# WordPresto full Markdown context This file consolidates the main public WordPresto marketing and Worker content for AI agents. Prefer individual Markdown mirrors when you only need one page. ## Site index - Home: https://wordpresto.com/index.md - Workflow demo: https://wordpresto.com/workflow-demo/index.md - Workers directory: https://wordpresto.com/workers/index.md - SEO Workers directory: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo/index.md - WordPrestoBot crawler: https://wordpresto.com/prestobot/index.md - Bring accessibility issues into the review workflow.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/accessibility/index.md - Make approval easier to trust.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/approval-report/index.md - Check whether the draft actually follows the brief.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/brief-draft-alignment/index.md - Find pages that are trying to do too many jobs.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cannibalisation-overlap/index.md - Make the writing cleaner before it reaches review.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/clarity-proofing/index.md - Prepare approved content for a cleaner handoff.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cms-handoff/index.md - See what ranking competitors cover that you do not.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/competitor-intel/index.md - Understand the page before you rewrite it.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-analyst/index.md - Start with a brief that writers can actually use.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-brief-builder/index.md - Know when a page is starting to lose its edge.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-decay/index.md - Plan where approved content should go next.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-distribution-brief/index.md - Check whether the page is in the right shape for the job.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-format-serp-fit/index.md - Understand what kind of content asset you are dealing with.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-inventory/index.md - Decide whether weak content should be improved, merged or left alone.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-pruning-consolidation/index.md - Refresh content with a clearer reason.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-refresh-brief/index.md - Check whether the page gives the reader a clear next step.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/conversion-alignment/index.md - Review the draft before it moves forward.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-quality-reviewer/index.md - Rewrite drafts without losing the point.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-rewrite/index.md - Check whether the work is ready for human approval.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-approval-gate/index.md - Flag risky claims before they move forward.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-risk-claims/index.md - Back up the claims before they go live.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence-gap/index.md - Know which recommendations are actually supported.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence/index.md - Check whether the page matches what the reader came to find.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/intent-analyst/index.md - Review the paths readers and crawlers can actually follow.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-link-pathway/index.md - Check whether the page connects to the rest of the site.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-linking/index.md - Start with what the page actually says.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/page-inspector/index.md - Make good content easier to read.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/readability/index.md - Turn proposed changes into decisions an editor can manage.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/review-queue/index.md - Turn complex findings into a clear editorial review.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/review/index.md - Turn findings into changes that can be reviewed safely.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/safe-change-planner/index.md - Describe the page so machines understand it too.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/schema/index.md - Fix the weak section without rewriting the whole page.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/section-rewrite/index.md - Find the concepts the page is missing.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/semantic-search-analyzer/index.md - Get the title, description and H1 right.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo-metadata/index.md - Shape how the page shows up in search.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/serp-snippet-opportunity/index.md - Find the pages before the work begins.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/site-discovery/index.md - Give every draft a clearer shape.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/structure/index.md - Check the technical signals behind the page.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/technical-health/index.md - See whether the page has enough topical support.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/topical-authority/index.md - Show who stands behind the content.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/trust-author-credibility/index.md - Keep the voice in the work.: https://wordpresto.com/workers/voice-style/index.md --- # Home Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/index.md # Word Presto is the agentic content engine for writers, editors and publishing teams. Plan, brief, write, review, improve and prepare content for search, readers and CMS handoff. --- At the centre is Emma, your managing editor. She keeps the brief, draft, evidence, SEO, review and approval moving through one calm editorial desk, while you keep the final say. > Emma prepares. The Editor approves. Nothing publishes without your sign-off. ## This is not another content dashboard. Most content work does not fall apart because people cannot write. It falls apart because the brief changes, reviews arrive late, claims lose their sources, SEO gets bolted on at the end, and nobody knows who has approved what. > Word Presto gives the work a desk. Emma runs it. - Brief agreed and on file - SEO checked in the draft, not after - Claims carry their evidence - Approval sits with the Editor ## Meet Emma, your managing editor. - **She holds the brief**: Keeps the goal, audience, voice, context and previous decisions in view, so the work does not drift. - **She runs the desk**: Moves each piece from brief to draft, proofing, review and approval without losing the thread. - **She calls in the specialists**: Sends claims, SEO, evidence, voice, links, risk and handoff work to the right specialist at the right time. - **She protects your authority**: Emma can recommend and prepare. Only the Editor can approve. ## Emma’s four commitments. The standards Emma holds to on every piece of work: the rules that make the desk trustworthy. - **Ground truth above all**: No invented figures. No unsupported claims. No pretending weak evidence is strong. - **Say the honest thing**: Emma will not flatter a bad draft. She tells you what needs work. - **Protect your work**: Nothing publishes without the Editor’s approval. - **Remember what matters**: Emma learns the standards, voice and decisions that shape the project. ## One working surface for the actual copy. The Canvas is where Emma brings the work together: imported pages, drafts, rewrites, proofing notes, specialist findings and approval decisions. - Import, draft, rewrite, proof and review in one place. - Specialist findings arrive as margin notes, not meetings. - Final approval still required, always. ## 41 specialists. One managing editor. Emma is not working alone. Behind her is the full Word Presto specialist bench: content production, SEO, operations and approval governance workers, each with a defined role and place in the workflow. > Emma brings in the right specialist at the right moment, then returns the findings that need the Editor’s judgement. ## Same standard. Native voice. When you work in another language, you do not get Emma translated. You get a managing editor who runs the same desk in her own language and idiom. - **Emma** — Dublin · English - **Aurora** — Lisbon · Portuguese - **Francisca** — São Paulo · Brazilian Portuguese - **Sofía** — Madrid · Spanish - **Sabine** — Berlin · German - **Ambre** — Paris · French ## Only the Editor can approve the work. Emma can prepare the work. Specialists can review it. The Canvas can organise it. But only the Editor can approve it. > Nothing goes live until the human in charge says yes. ## Put Emma at the centre of your content operation. For writers, editors and publishing teams who need better content work without giving up editorial control. ## Agent-readable resources - LLM index: https://wordpresto.com/llms.txt - Full Markdown context: https://wordpresto.com/llms-full.txt - Markdown sitemap: https://wordpresto.com/sitemap.md - Workers directory: https://wordpresto.com/workers/index.md --- # Workflow demo Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workflow-demo/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workflow-demo/index.md # See rough thinking become review-ready. A senior writer's messy notes, on why generic SaaS tools fail growing SMEs, move through WordPresto. Brief, voice profile, structure, search intelligence, review and handoff. ## What the demo shows - A rough practitioner note becomes a structured content signal map. - Editorial and search intelligence tracks work alongside each other. - Voice, evidence, structure, review and handoff happen before publishing. - Nothing is published automatically. Human approval is required first. ## Workflow stages - Writer primer: messy source notes and preserved phrases. - Content analysis: argument, audience tensions, key phrases and evidence gaps. - Search intent: reader need, query family, journey stage and snippet opportunity. - Brief and structure: a practical plan before drafting begins. - Voice profile: register, phrases to protect and phrases to avoid. - Draft and section review: shaping work without losing the writer's judgement. - Evidence and approval: surfacing what is ready, weak or risky. - CMS handoff: preparing approved content for a website, CMS or client workflow. ## Boundary The demo is intentionally review-led. WordPresto workers assist with structure, review, improvement and handoff, but people approve what moves forward. --- # Workers directory Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/index.md # Specialist Workers for every stage of the content workflow. WordPresto brings in the right specialists for the stage you are at, so each piece of content gets the support it actually needs. See also the [SEO Workers directory](https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo/). --- ## Content Worker directory (18 specialist roles) ### Helena — Voice & Style Worker - Stage: Voice - Output: Voice & style guidance - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/voice-style/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/voice-style/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/voice-style.md Helena checks every draft against your voice rules and approved examples, shaping it back to your house style before review. For teams with one consistent voice to keep. ### Omar — Content Analyst - Stage: Analyse - Output: Content analysis - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-analyst/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-analyst/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-analyst.md Omar reviews existing content, context and purpose before any editing or rewriting starts. For teams that need a clear baseline before they touch a page. ### Marcus — Structure Worker - Stage: Structure - Output: Content structure - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/structure/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/structure/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/structure.md Marcus shapes headings, sections and page flow so content has a clear editorial structure before or during drafting. For pages that need a proper shape before writing starts. ### Luca — Content Brief Builder - Stage: Brief - Output: Content brief - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-brief-builder/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-brief-builder/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-brief-builder.md Luca turns a topic and goal into a structured content brief: purpose, audience, angle and sections, before any drafting starts. ### Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker - Stage: Draft - Output: Shaped draft - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-rewrite/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-rewrite/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/draft-rewrite.md Ellis builds and rewrites drafts that follow the brief: structured, on-purpose, and ready for review. For content that needs a shaped draft before editing or review starts. ### Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer - Stage: Review - Output: Review notes - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-quality-reviewer/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-quality-reviewer/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/draft-quality-reviewer.md Quinn checks whether a draft is clear, structured and ready to move forward before it reaches a client or CMS. For teams that need a structured review before sign-off. ### Rosa — Section Rewrite Worker - Stage: Improve - Output: Rewritten sections - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/section-rewrite/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/section-rewrite/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/section-rewrite.md Rosa rewrites individual sections that are unclear, thin or off-brief without touching the rest of the piece. For targeted section-level improvements after review. ### Audrey — Approval Report Worker - Stage: Approve - Output: Approval report - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/approval-report/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/approval-report/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/approval-report.md Audrey summarises what is ready, what needs attention and what should not move forward, so humans can make a confident sign-off decision. ### Priya — Readability Worker - Stage: Improve - Output: Improved draft - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/readability/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/readability/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/readability.md Priya tightens sentences, simplifies structure and improves flow so content reads clearly for its intended audience. For drafts that are correct but harder to read than they need to be. ### Ada — Brief-to-Draft Alignment Worker - Stage: Review - Output: Alignment report - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/brief-draft-alignment/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/brief-draft-alignment/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/brief-draft-alignment.md Ada checks that the draft actually fulfils the brief, surfacing gaps, drift and misaligned sections before they go any further. ### Ravi — CMS Handoff & Publishing Package Worker - Stage: Handoff - Output: Handoff pack - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cms-handoff/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cms-handoff/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/cms-handoff.md Ravi packages approved content with the structure, metadata and notes needed for clean handoff to a CMS, website or client. For teams that need a publishing-ready content package. ### Vera — Editorial Risk & Claims Compliance Worker - Stage: Review - Output: Risk & compliance report - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-risk-claims/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-risk-claims/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/editorial-risk-claims.md Vera flags unsupported claims, risky statements and compliance issues in content before it is approved or published. ### Iris — Content Refresh Brief Worker - Stage: Refresh - Output: Refresh brief - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-refresh-brief/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-refresh-brief/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-refresh-brief.md Iris produces a structured brief for refreshing existing content: what to update, what to cut and what to add. For teams refreshing pages with clear direction rather than guesswork. ### Nina — Content Distribution Brief Worker - Stage: Distribution - Output: Distribution brief - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-distribution-brief/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-distribution-brief/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-distribution-brief.md Nina creates a distribution brief that maps where approved content should go and how it should be adapted for each channel. ### Nadia — SEO Title & Metadata Worker - Stage: Metadata - Output: Metadata drafts - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo-metadata/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo-metadata/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/seo-metadata.md Nadia reviews the SEO title, meta description and H1 against search intent, then drafts clearer options for the writer to approve. Metadata that reads well for people and search. ### Alex — Trust & Author Credibility Worker - Stage: Trust - Output: Trust review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/trust-author-credibility/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/trust-author-credibility/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/trust-author-credibility.md Alex reviews the trust, authorship and credibility signals around a page so readers and search engines can see who stands behind the content. Review-only, never invented. ### Esme — Creative Writing Worker - Stage: Proofing - Output: Clarity review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/clarity-proofing/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/clarity-proofing/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/clarity-proofing.md Esme proofs grammar, clarity, tone and risk-aware wording, producing review-only suggestions so editors can improve the copy without handing control to automation. ### Nora — Content Inventory Worker - Stage: Content inventory - Output: Inventory review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-inventory/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-inventory/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-inventory.md Nora reviews the page as a content asset, identifying page type, structural signals, content gaps and inventory metadata that can help editors plan better work. --- # SEO Workers directory Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo/index.md # SEO Workers for search, structure and authority. The SEO Workers help writers and editorial teams make content easier to understand, structure, retrieve and approve. They review metadata, search snippets, schema, technical health, trust and evidence, and surface what matters while the writer is still shaping the work. Every output is for human review. See also the [Content Workers directory](https://wordpresto.com/workers/). --- ## SEO Worker directory (18 specialist roles) ### Morgan — SERP Snippet Worker - Stage: Snippets - Output: Snippet review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/serp-snippet-opportunity/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/serp-snippet-opportunity/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/serp-snippet-opportunity.md Morgan reviews how a page is likely to appear in search results and points out snippet and rich-result opportunities worth shaping for. Review-only, never a guarantee. ### Sofia — Schema Worker - Stage: Structured data - Output: Schema review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/schema/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/schema/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/schema.md Sofia reviews the structured data on a page and recommends the schema types that match what the page actually is, for human review. No invented fields, no false markup. ### Maya — Technical Health Worker - Stage: Technical - Output: Technical findings - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/technical-health/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/technical-health/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/technical-health.md Maya checks the technical signals behind a page, metadata, headings, indexability and structure, and reports what needs a closer look. Standards-backed and review-only. ### Cleo — Cannibalisation & Overlap Worker - Stage: Overlap review - Output: Cannibalisation review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cannibalisation-overlap/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cannibalisation-overlap/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/cannibalisation-overlap.md Cleo reviews a page for intent conflict, overlap risk and unclear content role, helping editors decide whether to sharpen, support, consolidate or manually check a page against others. ### Faye — Content Decay & Refresh Priority Worker - Stage: Content freshness - Output: Refresh priority review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-decay/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-decay/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-decay.md Faye reviews freshness signals and content decay risk, helping editors decide whether a page is still current, needs monitoring, should be refreshed, or requires urgent review. ### Zara — Topical Authority & Coverage Gap Worker - Stage: Topical coverage - Output: Coverage gap review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/topical-authority/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/topical-authority/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/topical-authority.md Zara reviews topical coverage signals and content gaps, helping editors see whether a page looks strong, needs support, is incomplete, or requires a wider content plan. ### Diane — Conversion & CTA Alignment Worker - Stage: Conversion review - Output: Conversion alignment review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/conversion-alignment/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/conversion-alignment/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/conversion-alignment.md Diane reviews conversion alignment: CTA clarity, trust signals, proof gaps, metadata promise match and whether the next step makes sense for the page intent. ### Ivan — Content Format & SERP Fit Worker - Stage: Content format - Output: Format fit review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-format-serp-fit/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-format-serp-fit/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-format-serp-fit.md Ivan reviews whether the current content format matches the likely intent and expected page shape, flagging format conflicts and metadata that promises a different experience. ### Felix — Internal Link Pathway Worker - Stage: Internal linking - Output: Pathway review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-link-pathway/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-link-pathway/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/internal-link-pathway.md Felix reviews internal link pathway health: orphan risk, anchor text quality, hub-and-spoke relationships, missing next-step links, competing links and pathway coherence. ### Hugo — Content Pruning & Consolidation Worker - Stage: Content maintenance - Output: Maintenance review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-pruning-consolidation/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-pruning-consolidation/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/content-pruning-consolidation.md Hugo reviews content maintenance signals: overlap risk, thin content, decay, unclear role, weak pathways and consolidation prompts, helping editors decide the safest next maintenance action. ### Sema — Semantic Coverage Analyser - Stage: Semantic intelligence - Output: Semantic coverage review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/semantic-search-analyzer/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/semantic-search-analyzer/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/semantic-search-analyzer.md Sema reviews semantic coverage by comparing content against Word Presto's knowledge layer and project context, surfacing missing subtopics and thinly covered entities. ### Cassius — Competitor Intelligence Worker - Stage: Competitive intelligence - Output: Competitor coverage review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/competitor-intel/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/competitor-intel/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/competitor-intel.md Cassius reviews competitor coverage from stored SERP competitor data, surfacing the subtopics, entities and angles competitors appear to cover that your content may be missing. ### Claire — Site Discovery Worker - Stage: Site discovery - Output: Site discovery review - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/site-discovery/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/site-discovery/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/site-discovery.md Claire helps identify the pages in a website project so editors can see what needs review, where the content opportunities are and how the site begins to fit together. ### Patrick — Page Inspector - Stage: Discovery - Output: Page signals - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/page-inspector/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/page-inspector/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/page-inspector.md Patrick inspects the page and extracts the source signals the rest of the workflow depends on: title, meta description, headings, links, images, schema, word count and visible page structure. ### Mara — Accessibility Worker - Stage: Accessibility review - Output: Accessibility findings - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/accessibility/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/accessibility/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/accessibility.md Mara reviews accessibility signals available in the page evidence, flagging weak heading structure, missing image alternatives, unclear link text, readability risks and checks that need human confirmation. ### Yuna — Intent Analyst - Stage: Search intelligence - Output: Intent assessment - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/intent-analyst/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/intent-analyst/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/intent-analyst.md Yuna reviews whether the content, structure, metadata and next step of a page line up with the likely search or reader intent. ### Kenji — Evidence Worker - Stage: Provenance - Output: Evidence bundle - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/evidence.md Kenji reviews the evidence behind findings and recommendations, checking support strength, unsupported claims, provenance and limitations before approval. ### Leo — Content Relationship Worker - Stage: Content relationships - Output: Link assessment - URL: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-linking/ - Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-linking/index.md - Legacy Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/pages/workers/internal-linking.md Leo reviews how a page connects to other content: internal links, external links, anchor quality, reader pathways and whether the page appears isolated or poorly connected. --- # WordPrestoBot crawler Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/prestobot/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/prestobot/index.md # WordPrestoBot, our web crawler If you found this page from a line in your server logs, hello, and thanks for checking. WordPrestoBot is the web crawler operated by Word Presto, an agentic content and SEO workflow tool. It reads public HTML to extract SEO and content signals on behalf of a Word Presto user, and nothing more. You will have seen something like this in your access logs: ``` Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; WordPrestoBot/1.0; +https://wordpresto.com/prestobot) ``` ## Why it visited your site WordPrestoBot only fetches pages on behalf of a Word Presto user. In almost every case that is one of two things: - A site owner analysing their own site, running an SEO or content review of pages they control. - A read-only competitive or research check, a user looking at publicly available pages to understand how a topic is covered. It reads public HTML to extract SEO and content signals: titles, headings, metadata, links and structured data. That is it. ## What it does, and does not, do WordPrestoBot does: - request publicly accessible pages over normal HTTPS, - identify itself honestly in the User-Agent on every request, - respect robots.txt, - crawl gently, with modest request rates, timeouts and response-size limits. WordPrestoBot does not: - log in, submit forms, or interact with your site, - make any changes, post content, or place orders, - attempt to access private, gated, or admin areas, - collect personal data or bypass access controls. ## How to control it One robots.txt rule controls every Word Presto crawl, because all of our crawlers share the single token WordPrestoBot. Block it entirely: ``` User-agent: WordPrestoBot Disallow: / ``` Block only specific areas: ``` User-agent: WordPrestoBot Disallow: /private/ Disallow: /checkout/ ``` Or set a crawl delay: ``` User-agent: WordPrestoBot Crawl-delay: 10 ``` Changes take effect on our next visit. We honour robots.txt, so a disallow is respected without any need to contact us. ## How to recognise it - User-Agent token: WordPrestoBot - Every request links back here: +https://wordpresto.com/prestobot - Some fetches add a short note describing the specific action, for example "read-only single page" or "sitemap and llms.txt only". Same token, same rules. If a request claims to be WordPrestoBot but does not link to this page, treat it as spoofed and feel free to block it. ## Questions or concerns? If WordPrestoBot is causing problems, or you would like it to stop visiting, the fastest fix is the robots.txt rule above. You can also reach us at hello@wordpresto.com. Tell us the domain and we will help. --- # Bring accessibility issues into the review workflow. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/accessibility/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/accessibility/index.md # Bring accessibility issues into the review workflow. Mara reviews accessibility signals available in the page evidence, flagging weak heading structure, missing image alternatives, unclear link text, readability risks and checks that need human confirmation. --- Accessibility affects whether people can read, navigate, understand and use a page. It should be visible before content reaches approval. Mara reviews accessibility signals available in the page evidence. She flags issues such as weak heading structure, missing image alternatives, unclear link text, readability risks and manual checks that need human confirmation. ## Teams often check accessibility too late. If heading logic is confusing, link text is vague or images lack useful alternatives, the issue should be visible during review, not after launch. Mara brings those signals into the editorial workflow early. ## Accessibility review without false certification. Mara turns available page signals into reviewable accessibility findings. She does not claim compliance or replace manual testing. ### Checks - Heading structure - Image alt-text presence - Link text clarity - Readability signals - Manual accessibility checks needed - Accessibility risks visible from page evidence ### Improves - Early visibility of accessibility issues - Editorial handoff quality - Common page-level accessibility review - Readiness before approval ### Prepares - Accessibility findings - Manual verification checklist - Issue severity notes - Fix guidance for human review ### Surfaces for human review - Missing or weak image alternatives - Vague link text - Heading structure concerns - Checks needing a human or specialist audit ## What Mara works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page structure - Image signals - Link and anchor text - Readability signals - Technical review findings ### Produces - Accessibility review - Detected issues - Manual checks - Fix guidance - Review status ## When to use Mara ### A page is being reviewed before approval. Mara adds an accessibility pass to the review before the page moves forward. ### Technical review found structural issues. She checks whether those issues also affect heading logic or navigation. ### A page contains many images. Mara flags images missing useful alternatives for editors to address. ### Links are vague or repetitive. She surfaces link text that needs to be clearer for readers and assistive technology. ### Heading structure looks messy. Mara reviews the heading order and flags where it may confuse readers or screen readers. ### The team needs honest accessibility notes. She reports what the evidence supports, and lists what still needs a manual check. ## Mara flags accessibility issues. She does not certify compliance. Mara provides a review-only accessibility pass based on available page evidence. She does not replace manual testing, screen-reader testing, legal review or a formal WCAG audit. ### Boundary checklist - Mara flags issues visible in the page evidence, she never edits headings, links or alt text herself. - Her findings are a starting point for review, not a compliance certification. - Checks she cannot verify from available evidence are listed as manual checks, not silently skipped. - Formal accessibility audits and legal compliance decisions stay with a qualified human reviewer. ### Will not - Certify accessibility compliance - Run full manual assistive-technology testing - Edit headings, links or alt text automatically - Publish accessibility fixes - Invent issues not supported by page evidence ## Workers Mara works alongside. - **Patrick — Page Inspector**: Extracts the page structure, links and image signals Mara reviews. Output: Page signals. - **Maya — Technical Health Worker**: Checks technical SEO and related page health signals. Output: Technical findings. - **Dana — Editorial Approval Gate Worker**: Uses accessibility status as part of readiness review. Output: Approval gate. --- # Make approval easier to trust. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/approval-report/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/approval-report/index.md # Make approval easier to trust. Audrey summarises what is ready, what needs attention and what should not move forward, so humans can make a confident sign-off decision. --- Approval decisions made without a clear picture of what is ready often go wrong in one of two ways: things are approved that should not be, or things are held up that were ready to move. Audrey assembles a structured approval report so the person making the sign-off decision has the information they actually need. ## Approval is only reliable when the approver has the right information. Most approval problems are information problems. The person signing off either does not have a clear view of what was reviewed and what was not, or they are reading every draft themselves because there is no summary. Either way, it takes longer than it should and the decisions are less confident than they need to be. ## A report that gives approvers a clear view, not a pile of drafts. Audrey assembles everything the approver needs into one structured report: what is ready, what is not, what the specific issues are, and what needs to happen next. Sign-off decisions become faster and more confident. ### Checks - Whether each piece has been through the required review stages - Whether outstanding issues are clearly documented - Whether anything is flagged as a risk before approval ### Improves - Approval process speed by removing ambiguity - Approval confidence by surfacing the right information - Sign-off documentation for audit and reference ### Prepares - A structured approval report - A clear ready/not ready status for each piece - Specific next steps for anything not yet approved ### Surfaces for human review - Content that needs more review before sign-off - Compliance or risk issues that should be resolved first - Pieces being held up by information that is missing ## What Audrey works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Draft quality review notes - Risk and compliance flags - Brief alignment reports - Current approval criteria - Content status across the project ### Produces - Structured approval report - Ready / needs attention / not ready classification - Specific issue notes with next steps - Sign-off documentation - Handoff notes for CMS or publishing ## When to use Audrey ### A content batch of 20 pieces needs director sign-off by Friday. Audrey produces a report the director can review in 20 minutes rather than 2 hours. ### A client reviewing a site migration before launch. The approval report gives clients a clear view of what has been reviewed, what is ready, and what is still outstanding. ### A compliance-sensitive content programme. Audrey tracks which pieces have cleared compliance review and surfaces those that have not. ### An agency where approval decisions are inconsistent. A structured report creates an approval standard that applies to every project. ### A project that stalled at approval and no one knows why. The report identifies exactly what is blocking each piece and what needs to happen to move it forward. ### Multiple stakeholders with different approval criteria. One report maps all criteria and shows the status of each piece against each set of requirements. ## Audrey reports. Humans approve. Approval is a human decision. Audrey provides the structured information that makes that decision reliable. The sign-off call, and the responsibility that comes with it, is always with a person. ### Boundary checklist - Audrey reports on status, she never approves content herself. - Approval reports are structured for the designated approver to review. - Risk and compliance flags are included, not filtered out. - The report supports approval judgement, it does not replace it. ### Will not - Approve or sign off content - Bypass compliance flags - Mark content ready without evidence ## Workers Audrey works with. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Provides the quality review that feeds the approval report. Output: Review notes. - **Vera — Editorial Risk & Claims Compliance Worker**: Flags compliance and risk issues before approval. Output: Risk & compliance report. - **Ravi — CMS Handoff & Publishing Package Worker**: Takes approved content and prepares it for CMS handoff. Output: Handoff pack. --- # Check whether the draft actually follows the brief. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/brief-draft-alignment/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/brief-draft-alignment/index.md # Check whether the draft actually follows the brief. Ada checks that the draft actually fulfils the brief, surfacing gaps, drift and misaligned sections before they go any further. --- A draft that looks good but does not follow the brief is a problem that will surface at review or, worse, at client delivery. Ada compares the final draft against the original brief, section by section, and flags any gaps, scope drift or misalignments before the draft moves forward. ## A draft that follows the brief is the exception, not the rule. Briefs drift during production. Writers interpret differently. AI tools fill gaps with their own defaults. By the time a draft reaches review, it is often covering different ground to what was briefed. The only way to catch it is to check. ## A brief-check that catches drift before it becomes a client problem. Ada does the structured comparison between brief and draft that most teams skip because they are moving too fast. Gaps and drift caught before delivery are free. Caught at client review, they cost revision rounds. ### Checks - Whether each brief section is present and addressed - Whether audience and purpose are maintained throughout - Whether the angle and intent from the brief survive in the draft ### Improves - Brief alignment reporting so gaps are specific - Revision guidance so fixes are targeted - Draft handoff notes so the writer knows exactly what to address ### Prepares - A structured alignment report - Section-by-section brief comparison - Specific fix notes for the writer ### Surfaces for human review - Scope drift that crept in during production - Brief sections that were interpreted differently - Missing content that was required by the brief ## What Ada works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Final content brief - Current draft - Any mid-project brief amendments - Review notes - Audience and purpose definitions ### Produces - Brief-to-draft alignment report - Section-by-section comparison - Gap and drift flags - Fix notes for the writer - Handoff to review or revision ## When to use Ada ### A draft that was rewritten mid-project and may have lost brief alignment. Ada checks the current draft against the final brief, regardless of revision history. ### A content programme where multiple writers worked to the same brief. She checks each draft to the same standard and identifies where interpretations diverged. ### An AI-generated draft that used the brief as a starting point. AI tools fill gaps with defaults; Ada identifies which defaults replaced brief requirements. ### A client who checks briefs carefully before approving drafts. An alignment report before client delivery means the client review focuses on creative decisions, not brief compliance. ### A long brief with many specific requirements. Ada tracks every requirement and confirms which ones are met, which are partially met, and which are missing. ### A revision round that changed the brief scope. She re-checks alignment after brief changes to confirm the draft was updated accordingly. ## Ada checks alignment. Writers and editors make the changes. An alignment report is a structured input to revision, not a list of required changes. Ada identifies what does not match the brief; whether to address it, and how, is a writer and editor decision. ### Boundary checklist - Ada checks alignment, she never rewrites content. - Alignment findings are structured for editorial review. - Ambiguous brief sections are flagged as questions, not resolved. - Alignment supports the brief, it does not change it. ### Will not - Rewrite or edit content - Override brief amendments agreed with client - Mark gaps as minor without editorial input ## Workers Ada works alongside. - **Luca — Content Brief Builder**: Builds the brief that Ada checks against. Output: Content brief. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Reviews quality alongside alignment checking. Output: Review notes. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Rewrites the draft after alignment gaps are identified. Output: Shaped draft. --- # Find pages that are trying to do too many jobs. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cannibalisation-overlap/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cannibalisation-overlap/index.md # Find pages that are trying to do too many jobs. Cleo reviews a page for intent conflict, overlap risk and unclear content role, helping editors decide whether to sharpen, support, consolidate or manually check a page against others. --- Content cannibalisation is not only a site-wide ranking problem. It can start inside a single page: mixed intent, unclear editorial role, metadata that promises the wrong thing, thin sections that belong elsewhere, or page copy that competes with another likely asset. Cleo reviews a page for intent conflict, overlap risk and unclear content role. She helps editors decide whether the page should be sharpened, supported, consolidated or manually checked against other pages. ## Pages compete when their role is unclear. A page may try to be a guide, a service page, a comparison page and a sales page all at once. Or it may contain a thin section that should be a separate supporting article. Or its title and meta description may promise an intent the body does not satisfy. Cleo reviews those overlap signals before the site becomes harder to manage. ## A cannibalisation review that stays honest about its limits. Cleo reviews the page-level signals already available in the workflow. She can flag risk indicators and manual checks, but she does not claim full cross-site cannibalisation detection unless site crawl and ranking data exist. ### Checks - Within-page intent conflict - Metadata promise mismatch - Unclear editorial role - Thin sections that may belong elsewhere - Page-level overlap risk - Manual cross-page checks needed ### Improves - Clarity of page purpose - Topic-cluster planning - Content consolidation decisions - Confidence before rewriting or expanding a page ### Prepares - Cannibalisation risk review - Recommended page role - Manual overlap checks - Suggested next action ### Surfaces for human review - Pages trying to serve competing intents - Sections that may deserve their own page - Metadata that may compete with another asset - Risks requiring crawl, keyword or SERP confirmation ## What Cleo works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Intent assessment - Content inventory signals - Metadata review - Link and relationship signals - Page structure and content depth ### Produces - Overlap risk review - Recommended page role - Intent conflict notes - Manual cross-page checks - Consolidation prompts ## When to use Cleo ### A page feels unfocused. Cleo checks whether the page is mixing intents or trying to serve too many purposes. ### You suspect keyword cannibalisation. She reviews page-level risk and lists what needs cross-page confirmation. ### Metadata and content do not match. Cleo flags when the title or meta description promises a different page than the body delivers. ### A content cluster is becoming messy. She helps identify whether a page should be sharpened, split, supported or consolidated. ### A section feels too thin. Cleo flags content that may be better as a supporting page or internal link target. ### A rewrite might make overlap worse. She helps editors protect the page role before copy changes begin. ## Cleo flags risk. Editors decide the content strategy. Cleo does not merge pages, redirect URLs, delete content or declare confirmed site-wide cannibalisation from page-only evidence. She gives the editor a structured risk review and manual checks. ### Boundary checklist - Cleo flags overlap risk, she never merges or deletes pages. - Cross-page cannibalisation claims are only made with supporting crawl or ranking data. - Recommended page roles are proposals for editorial review, not automatic changes. - Manual checks are listed clearly so editors know what still needs confirming. ### Will not - Merge, prune or redirect pages - Confirm cross-page cannibalisation without supporting data - Rewrite titles or content automatically - Delete sections or pages - Publish or apply changes to a CMS ## Workers Cleo works alongside. