising.

   How-To structure

   H1: How to [Achieve Outcome]: Step-by-Step Guide
   - Intro (answer first): give the core process in 2-3 sentences. State how long it takes.
   - H2: What you need before you start
   - H2: Step 1: [action verb + specific outcome]
   - H2: Step 2:
   - H2: Step N:
   - H2: Common mistakes (and how to avoid them)
   - H2: FAQ
   - Conclusion + next step CTA
   

   Honesty check: Did you answer the question in the first 200 words, or did you make them scroll through background context to find the actual steps?

5. The "Answer First" rule. Every article must answer the headline question within the first 200 words. No exceptions.

   • Cost article: give the real number or range in paragraph 1
   • Problems article: name the top 3 problems in the intro
   • Versus article: give the one-sentence verdict in the intro
   • Best article: name the top pick in the intro
   • How-To article: state the core process in the intro

   If the intro does not answer the headline question directly, rewrite it before proceeding to the body.

6. Write the article:

   • Title: 50-60 chars, primary keyword in first half
   • Meta description: 140-155 chars, primary keyword + benefit + soft CTA
   • Intro: 100-150 words. Answer the keyword question directly. Answer-first.
   • Body: H2 sections per Big 5 type structure above. Each section 200-400 words.
   • Use the keyword in: H1, first paragraph, one H2, image alt text, conclusion. Avoid keyword stuffing.
   • Semantic variants: include 5-10 LSI/related terms naturally
   • Internal links: 3-5 to other pieces in knowledge/content-library/ or pages on the user's site
   • External links: 2-3 to authoritative sources (with the source link)
   • One table if it adds clarity (mandatory for Versus and Best articles)
   • One FAQ section at the end (3-5 questions, 50-80 words each)
   • Conclusion: 100-150 words. Summarize, then CTA.

7. Voice rules:

   • Match knowledge/brand/voice.md
   • Avoid AI tells: no "In today's fast-paced world", no "navigating the complexities of", no "leverage", no em dashes
   • Use specific examples and named companies, not "many businesses"
   • Active voice

8. Self-check:

   • Article categorized as one of the Big 5 (or explicitly flagged as not Big 5)
   • Headline question answered in the first 200 words
   • For Cost articles: real number or range given in paragraph 1 (not "contact us")
   • For Problems articles: real problems named, not softened hedges
   • For Versus articles: competitor strengths acknowledged honestly
   • For Best articles: includes options the company doesn't sell
   • Primary keyword appears in title, first 100 words, one H2, conclusion
   • 3-5 internal links present
   • At least one table or list for scanability
   • FAQ section present
   • Word count matches target ±10%
   • No em dashes and no en dashes
   • Keyword density is under 2%. Compute it: keyword occurrences divided by word count
   • Every statistic, price, competitor fact and customer result is listed with its source and the date it was fetched. Anything without both is removed or marked [NEEDS INPUT: ...]
   • Every external link was fetched in this session and resolved
   • Assignment-selling check: name the specific objection a prospect would raise on a sales call after reading this, and point at the paragraph that answers it. If no paragraph answers it, the article is not finished
   • Comparison check, for Versus and Best articles only: quote the sentence where a competitor is recommended over the user's product for a named use case. If there is no such sentence, the article reads as advertising and will be judged that way

9. Save to output/seo-article/<DD-MM-YYYY>-<keyword-slug>.md with frontmatter:

   ---
   format: seo-article
   big-5-type: <Cost | Problems | Versus | Best | How-To | Other>
   primary-keyword: <keyword>
   intent: <informational|commercial|transactional|comparison|how-to>
   target-length: <words>
   actual-length: <words>
   internal-links: <count>
   meta-title: <title>
   meta-description: <desc>
   answer-first-word-count: <word number where headline question is answered>
   created: DD-MM-YYYY
   ---
   

10. Offer follow-ons:

    • LinkedIn post promoting the article
    • 3 supporting articles to build a topic cluster (suggest which Big 5 types would complement this one)
    • Schema markup recommendation (Article, FAQ, HowTo, Product)

Rules

• Categorize every article as a Big 5 type before writing the outline. If you skip this, the structure will be generic and the ranking potential drops.
• Answer the headline question in the first 200 words. Every time. No exceptions.
• Never write SEO content without the top 3 SERP URLs. Without them, you are guessing what to beat.
• Never stuff keywords. Density above 2% is a red flag.
• For Cost articles: if the user says "we don't publish pricing", tell them: "Competitors or review sites will answer this question for you, and they'll frame it however they want. Answering it honestly gives you control of the narrative."
• For Problems articles: if the user says "we don't want to highlight our problems", tell them: "Buyers are already researching this. If you don't write it, a competitor or G2 review will. An honest article from you builds more trust than a defensive one."
• People-first content. If you would not want to read this as a human, do not publish it.
• Every H2 must answer a question someone actually searches. If you cannot turn an H2 into a "People also ask" question, rework it.

Quick Reference: Big 5 Framework

Type	Headline pattern	Answer-first rule	Honesty requirement
Cost and Price	"How Much Does X Cost?"	Give range in paragraph 1	Real numbers. No "contact us."
Problems	"X Problems: What to Know"	Name top 3 problems in intro	Real problems, not softened hedges
Versus	"X vs Y: Which Is Right for You?"	Give verdict in paragraph 1	Acknowledge where the competitor wins
Best / Reviews	"Best X for [Situation]"	Name top pick in paragraph 1	Include options you don't sell
How-To	"How to [Achieve Outcome]"	State core process in intro	Answer the question. Don't bury the steps.

Never invent

• No price, competitor fact, statistic, or customer result may be written from inference. Source it from knowledge/, from the user, or from a page you actually fetched and dated.
• If a required number is missing, [NEEDS INPUT: <what>] and stop. Do not publish around it.
• Do not hardcode a year. Ask for the current year or omit it.
• Competitor claims go stale. Date every fetched fact so a reader knows how old it is.

Stop conditions

Do not draft or do not publish, and say which condition fired.

1. No top-3 SERP URLs. Ask for them. Without them you are guessing what the page has to beat, and the outline will default to a generic guide.
2. A Cost article with no confirmed price or range. [NEEDS INPUT: price range and what moves it], and do not publish. An invented price gets indexed and quoted back by prospects.
3. A Versus or Best article where the user will not allow any honest competitor advantage. Say plainly that the article will read as advertising, will not earn the comparison query, and should either change scope or not ship.
4. A Problems article the user wants softened to the point of hedges. Hedged problems content is worse than none, because it signals evasion on the exact page a skeptical buyer landed on.
5. A claim about the user's own product that is not in knowledge/services/. Ask. Product claims written from inference are the ones support and sales inherit.
6. Any regulated claim (medical, financial, legal, safety). Mark [LEGAL REVIEW] and say the page must not publish unreviewed.

Warning signs in your own draft

Ranked worst first. The first four block publication.

1. A price, statistic or competitor fact with no source and no fetch date. Blocker.
2. A customer name or result the user did not supply. Blocker.
3. A hardcoded year that nobody confirmed. Blocker, it dates the page the moment it publishes.
4. A regulated claim with no [LEGAL REVIEW] marker. Blocker.
5. The headline question is not answered until after word 200. Rewrite the intro before anything else, this single defect undoes the whole Big 5 approach.
6. A Problems article whose problems are all things the product happens to solve. Those are features in costume, and a reader spots it immediately.
7. Every H2 is a statement rather than a question a person would type or ask.
8. Keyword density above 2%, or the exact keyword repeated in consecutive sentences.
9. No table on a Versus or Best article.

Related skills

• /copy-review to grade and tighten an article that already exists
• /competitor-analyst before a Versus or Best article, to establish what competitors actually do
• /page-cro when the article ranks but the conversion path off it does not work
• /content-repurposer to turn a published pillar into posts, emails and a newsletter issue
• /social-calendar to plan the cluster this article belongs to rather than writing one-offs
• /icp-research when it is not clear which buyer question is worth answering first
• /case-study-writer when the article needs a real documented result to be credible
• /linkedin-post for the distribution post once the article is live
• /kpi-review to check afterwards whether the cluster is producing qualified traffic
• /brand-context first, whenever knowledge/brand/voice.md does not exist yet

What this skill cannot know

These are real limitations of this skill. Ask the user, fetch the page, or emit [NEEDS INPUT: <what>] rather than filling the gap from memory.

1. Whether a competitor changed pricing, packaging or positioning since the page was fetched. Every competitor fact in the draft carries a fetch date for exactly this reason.
2. Whether the SERP has moved since the top-3 URLs were pulled. Results are personalised, localised and reranked continuously, so the analysis is a snapshot, not a standing description.
3. Whether a claim about your own product is still accurate. Roadmaps ship and features get deprecated faster than knowledge/services/ gets updated.
4. Whether the current search guidance rewards this format. Ranking systems change without announcement, and nothing in this file is a published rule from a search engine.
5. Whether the page will be published with the schema, canonical and internal links intact. Those are implementation decisions made after the copy is handed over.

Platform figures are not facts

Any cadence, character count, best-day, format spec or benchmark in this skill is a starting default recorded at authoring time, not a published platform rule. Two obligations:

1. Verify current specs in the platform itself before shipping anything that depends on them.
2. This account's own historical data always wins. Where knowledge/learnings.md or the team's analytics contradict a default here, follow the data and say so in the output.

Never present a default from this file to a client as though the platform published it. That is the claim their in-house specialist corrects in the meeting, and the correction discredits everything else in the document.