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Identifies the reader intent Cleo checks for conflict. Output: Intent assessment. - **Zara — Topical Authority & Coverage Gap Worker**: Reviews topic-cluster depth and support. Output: Coverage review. - **Hugo — Content Pruning & Consolidation Worker**: Helps turn overlap findings into maintenance recommendations. Output: Maintenance review. --- # Make the writing cleaner before it reaches review. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/clarity-proofing/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/clarity-proofing/index.md # Make the writing cleaner before it reaches review. Esme proofs grammar, clarity, tone and risk-aware wording, producing review-only suggestions so editors can improve the copy without handing control to automation. --- Good editing is not just fixing typos. It is knowing where a sentence drifts, where a phrase sounds almost right, where the tone has slipped, and where the reader has to work too hard. Esme proofs the writing itself: grammar, spelling, punctuation, clarity, concision, readability, tone, consistency, repetition, word choice and risk-aware language. She produces review-only suggestions so editors can improve the copy without handing control of the page to automation. ## A page can be factually right and still difficult to read. Most content does not fail because every sentence is broken. It fails because small problems accumulate: a vague phrase here, a long sentence there, repeated wording, weak transitions, punctuation noise, tone drift and unnecessary complexity. Esme catches the language-level issues before they become review friction. ## A proofing pass that improves the writing without taking control from the editor. Esme reviews the language at sentence, paragraph and page level. She highlights issues that make the copy harder to read, less consistent, less polished or riskier than it needs to be. She does not rewrite the page for the editor. She gives specific, reviewable suggestions so a human can accept, reject or adapt the change. ### Checks - Grammar, spelling and punctuation - Clarity, concision and sentence length - Repetition, weak phrasing and word choice - Tone, voice fit and consistency - Risk-aware wording and overstatement ### Improves - Readability before a page reaches final review - Sentence-level precision without changing the approved meaning - Consistency across sections, drafts and page updates ### Prepares - A structured clarity and proofing review - Sentence-level suggestions for human review - A list of wording issues that need editorial judgement ### Surfaces for human review - Phrases that are technically correct but awkward - Sentences that need simplifying - Tone drift from the selected voice or page purpose - Risky claims, overstatements or unclear wording ## What Esme works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page or draft text - Writing Canvas content - Section rewrite output - Voice and style signals - Draft quality review signals ### Produces - Clarity review - Grammar and punctuation suggestions - Concision and readability flags - Tone and consistency notes - Risk-aware wording alerts ## When to use Esme ### A page is nearly ready but still feels rough. Esme finds the language-level friction: awkward sentences, repeated phrases, unclear wording and punctuation issues. ### A draft has been edited by several people. She checks for consistency so the page does not feel stitched together from different voices. ### A client has made manual copy changes. Esme reviews the new wording without undoing the client's intent or silently rewriting the page. ### A page needs a Grammarly-style proofing pass inside the Word Presto workflow. She gives practical sentence-level suggestions while keeping the editor in control. ### A regulated or sensitive topic needs careful wording. Esme flags overstatement, risky phrasing and language that may need a human compliance check. ### A final draft is moving towards approval. She catches small issues before the Editorial Approval Gate reviews the page. ## Esme proofs the writing. Editors decide what changes. A clarity review is not an automatic rewrite. Esme produces suggestions, flags and review notes. The editor decides what to accept, what to reject and what needs a different human edit. ### Boundary checklist - Esme suggests, she never applies. - Suggestions are designed for review inside the editorial workflow. - Tone and clarity notes support human judgement, they do not replace it. - Risk-aware wording is flagged for review, not treated as legal or compliance approval. ### Will not - Edit or rewrite live content directly - Apply suggestions without human approval - Publish, update WordPress, or write to any CMS - Call an external provider for this local proofing pass - Invent facts, evidence or brand rules ## Workers Esme works alongside. - **Helena — Voice & Style Worker**: Checks whether the copy fits the configured voice before proofing tightens the language. Output: Voice review. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Checks whether the draft covers the approved changes and has quality risks. Output: Draft quality review. - **Dana — Editorial Approval Gate Worker**: Reviews whether the content is ready for human editorial approval. Output: Approval gate. --- # Prepare approved content for a cleaner handoff. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cms-handoff/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/cms-handoff/index.md # Prepare approved content for a cleaner handoff. Ravi packages approved content with the structure, metadata and notes needed for clean handoff to a CMS, website or client. For teams that need a publishing-ready content package. --- Approved content that arrives in a CMS without the right metadata, formatting guidance and notes creates work at the point where it should be simple. Ravi takes the approved draft and produces a complete publishing package: content, metadata, formatting notes, CMS fields. The handoff is clean from the first time. ## Bad handoffs cost more time than bad drafts. A piece of content that reaches a CMS editor or developer without proper metadata, formatting notes or field guidance gets published with errors, or gets sent back for information. The handoff step is cheap to get right and expensive to get wrong. ## A publishing package that CMS editors and developers can act on immediately. Ravi produces the complete handoff package that turns approved content into publishable content. Meta fields, formatting guidance, URL slug, image notes: everything needed for a clean first publish. ### Checks - Whether all required metadata fields are populated - Whether formatting is correct for the target CMS - Whether images and assets are properly referenced ### Improves - Handoff completeness so CMS editors can publish without follow-up - Metadata quality so SEO and accessibility fields are correct - Publishing consistency across a content programme ### Prepares - A complete handoff pack - Populated CMS field notes - Formatting and asset guidance ### Surfaces for human review - Missing metadata that needs writer or client input - Content that is not ready for CMS despite being approved - CMS-specific requirements that the content does not yet meet ## What Ravi works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Approved final draft - CMS field requirements - Metadata brief - Brand guidelines - Asset and image references ### Produces - Complete handoff pack - Populated CMS field notes - URL and slug guidance - Image and asset notes - Publish-ready content document ## When to use Ravi ### A content programme handing off to a WordPress editor. Ravi produces a handoff pack that maps every field in the editor's template. ### An Astro site build where content needs to be structured for frontmatter. He packages content in the format the developer needs, including all frontmatter fields. ### A client who manages their own CMS but finds handoffs confusing. A clear, complete handoff document reduces the client's publishing errors and support requests. ### A batch of 30 approved pages all needing metadata. Ravi works through the batch consistently, so every page is packaged to the same standard. ### A migration project with legacy content needing re-packaging. He updates metadata and formatting notes for the new CMS without touching the approved copy. ### A launch deadline where the CMS editor has one hour to publish. A complete handoff pack means they can spend that hour publishing, not chasing missing information. ## Ravi packages. Publishing teams and editors decide what goes live. A handoff pack is a publishing-ready document, not permission to publish. What goes live, when, and in what form is a decision for the publishing team, client or editorial director. ### Boundary checklist - Ravi packages content, he never publishes it. - Handoff packs are structured for the receiving team to verify. - Incomplete information is flagged, not guessed. - The handoff supports publishing, it does not authorise it. ### Will not - Publish content directly - Approve content for publication - Guess at missing metadata ## Workers Ravi works with. - **Audrey — Approval Report Worker**: Confirms what is approved before handoff packaging begins. Output: Approval report. - **Vera — Editorial Risk & Claims Compliance Worker**: Clears compliance and risk before the handoff pack is produced. Output: Risk & compliance report. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Provides the final quality review before handoff. Output: Review notes. --- # See what ranking competitors cover that you do not. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/competitor-intel/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/competitor-intel/index.md # See what ranking competitors cover that you do not. Cassius reviews competitor coverage from stored SERP competitor data, surfacing the subtopics, entities and angles competitors appear to cover that your content may be missing. --- Competitor analysis is useful only when it is grounded in real search evidence. Cassius reviews competitor coverage from stored SERP competitor data and compares it with the page or draft under review. He surfaces the subtopics, entities and angles competitors appear to cover that your content may be missing. ## Teams copy competitors instead of understanding the gap. Competitive review should not mean scraping ideas and imitating another page. It should help editors understand what the ranking landscape appears to cover, what the current draft misses, and which gaps are genuinely relevant. Cassius turns competitor evidence into reviewable content intelligence. ## Competitor coverage review from real SERP evidence. Cassius uses existing competitor SERP data where available. If there is no stored SERP data, he shows an honest gated state rather than inventing competitor findings. ### Checks - Competitor-covered subtopics - Missing entities and angles - Draft versus SERP competitor coverage - Repeated competitor themes - Evidence limitations - No-data states when SERP evidence is missing ### Improves - Competitive content planning - Gap-led brief quality - Search opportunity review - Awareness of what ranking pages appear to address ### Prepares - Competitor coverage review - SERP-grounded gap list - Content angle prompts - Evidence limitation notes ### Surfaces for human review - Relevant competitor-covered topics - Missing decision factors - SERP themes worth considering - Areas where competitor evidence is too thin or unavailable ## What Cassius works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Draft or page content - Stored SERP competitor data - Keyword or search opportunity context - Semantic coverage signals - Evidence review signals ### Produces - Competitor coverage review - SERP-grounded gap list - Missing entity notes - Competitive angle prompts - No-data state when required ## When to use Cassius ### A page is targeting a competitive keyword. Cassius checks what ranking competitors appear to cover that the page may miss. ### A content brief needs competitor context. He provides gap-led prompts without turning the brief into imitation. ### A draft feels weaker than the SERP. Cassius identifies missing angles and entities for human review. ### A keyword research action has produced SERP data. He uses that stored data to ground competitor coverage findings. ### A page is being refreshed for SEO performance. Cassius helps editors see whether competitor coverage has moved ahead. ### The team needs honest competitive evidence. He shows no-data states when competitor SERP evidence is not available. ## Cassius compares coverage. Editors decide what to use. Cassius does not copy competitor content, fetch hidden competitor pages, invent SERP data or guarantee ranking improvements. He turns available competitor evidence into reviewable gaps. ### Boundary checklist - Cassius compares coverage, he never copies competitor content. - Findings are grounded in stored SERP data, not invented competitor claims. - A no-data state is shown honestly when SERP evidence is missing. - No ranking improvement is guaranteed. ### Will not - Copy competitor content - Invent competitor findings without SERP data - Fetch live competitor pages unless a future workflow explicitly supports it - Rewrite the page automatically - Publish or write to any CMS ## Workers Cassius works alongside. - **Sema — Semantic Coverage Analyser**: Finds semantic gaps from the knowledge layer and project context. Output: Semantic coverage review. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Clarifies the intent behind the competitive search opportunity. Output: Intent assessment. - **Kenji — Evidence Worker**: Reviews whether competitor-led findings are properly supported. Output: Evidence bundle. --- # Understand the page before you rewrite it. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-analyst/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-analyst/index.md # Understand the page before you rewrite it. Omar reviews existing content, context and purpose before any editing or rewriting starts. For teams that need a clear baseline before they touch a page. --- Most rewrites start in the wrong place. They change what is easy to change rather than what actually needs changing. Omar reads the existing page first: what it is trying to do, whether it is working, and what is worth keeping. That gives the work that follows a clear foundation. ## Rewriting without reading is how you lose what was already working. A page that has been live for two years has something in it: structure that readers responded to, a tone that fitted, sections that ranked. Rewriting from scratch without reviewing what is there first means starting every project further back than you need to. ## A content reader that maps what is there before anything changes. Omar does the analysis work that should happen before every brief is written, but rarely does: reading the existing page for what it is and what it is trying to do. ### Checks - Whether the page is fulfilling its stated purpose - What structure and sections are already working - Gaps between intent and current content ### Improves - Rewrite scope, so it covers less but changes more - Brief quality, by giving writers a real baseline - Prioritisation, so the most important changes go first ### Prepares - A content analysis summary - A clear view of what to keep, change or cut - A starting point for the brief or structure pass ### Surfaces for human review - Pages where a light edit is enough - Structural problems that will affect any rewrite - Misalignments between page purpose and content ## What Omar works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Existing page content - Stated page goal or brief - Brand guidelines - Audience definition - Any prior review notes ### Produces - Content analysis summary - What to keep, change or cut - Brief input notes - Gap report - Structural observations ## When to use Omar ### A site migration with 200 pages to review. Omar reads each page to a consistent standard, flagging what is worth carrying forward and what should be retired. ### A refresh brief with no clear scope. He maps the existing content so the brief has a specific starting point rather than a general direction. ### An inherited website you did not build. Omar gives you a quick picture of what is there, what is working, and what is noise. ### A high-performing page that you are nervous to touch. He identifies which parts of it matter so you can improve around them rather than replacing them. ### A client insisting on a full rewrite. Analysis often reveals a lighter touch is enough, which saves budget and preserves what is already working. ### Preparing for a writer who is new to the client. A content analysis gives any writer a real brief rather than starting from a blank page. ## Omar analyses. Editors and clients decide. Content analysis is an input, not an instruction. Omar maps what is there and flags what matters. What changes, what stays and what gets cut is a judgement call for the editor or client to make. ### Boundary checklist - Omar reviews and analyses, he never changes content directly. - His analysis is structured for a human editor to act on. - Unclear or contested decisions are flagged, not resolved. - Analysis supports editorial judgement, it does not replace it. ### Will not - Edit or rewrite pages - Make final scope decisions - Override client priorities ## Workers Omar passes to. - **Marcus — Structure Worker**: Uses the analysis to shape section hierarchy and flow. Output: Content structure. - **Luca — Content Brief Builder**: Builds the brief from analysis insights. Output: Content brief. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Rewrites with a clear picture of the existing page. Output: Shaped draft. --- # Start with a brief that writers can actually use. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-brief-builder/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-brief-builder/index.md # Start with a brief that writers can actually use. Luca turns a topic and goal into a structured content brief: purpose, audience, angle and sections, before any drafting starts. --- Most content briefs are either too thin to help or too prescriptive to leave room for writing. Luca builds structured briefs that give writers the context and direction they need without doing the writing for them: purpose, audience, angle, tone direction and a clear section plan. ## A weak brief produces a draft you will have to rewrite anyway. A brief that says 'write about our service for our customers' is not a brief. It is an instruction to guess. Every hour a writer spends working from a vague brief is an hour spent producing content that will need structural revision before it can be used. ## A brief that gives writers direction without removing their judgement. Luca builds the brief structure that prevents rewrite rounds. A well-scoped brief with a real angle, a clear audience and section guidance produces better drafts because writers know what they are building. ### Checks - Whether purpose is clear and specific - Whether audience is defined enough to write to - Whether the angle is distinct and arguable ### Improves - Brief scope so it is actionable, not just directional - Section structure so the outline is usable - Tone and voice direction so the writer has a starting register ### Prepares - A structured content brief - An outlined section plan - Writing direction and constraints ### Surfaces for human review - Topics where more research is needed first - Briefs that need client input before drafting - Scope conflicts that will cause revision rounds later ## What Luca works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Content topic or subject - Stated goal - Audience definition - Brand voice guidelines - Content analysis or research notes ### Produces - Structured content brief - Section outline - Audience and tone notes - Writing constraints - Handoff to writer or drafting Worker ## When to use Luca ### Starting a new content programme with consistent briefs. Luca builds every brief to the same standard, so drafts start from the same quality of direction. ### Briefing AI-assisted drafting tools. A structured brief is the difference between a usable AI draft and one that needs a full rewrite. ### Agency briefing for a client they have just onboarded. Luca turns the intake notes into a brief that a writer can act on without guessing at client preferences. ### Building a content calendar with actual direction in it. Each piece in the calendar gets a brief summary that clarifies what it is for and who it is for. ### A product launch with multiple content pieces. One brief structure applied consistently means all the pieces align without constant alignment calls. ### A writer who is new to the brand. A clear brief replaces weeks of implicit knowledge transfer with a document they can refer to. ## Luca briefs. Writers and editors make the creative decisions. A brief is a starting point, not a script. Luca structures the brief so the direction is clear, but the writing, voice choices and creative judgements are for the writer and editor to make. ### Boundary checklist - Luca builds briefs, he never writes the content itself. - Brief decisions are documented for editor or client review. - Gaps in direction are flagged before drafting starts. - The brief supports the writer, it does not replace them. ### Will not - Draft or write content - Make brand positioning decisions - Override agreed scope ## Workers Luca hands off to. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Takes the brief and builds the shaped draft. Output: Shaped draft. - **Ada — Brief-to-Draft Alignment Worker**: Checks the draft actually matches the brief. Output: Alignment report. - **Helena — Voice & Style Worker**: Applies voice rules against the brief direction. Output: Voice & style guidance. --- # Know when a page is starting to lose its edge. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-decay/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-decay/index.md # Know when a page is starting to lose its edge. Faye reviews freshness signals and content decay risk, helping editors decide whether a page is still current, needs monitoring, should be refreshed, or requires urgent review. --- Some pages fail slowly. The copy still exists, the URL still loads, but the evidence is old, the title promises something current, the examples feel dated, or the topic has moved on. Faye reviews freshness signals and content decay risk. She helps editors decide whether a page is still current, needs monitoring, should be refreshed, or requires urgent review. ## A page can look finished while its usefulness is fading. Content decay is often subtle. A date in the title, an old example, an unsupported claim, a stale comparison, or a page type that needs regular updates can slowly reduce trust and performance. Faye looks for the signals that tell editors a page needs attention before it becomes a bigger ranking or credibility problem. ## Freshness review without pretending to update the page. Faye reviews in-memory page signals and identifies content that may need refreshing. She does not edit, schedule, publish or invent updated facts. She gives the editor a clear maintenance signal. ### Checks - Temporal language in titles, metadata and copy - Evidence freshness - Content type sensitivity to age - SERP promise mismatch - Maintenance cadence indicators - Trust risks from outdated information ### Improves - Content maintenance planning - Refresh prioritisation - Editorial visibility of ageing pages - Confidence before updating or leaving a page alone ### Prepares - Refresh priority review - Recommended maintenance cadence - Stale-signal checklist - Human review prompts ### Surfaces for human review - Dated claims or examples - Current-year promises that need confirmation - Pages that should be monitored - Content that may need urgent review ## What Faye works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page title and metadata - Page copy - Evidence review signals - Content inventory signals - Intent and format signals ### Produces - Freshness review - Decay risk status - Refresh priority - Maintenance cadence - Manual checks ## When to use Faye ### A page contains dates, trends or current advice. Faye checks whether the page still feels current enough to trust. ### A page has slipped in performance. She helps identify whether freshness may be part of the problem. ### A content audit needs refresh priorities. Faye helps separate pages that are fine from pages that need attention. ### A title promises something up to date. She checks whether the body actually supports that promise. ### A page includes evidence, examples or statistics. Faye flags items that may need verification or replacement. ### A maintenance workflow needs structure. She recommends whether to monitor, refresh or urgently review the page. ## Faye flags freshness risk. Editors decide the update. Faye does not update facts, rewrite sections, schedule refreshes or publish changes. She reviews the available signals and tells the editor what needs attention. ### Boundary checklist - Faye flags freshness risk, she never rewrites or updates content herself. - Freshness signals are reviewed from what already exists, not invented facts or dates. - Refresh priority is a recommendation for editorial planning, not an automatic schedule. - Inferred decay risk is flagged for review, not treated as confirmed ranking loss. ### Will not - Rewrite outdated content automatically - Invent fresh examples, dates or evidence - Schedule updates - Publish or apply changes to a CMS - Treat inferred freshness risk as confirmed ranking loss ## Workers Faye works alongside. - **Nora — Content Inventory Worker**: Classifies the page as a content asset and identifies useful inventory signals. Output: Inventory review. - **Hugo — Content Pruning & Consolidation Worker**: Reviews whether weak or ageing content should be refreshed, consolidated or pruned. Output: Maintenance review. - **Iris — Content Refresh Brief Worker**: Turns refresh findings into a structured content refresh brief. Output: Refresh brief. --- # Plan where approved content should go next. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-distribution-brief/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-distribution-brief/index.md # Plan where approved content should go next. Nina creates a distribution brief that maps where approved content should go and how it should be adapted for each channel. --- Approved content that goes directly from sign-off to a single channel wastes most of its value. Nina produces a distribution brief that maps the approved content to the channels where it fits, with adaptation notes for each, so the same piece extends further without being diluted. ## Most content gets published once and forgotten. Approved long-form content often reaches one channel, in one format, at one time. The channel adaptations that would extend its reach (newsletter extract, LinkedIn post, social card, key quote) never happen because there is no plan for them. A distribution brief changes that. ## A distribution brief that maps approved content to channels with adaptation guidance. Nina turns approved content into a channel distribution brief: where it goes, how it adapts for each channel, and what the writer or social team needs to produce for each one. ### Checks - Whether the content suits the channels being planned for - Whether adaptation needs are channel-appropriate - Whether the distribution plan is proportionate to the content ### Improves - Distribution planning so it is channel-specific, not generic - Adaptation guidance so each version serves its channel - Content value by extending reach without diluting quality ### Prepares - A structured distribution brief - Per-channel adaptation notes - Format and length guidance for each channel ### Surfaces for human review - Channels that are not a good fit for the content - Content that would benefit from repurposing before distribution - Distribution timing conflicts or sequencing issues ## What Nina works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Approved content - Channel list and audience definitions - Distribution goals - Brand voice guidelines - Publishing calendar or timing notes ### Produces - Distribution brief - Per-channel adaptation notes - Format and length guidance - Publishing timing notes - Handoff to content or social team ## When to use Nina ### A long-form article that needs extracting for LinkedIn and email. Nina briefs the extracts specifically so each one works for its channel and audience. ### A product launch with content going out across five channels. She maps the launch content to each channel with timing and adaptation notes in one brief. ### An agency producing content for a client with a complex channel mix. The distribution brief becomes the handoff to the social and email teams, not a separate conversation. ### A content programme where distribution is an afterthought. Nina builds distribution into the workflow at the point of approval, not as a separate task. ### A piece of research that can support multiple content formats. She maps which insights work for which channels and briefs the adaptations accordingly. ### A team where the writer and social manager work separately. A distribution brief bridges the two teams without the writer having to brief the social team directly. ## Nina plans distribution. Content and social teams produce the adaptations. A distribution brief is a plan, not produced content. Nina maps where content should go and how it should adapt. The adapted versions, the publishing decisions and the channel judgements are for the content and social teams to make. ### Boundary checklist - Nina briefs distribution, she never produces adapted content. - Distribution briefs are structured for channel teams to action. - Channel fit questions are flagged, not assumed. - The brief supports channel teams, it does not replace their judgement. ### Will not - Produce adapted content for channels - Publish or schedule content - Expand distribution scope without approval ## Workers Nina works alongside. - **Audrey — Approval Report Worker**: Confirms content is approved before distribution is planned. Output: Approval report. - **Ravi — CMS Handoff & Publishing Package Worker**: Handles the primary channel handoff in parallel. Output: Handoff pack. - **Iris — Content Refresh Brief Worker**: Feeds distributed content back into refresh planning. Output: Refresh brief. --- # Check whether the page is in the right shape for the job. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-format-serp-fit/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-format-serp-fit/index.md # Check whether the page is in the right shape for the job. Ivan reviews whether the current content format matches the likely intent and expected page shape, flagging format conflicts and metadata that promises a different experience. --- A page can target the right topic and still use the wrong format. The searcher may need a guide, comparison, checklist, service page, explainer, FAQ, product-style page or decision page, while the content gives them something else. Ivan reviews whether the current content format matches the likely intent and expected page shape. He flags format conflicts, missing structural elements and places where metadata promises a different experience from the page itself. ## The page answers the topic in the wrong shape. A "guide" that behaves like a sales page. A service page that reads like a blog post. A comparison page with no comparison structure. An FAQ page with no real questions. These format mismatches make the page harder for readers and search engines to understand. Ivan checks whether the page format fits the promise. ## Format review before writing more copy. Ivan reviews the current page shape and compares it with the likely expected format. He does not fetch live SERPs or rewrite the page. He gives editors a structured format assessment. ### Checks - Current page format - Expected format based on intent - Format-specific missing sections - Metadata promise alignment - Structure and content-type mismatch - Reader expectation gaps ### Improves - Page planning before rewrite - Brief quality - Search-intent alignment - Structural decisions before copy is written ### Prepares - Format fit review - Recommended page format - Missing section list - Rewrite guidance for editors ### Surfaces for human review - Wrong-format pages - Mixed page types - Missing comparison, guide, FAQ or service elements - Metadata that promises a different content experience ## What Ivan works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Intent assessment - Page structure - Metadata review - Content inventory signals - Schema and SERP snippet signals ### Produces - Format fit review - Recommended format - Missing structure notes - SERP-fit concerns - Human rewrite prompts ## When to use Ivan ### A page targets the right topic but feels wrong. Ivan checks whether the issue is format, not just copy. ### A brief needs a clearer page type. He helps decide whether the page should be a guide, service page, comparison, explainer or FAQ. ### A title promises a format the page does not deliver. Ivan flags the mismatch before metadata or copy changes go further. ### A rewrite is about to start. He gives the editor a better structure before drafting. ### Search intent and conversion needs conflict. Ivan helps clarify the shape that can serve both. ### A page has missing expected sections. He lists format-specific gaps for human review. ## Ivan recommends the shape. Editors decide the structure. Ivan does not fetch live SERPs, rewrite the page, create schema or publish changes. He reviews the page format and gives editors a structured recommendation. ### Boundary checklist - Ivan recommends format, he never rewrites the page himself. - Format assessments come from page evidence, not live SERP fetches. - Recommended structure is a prompt for editorial review, not an automatic change. - No ranking improvement is guaranteed. ### Will not - Fetch or fabricate SERP layouts - Rewrite the page automatically - Create or apply schema - Guarantee ranking improvement - Publish or write to any CMS ## Workers Ivan works alongside. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Clarifies the reader intent Ivan uses to assess format fit. Output: Intent assessment. - **Zara — Topical Authority & Coverage Gap Worker**: Checks whether the format has enough topical support. Output: Coverage review. - **Diane — Conversion & CTA Alignment Worker**: Checks whether the chosen format supports the next step. Output: Conversion review. --- # Understand what kind of content asset you are dealing with. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-inventory/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-inventory/index.md # Understand what kind of content asset you are dealing with. Nora reviews the page as a content asset, identifying page type, structural signals, content gaps and inventory metadata that can help editors plan better work. --- Before a page can be improved, it needs to be classified. Is it a service page, guide, article, landing page, comparison page, support page or something else? What signals are present? What is missing? What would help future planning? Nora reviews the page as a content asset. She identifies page type, structural signals, content gaps and inventory metadata that can help editors plan better work. ## Teams start improving pages before they know what the page is meant to be. A page can only be judged properly once its role is clear. A thin service page, a weak article and an incomplete comparison page need different actions. Without inventory context, every recommendation risks becoming generic. Nora gives the workflow a clearer content classification before deeper review begins. ## Page-level inventory without pretending to crawl the whole site. Nora reviews the inspected page as a single content asset. She does not build a full site inventory, crawl linked pages or classify the entire domain. She gives editors a useful page-level inventory review. ### Checks - Apparent page type - Content and structural signals - Missing asset elements - Page role clarity - Planning metadata needs - Manual checks for future inventory work ### Improves - Content audit clarity - Page review routing - Brief and maintenance planning - Understanding of what kind of page is being reviewed ### Prepares - Content inventory review - Apparent asset classification - Missing-signal list - Planning notes for future work ### Surfaces for human review - Pages with unclear purpose - Missing content elements - Mixed page-type signals - Metadata that would help future content planning ## What Nora works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page copy - Page structure - Metadata - Source signals - Existing worker findings where available ### Produces - Inventory review - Page-type classification - Missing asset signals - Planning metadata notes - Manual checks ## When to use Nora ### A page review needs a starting classification. Nora identifies what kind of content asset the workflow is handling. ### A content audit is messy. She gives each reviewed page clearer inventory context. ### A page has mixed signals. Nora flags when the page behaves like more than one content type. ### A maintenance decision is coming. She helps clarify whether the asset should be refreshed, consolidated or expanded. ### A brief needs page-type context. Nora gives the brief builder a clearer starting point. ### The team needs planning metadata. She lists what would make the asset easier to manage later. ## Nora classifies the page. Editors decide what it becomes. Nora does not create a complete site inventory, crawl the domain, edit content or publish changes. She reviews the current page and prepares planning context. ### Boundary checklist - Nora classifies the page, she never edits or restructures it herself. - Reviews cover the current page, not a full-site crawl or inventory. - Planning notes are prompts for editorial routing, not automatic actions. - Missing-signal lists are flagged for review, not treated as confirmed gaps. ### Will not - Crawl the full site - Confirm full inventory coverage - Rewrite or restructure the page automatically - Create or delete content records - Publish or write to any CMS ## Workers Nora works alongside. - **Patrick — Page Inspector**: Extracts the source signals Nora uses for classification. Output: Page signals. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Reviews whether the apparent page type matches reader intent. Output: Intent assessment. - **Hugo — Content Pruning & Consolidation Worker**: Uses inventory context before recommending maintenance action. Output: Maintenance review. --- # Decide whether weak content should be improved, merged or left alone. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-pruning-consolidation/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-pruning-consolidation/index.md # Decide whether weak content should be improved, merged or left alone. Hugo reviews content maintenance signals: overlap risk, thin content, decay, unclear role, weak pathways and consolidation prompts, helping editors decide the safest next maintenance action. --- Not every underperforming page needs a rewrite. Some pages need refreshing. Some need consolidating. Some should be kept because they serve a narrow but valid purpose. Some need a careful pruning discussion before the site becomes bloated and confusing. Hugo reviews content maintenance signals: overlap risk, thin content, decay, unclear role, weak pathways and consolidation prompts. He helps editors decide the safest next maintenance action. ## Teams either keep everything or cut too quickly. Content pruning is risky when it is based on shallow signals. A page may look weak but still support a niche journey, internal pathway, compliance need or long-tail topic. Another page may look harmless while causing overlap, decay or cluster confusion. Hugo helps make maintenance decisions more careful. ## Maintenance review without destructive action. Hugo combines already-available signals and turns them into a reviewable maintenance recommendation. He does not delete pages, merge content, create redirects or publish changes. ### Checks - Thin or weak content signals - Content decay and freshness risk - Cannibalisation and overlap risk - Page role clarity - Internal link/pathway value - Manual checks before pruning or consolidation ### Improves - Content maintenance planning - Safer pruning decisions - Consolidation review quality - Visibility of pages that need action or protection ### Prepares - Maintenance recommendation - Consolidation candidate review - Pruning caution notes - Manual verification checklist ### Surfaces for human review - Pages that may need refresh instead of pruning - Pages that may belong inside another asset - Risks before deleting or consolidating - Missing data needed before a final decision ## What Hugo works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Content inventory signals - Cannibalisation review - Freshness review - Internal pathway signals - Topical coverage signals ### Produces - Maintenance review - Recommended action - Consolidation prompts - Pruning cautions - Manual checks ## When to use Hugo ### A page looks weak but might still matter. Hugo checks whether the page has value before anyone considers pruning. ### Content overlap is suspected. He helps decide whether to consolidate, sharpen or manually review. ### A page is old and thin. Hugo separates refresh opportunities from consolidation candidates. ### A site has too many similar pages. He gives editors a safer maintenance path than blind deletion. ### Internal links depend on the page. Hugo flags pathway risk before removal or consolidation. ### A maintenance plan needs reviewable actions. He turns messy signals into a structured recommendation. ## Hugo recommends maintenance. Editors decide the action. Hugo does not delete, merge, redirect, rewrite or publish. He only recommends a maintenance direction and lists the manual checks needed before action. ### Boundary checklist - Hugo recommends a direction, he never deletes or merges pages himself. - Findings combine existing review signals, not fresh destructive analysis. - Manual checks are always listed before any pruning or consolidation. - Weak signals alone are never treated as enough for destructive action. ### Will not - Delete or prune pages - Merge content automatically - Create redirects - Rewrite or republish content - Treat weak signals as enough for destructive action ## Workers Hugo works alongside. - **Cleo — Cannibalisation & Overlap Worker**: Flags overlap and unclear page-role risks. Output: Overlap review. - **Faye — Content Decay & Refresh Priority Worker**: Reviews whether the page needs refreshing or urgent review. Output: Freshness review. - **Nora — Content Inventory Worker**: Classifies the page as a content asset before maintenance decisions. Output: Inventory review. --- # Refresh content with a clearer reason. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-refresh-brief/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/content-refresh-brief/index.md # Refresh content with a clearer reason. Iris produces a structured brief for refreshing existing content: what to update, what to cut and what to add. For teams refreshing pages with clear direction rather than guesswork. --- Refreshing content without a brief is how you end up with pages that have been rewritten three times and still do not work. Iris produces a structured refresh brief covering what to update, what to cut, what to add, and why, so every refresh starts with clear direction rather than a blank page review. ## Refreshing without a brief produces a different version of the same problem. A content refresh without clear direction tends to do one of two things: update what is easy to update and leave the structural problems intact, or trigger a full rewrite when a light edit would have been enough. A refresh brief defines the scope before work starts. ## A refresh brief that scopes the work before a writer touches the page. Iris turns a refresh request into a structured brief with specific update, cut and add instructions so writers and editors know exactly what the refresh is for and what it needs to achieve. ### Checks - Whether the page purpose is still current - Whether existing sections are worth keeping - Whether the refresh scope is proportionate to the problem ### Improves - Refresh direction so it is specific, not vague - Scope definition so the brief covers change, not just update - Writer efficiency by removing ambiguity about what to do ### Prepares - A structured refresh brief - An update / cut / add section plan - Rationale notes for the brief owner ### Surfaces for human review - Pages where a structural change is needed, not just a refresh - Refresh requests that lack clear rationale - Content that should be retired rather than updated ## What Iris works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Existing page content - Refresh goals or trigger notes - Content analysis - Brand and product updates - Audience or market change notes ### Produces - Structured refresh brief - Update / cut / add section plan - Refresh rationale notes - Writer handoff brief - Scope and success criteria ## When to use Iris ### A product page that needs updating after a rebrand. Iris maps what needs changing against the new brand direction and produces a specific update brief. ### A content programme refreshing 50 pages in Q1. She briefs each refresh consistently so writers are not reinventing scope for every page. ### A site that has grown organically and has inconsistent pages. Refresh briefs create a consistent standard for each page type. ### A blog archive with posts that are outdated but still traffic-generating. Iris briefs a targeted update that improves accuracy without removing what readers found useful. ### A new product feature that needs adding to existing pages. She scopes which pages need updating, what to add, and where it fits. ### A client who keeps requesting small changes to the same pages. A proper refresh brief resolves the underlying issues rather than patching them page by page. ## Iris briefs the refresh. Writers and editors make the changes. A refresh brief is a scope document, not a set of approved changes. Iris maps what needs to happen; whether to proceed, and how, is an editorial and client decision. ### Boundary checklist - Iris briefs the refresh, she never makes the changes. - Refresh briefs are structured for writer and editor review. - Pages recommended for retirement are flagged, not removed. - The refresh brief supports editorial scope, it does not set it unilaterally. ### Will not - Edit or rewrite pages directly - Retire or remove content - Expand refresh scope without editorial approval ## Workers Iris works alongside. - **Omar — Content Analyst**: Provides the analysis that informs the refresh brief. Output: Content analysis. - **Ada — Brief-to-Draft Alignment Worker**: Checks the refresh draft against the refresh brief. Output: Alignment report. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Rewrites the sections flagged in the refresh brief. Output: Shaped draft. --- # Check whether the page gives the reader a clear next step. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/conversion-alignment/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/conversion-alignment/index.md # Check whether the page gives the reader a clear next step. Diane reviews conversion alignment: CTA clarity, trust signals, proof gaps, metadata promise match and whether the next step makes sense for the page intent. --- Content can satisfy search intent and still fail commercially. The page may explain the topic well but bury the call to action, miss trust signals, ask for the wrong action, or create a conversion path that does not match the reader's stage. Diane reviews conversion alignment: CTA clarity, trust signals, proof gaps, metadata promise match and whether the next step makes sense for the page intent. ## A page can be useful and still leave the reader stranded. The problem is often not the lack of a button. It is the wrong action, weak proof, vague trust signals, unclear timing or a next step that does not match why the reader arrived. Diane reviews whether the page leads somewhere sensible. ## Conversion review without pretending to run experiments. Diane reviews conversion signals already visible in the page evidence. She does not run A/B tests, access analytics or rewrite sales copy automatically. She gives editors a practical review of whether the page supports action. ### Checks - CTA presence and clarity - Intent-to-action alignment - Trust and proof signals - Metadata promise match - Reader decision path - Conversion distractions or weak next steps ### Improves - Commercial page clarity - CTA placement and relevance - Trust-building before action - Editorial visibility of weak conversion paths ### Prepares - Conversion alignment review - CTA improvement prompts - Trust signal gap list - Recommended next action ### Surfaces for human review - Missing or weak CTAs - Proof gaps - CTA mismatch with page intent - Links or sections that distract from conversion ## What Diane works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Intent assessment - Page structure - Metadata review - Evidence and trust signals - Link pathway signals ### Produces - Conversion alignment review - CTA clarity notes - Trust gap list - Recommended next step - Decision-path findings ## When to use Diane ### A service page is not creating action. Diane checks whether the page has a clear, believable route to enquiry or booking. ### A page has traffic but weak leads. She reviews whether the next step matches the reader's likely stage. ### A CTA feels generic. Diane checks whether the action is specific enough for the page purpose. ### Trust signals are thin. She flags missing proof, reassurance or credibility context. ### A page mixes information and sales. Diane helps clarify whether the conversion path supports or interrupts the reader. ### A page is going to final review. She checks whether the editor should improve the path before approval. ## Diane reviews the path. Editors decide the change. Diane does not run experiments, access analytics, rewrite CTAs automatically or guarantee conversion improvement. She reviews alignment and gives human editors practical findings. ### Boundary checklist - Diane flags conversion risk, she never rewrites CTAs or copy herself. - Findings come from page-level evidence, not analytics access or live experiments. - Recommended next steps are prompts for editorial review, not automatic changes. - No claim of guaranteed conversion improvement is made. ### Will not - Run A/B tests - Access analytics or claim conversion uplift - Rewrite calls to action automatically - Add forms, buttons or tracking - Publish or apply changes to a CMS ## Workers Diane works alongside. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Clarifies the reader intent Diane aligns with the page action. Output: Intent assessment. - **Ivan — Content Format & SERP Fit Worker**: Checks whether the page format supports the expected search shape. Output: Format review. - **Leo — Content Relationship Worker**: Reviews links and pathways around the next step. Output: Link assessment. --- # Review the draft before it moves forward. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-quality-reviewer/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-quality-reviewer/index.md # Review the draft before it moves forward. Quinn checks whether a draft is clear, structured and ready to move forward before it reaches a client or CMS. For teams that need a structured review before sign-off. --- A draft that goes to a client or review meeting with structural issues, unclear sections or brief drift wastes everyone's time. Quinn checks each draft before it moves: is it clear, is it structured, does it follow the brief, and is it ready for the next step. ## A draft that reaches review too soon costs more than waiting. Sending a draft to a client or senior editor before it is ready is not efficiency; it is a backwards investment. The cost of a structural revision after client feedback is higher than a review pass before the draft leaves the team. ## A quality check that catches issues before they become client comments. Quinn does the structured review pass that should happen between drafting and delivery. Not a line edit; a readiness check that identifies whether the draft is clear, structured and ready to move. ### Checks - Whether the draft covers the brief - Whether sections are clear and in order - Whether the opening establishes the purpose ### Improves - Review feedback so it is specific and actionable - Draft quality assessment so editors have a clear view - Handoff notes so the next step is clear ### Prepares - Structured review notes for the editor - A clear readiness decision for the team - Specific issues and suggested fixes ### Surfaces for human review - Structural issues that need a rewrite - Brief gaps or drift the writer missed - Sections that need client or SME input ## What Quinn works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Draft content - Original content brief - Brand voice guidelines - Review criteria - Prior review notes ### Produces - Structured review notes - Readiness assessment - Specific issue flags - Fix recommendations - Handoff notes for next step ## When to use Quinn ### A draft ready for client delivery on Friday. Quinn checks it on Thursday so any issues can be fixed before the client sees them. ### A long-form piece that three writers contributed to. He identifies where the voice shifts, where sections contradict each other, and where the structure breaks down. ### An AI draft that passed a basic check. Quinn applies editorial standards, not just grammar: clarity, structure and brief alignment. ### A content programme where quality is inconsistent. A consistent review pass at the same stage creates a quality baseline the team can measure against. ### A brief that changed mid-draft. Quinn checks the draft against the final brief, not the original, and flags what needs updating. ### A client who leaves detailed revision comments on every draft. Fewer issues reaching the client means fewer revision rounds and faster sign-off. ## Quinn reviews. Editors and clients decide what to change. A review is a structured input to editorial, not a set of instructions. Quinn identifies issues and flags them clearly. What gets changed, and how, is an editorial and client decision. ### Boundary checklist - Quinn reviews and flags, he never edits directly. - Review notes are structured for an editor to act on. - Uncertain or subjective calls are flagged as questions, not decisions. - Review supports editorial judgement, it does not override it. ### Will not - Edit or rewrite content - Make final content decisions - Approve content for publication ## Workers Quinn passes to. - **Rosa — Section Rewrite Worker**: Rewrites the specific sections Quinn flags as weak. Output: Rewritten sections. - **Ada — Brief-to-Draft Alignment Worker**: Checks brief-to-draft alignment in detail. Output: Alignment report. - **Audrey — Approval Report Worker**: Assembles the review into a sign-off decision. Output: Approval report. --- # Rewrite drafts without losing the point. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-rewrite/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/draft-rewrite/index.md # Rewrite drafts without losing the point. Ellis builds and rewrites drafts that follow the brief: structured, on-purpose, and ready for review. For content that needs a shaped draft before editing or review starts. --- A draft that wanders from the brief, buries the main point or runs twice as long as it needs to is not ready for review. Ellis rewrites drafts that follow the brief structure, lead with what matters and read well enough for an editor to make decisions from. ## A draft that wanders cannot be edited into shape. It has to be rewritten. Most first drafts, from writers and from AI, cover the right territory without covering it in the right order. The main point is buried. Sections drift. The introduction spends three paragraphs warming up. Getting a draft ready for review means more than fixing sentences. ## A drafter that follows the brief and produces something an editor can work from. Ellis does the drafting and rewriting that gets content to reviewable quality. The goal is not a finished piece; it is a draft that has a clear shape, follows the brief and gives an editor something real to work with. ### Checks - Whether the draft follows the brief structure - Whether the opening establishes the main point - Whether sections are in a logical order ### Improves - Opener so the main point leads - Section structure so it follows brief logic - Length and pacing so it does not run over ### Prepares - A shaped draft ready for editorial review - A rewrite that the brief team can sign off - Content ready for a voice or quality pass ### Surfaces for human review - Brief gaps that emerged during drafting - Sections that need client or SME input - Passages where the intent is unclear ## What Ellis works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Content brief - Existing draft or raw notes - Brand voice guidelines - Structure outline - Research notes ### Produces - Shaped draft - Rewritten content sections - Drafting notes for the editor - Brief deviation notes - Ready-for-review draft ## When to use Ellis ### An AI draft that is accurate but completely unshaped. Ellis gives it structure and a lead, turning output into a reviewable draft. ### A first draft from a new writer that needs structural work. He reshapes without rewriting the whole thing, preserving what works. ### A brief that changed mid-project. Ellis rewrites the affected sections against the new direction. ### A page that has been revised by too many people and lost coherence. One clean rewrite pass against the original brief restores consistency. ### Content needed quickly with no time for multiple rounds. A clean first draft saves the revision cycles that vague first drafts generate. ### A client wanting to see a draft before approving full production. Ellis produces a tight draft that gives clients something real to react to. ## Ellis drafts. Editors and clients make the final calls. A shaped draft is an input to editorial, not the finished product. Ellis rewrites to get content to reviewable quality. Creative decisions, sign-off and final changes are editorial and client decisions. ### Boundary checklist - Ellis drafts and rewrites, he never publishes. - Drafts are structured for an editor to review and approve. - Brief deviations are noted, not silently corrected. - Drafting supports the brief, it does not override it. ### Will not - Publish or finalise content - Override brief scope - Make tone decisions without brief ## Workers Ellis hands off to. - **Helena — Voice & Style Worker**: Applies voice rules to Ellis's shaped draft. Output: Voice & style guidance. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Reviews the draft for clarity and readiness. Output: Review notes. - **Ada — Brief-to-Draft Alignment Worker**: Checks the draft fulfils the brief. Output: Alignment report. --- # Check whether the work is ready for human approval. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-approval-gate/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-approval-gate/index.md # Check whether the work is ready for human approval. Dana reads the existing worker outputs and produces a conservative approval gate, telling the human reviewer whether content appears ready for review, needs revision, or is blocked. --- Approval should not be a feeling. Before content moves forward, the editor needs to know whether the key checks are clean, whether blockers remain, and whether anything still needs revision, evidence or specialist review. Dana reads the existing worker outputs and produces a conservative approval gate. She does not approve automatically. She tells the human reviewer whether the content appears ready for review, needs revision, or is blocked. ## Content moves forward because everyone assumes someone else checked it. A page may have good copy, but still contain unresolved evidence gaps, accessibility issues, metadata problems, trust concerns, CMS handoff blockers or editorial risk. If those issues are scattered across worker outputs, they are easy to miss. Dana brings the final review state into one gate. ## A conservative final gate before content moves forward. Dana reviews already-computed worker outputs and determines whether the content appears ready for human editorial review. She does not certify compliance, publish content, or approve automatically. ### Checks - Approval report state - Editorial risk and claims issues - Evidence gaps - Accessibility status - SEO metadata and SERP snippet readiness - Schema and trust signals - CMS handoff blockers - Draft quality and review status ### Improves - Approval confidence - Editorial governance - Visibility of blockers - Readiness before handoff or publishing workflow ### Prepares - Approval gate decision - Readiness score - Blocker list - Prioritised recommendations ### Surfaces for human review - Hard blockers - Revision items - Missing review evidence - Reasons content should not move forward yet ## What Dana works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Review summary - Review queue - Evidence gap review - Editorial risk findings - Accessibility, metadata, schema and trust outputs ### Produces - Approval gate review - Gate decision - Readiness score - Blocker list - Prioritised recommendations ## When to use Dana ### A page is close to final approval. Dana checks whether unresolved worker findings still block progress. ### Multiple review workers have run. She combines the state into one clear readiness gate. ### A draft is moving towards CMS handoff. Dana flags blockers before handoff creates operational risk. ### The editor needs a conservative decision point. She gives approved-for-review only when the checks are clean enough. ### Governance matters. Dana keeps risk, evidence and accessibility issues visible before sign-off. ### A page should not move forward yet. She explains why and lists the highest-priority actions. ## Dana gates readiness. Humans approve. Dana does not approve content automatically, certify compliance, publish, or write to a CMS. Her job is to make the approval state visible so a human reviewer can decide. ### Boundary checklist - Dana gates readiness, she never approves content herself. - Compliance (legal, medical, financial, accessibility) is never certified by Dana. - Blockers are always surfaced, never hidden to make content look ready. - The gate decision is conservative — unclear or unresolved items default to needing revision. ### Will not - Approve content automatically - Certify legal, medical, financial or accessibility compliance - Publish or hand off content by herself - Hide blockers to make content appear ready - Rewrite or apply fixes ## Workers Dana works alongside. - **Helen — Review Worker**: Summarises findings and review actions before the final gate. Output: Review summary. - **Sam — Safe Change Planner**: Turns findings into proposed changes Dana can assess for blockers. Output: Change plan. - **Riley — Review Queue Worker**: Organises unresolved items Dana can treat as approval blockers. Output: Review queue. --- # Flag risky claims before they move forward. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-risk-claims/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/editorial-risk-claims/index.md # Flag risky claims before they move forward. Vera flags unsupported claims, risky statements and compliance issues in content before it is approved or published. --- Content that contains unsupported claims, legally risky language or compliance issues does not fail at the point of publication; it fails at the point of complaint, challenge or audit. Vera reviews content for claims that cannot be substantiated, statements that create liability, and language that needs compliance clearance. ## Risky content looks fine until it is challenged. A claim that cannot be supported, a comparison that implies something false, or language that creates liability looks identical to good copy until someone questions it. Catching these before publication is free. Addressing them after is not. ## A compliance check that finds claims risks before they reach publication. Vera reviews content for the claims and language that create risk, not to remove strong copy, but to ensure that what gets published can be defended. ### Checks - Unsupported or unqualified claims - Comparative language that implies false superiority - Compliance-sensitive language in regulated areas ### Improves - Claims language so it is specific and defensible - Risk visibility so approvers have the information they need - Compliance documentation for audit purposes ### Prepares - A risk and compliance report - Specific claim flags with evidence or fix options - Compliance clearance notes for approval ### Surfaces for human review - Claims needing third-party evidence - Language requiring legal review - Regulated-sector terminology that needs specialist clearance ## What Vera works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Draft or approved content - Compliance guidelines - Sector-specific regulatory context - Claims evidence or sourcing - Prior compliance notes ### Produces - Risk and compliance report - Flagged claims with evidence requirements - Compliance clearance documentation - Fix options for flagged language - Approval input for Audrey ## When to use Vera ### A financial services firm publishing investment-related content. Vera applies sector compliance standards to the draft before it reaches the compliance team. ### A healthcare brand making claims about outcomes. Claims about results and effectiveness are flagged for clinical evidence before approval. ### An agency writing comparative content for a client. Comparative claims are reviewed for substantiation before the client sees them. ### A product launch with bold performance claims. Vera flags which claims need evidence and which need softening before the launch copy goes live. ### A content refresh picking up old pages with outdated claims. She identifies claims that were once accurate but are no longer defensible. ### A B2B brand writing about market position. Market leadership and superiority claims are reviewed for substantiation before publication. ## Vera flags. Legal and compliance teams make the calls. A risk report is an input to editorial and compliance review, not a sign-off. Vera identifies risks and flags them clearly. Whether to act on them, how, and whether content can proceed is a decision for legal, compliance and editorial teams. ### Boundary checklist - Vera flags risks, she never approves or clears content. - Risk reports are structured for editorial and legal review. - Compliance decisions are flagged, not made. - Risk reporting supports editorial sign-off, it does not replace legal review. ### Will not - Provide legal clearance - Approve content with unresolved compliance flags - Remove claims without explicit instruction ## Workers Vera works alongside. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Reviews quality before the compliance check. Output: Review notes. - **Audrey — Approval Report Worker**: Includes compliance flags in the approval report. Output: Approval report. - **Ravi — CMS Handoff & Publishing Package Worker**: Receives clearance confirmation before producing the handoff pack. Output: Handoff pack. --- # Back up the claims before they go live. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence-gap/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence-gap/index.md # Back up the claims before they go live. Theo turns weak or missing evidence into a clear checklist, so claims are supported before a page is approved or handed off. What to back up, where to source it, what to hold. --- Content is full of claims: figures, comparisons, statements of fact. Some are solid, some are guesses, and some should not be published until they are checked. Theo gathers the evidence warnings raised across the workflow and turns them into a single, practical checklist of what to support, where to find it, and what to hold. ## The risky claims are rarely the ones that look risky. A confident sentence reads as fact whether or not anything backs it. Across a draft, unsupported figures and tidy-sounding comparisons slip through because no one is tracking which claim needs a source. Theo consolidates those gaps into one checklist, so nothing rests on an assumption no one checked. ## A checklist that turns vague worry into specific actions. Theo consolidates evidence warnings into a structured checklist: what needs support, a suggested source, the level of risk, whether it should block approval, and safe interim wording. The work of supporting a claim stays with people. ### Checks - Claims that lack a source - Figures and comparisons that need proof - Statements that may overstate the case ### Improves - Vague worries turned into clear actions - A single view of every evidence gap - Priority and risk on each item ### Prepares - An evidence checklist for the page - Suggested sources to look for - Safe interim wording where useful ### Surfaces for human review - Claims that should block approval - High-risk statements for a human to weigh - Sources that need a person to verify ## What Theo works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Evidence warnings from the workflow - Claims and figures in the draft - Topic sensitivity and risk - Existing sources on the page - Review and compliance notes ### Produces - A consolidated evidence checklist - Required-evidence items - Suggested sources and risk levels - Approval-blocking flags - Safe interim wording ## When to use Theo ### A precise statistic with no citation. Theo flags the figure, marks it as needing a source, and suggests safe wording until one is found. ### A superlative the page cannot prove. He surfaces "the best" or "the most accurate" as claims that need evidence or a rewrite before approval. ### A draft full of confident assertions. Theo pulls every unsupported claim into one checklist so a reviewer is not hunting for them line by line. ### A regulated topic near sign-off. He marks the claims that should block approval until they are properly supported, and hands risk to Vera. ### Preparing a page for handoff. Theo confirms the evidence checklist is clear before Audrey assembles the approval report. ### A claim that leans on unseen expertise. He coordinates with Alex so authority and evidence are both shown, not assumed. ## Theo finds the gaps. People supply the proof. Evidence is a human responsibility. Theo identifies what needs support and how risky each gap is, but he does not invent sources, fabricate figures or approve a claim. Filling and verifying the evidence stays with people. ### Boundary checklist - Theo finds gaps, he never invents evidence. - Every item is shown for a person to resolve. - Claims that should block approval are flagged. - Theo supports the reviewer, he does not replace judgement. ### Will not - Invent sources or figures - Approve an unsupported claim - Wave through a high-risk statement ## Workers Theo works with. - **Alex — Trust & Author Credibility Worker**: Reviews whether the authority behind the claims is visible. Output: Trust review. - **Vera — Editorial Risk & Claims Compliance Worker**: Flags unsupported claims and compliance risk before approval. Output: Risk & compliance report. - **Audrey — Approval Report Worker**: Assembles the evidence checklist into the approval decision. Output: Approval report. --- # Know which recommendations are actually supported. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/evidence/index.md # Know which recommendations are actually supported. Kenji reviews the evidence behind findings and recommendations, checking support strength, unsupported claims, provenance and limitations before approval. --- Content workflows produce a lot of advice. Some of it is grounded. Some of it is weak. Some depends on missing data, partial retrieval or assumptions that need manual verification. Kenji reviews the evidence behind the findings. He checks support strength, unsupported recommendations, provenance and limitations. ## Advice is only useful if you know what supports it. A recommendation can sound confident while resting on thin evidence. It may overreach from limited page signals, rely on missing retrieval, or imply certainty the workflow does not have. Kenji protects editors from false confidence. ## Evidence review before approval. Kenji reviews whether findings are supported by available source material, page signals, standards or retrieved context. He does not invent missing proof. ### Checks - Support strength behind findings - Unsupported recommendations - Evidence limitations - Retrieval provenance where it exists - Claims needing manual verification - Areas where data is missing ### Improves - Trustworthiness of review outputs - Editorial confidence - Separation between evidence, inference and speculation ### Prepares - Evidence reliability review - Unsupported-finding list - Provenance notes - Manual verification prompts ### Surfaces for human review - Claims needing stronger support - Recommendations based on partial evidence - Missing source material - Limits that should be visible before approval ## What Kenji works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Page signals - Worker findings - Available retrieval provenance - Standards attribution - Evidence gap and risk signals ### Produces - Evidence bundle - Support-strength review - Unsupported finding list - Limitations summary - Manual verification notes ## When to use Kenji ### A recommendation needs to be defensible. Kenji checks what actually supports it before it reaches approval. ### A page makes claims. He reviews whether those claims have adequate support behind them. ### A workflow uses retrieved context. Kenji checks the provenance of that context before it is relied on. ### A content approval is approaching. He gives Dana an evidence bundle to weigh as part of the readiness review. ### Workers disagree or produce uncertain findings. Kenji reviews the support behind each finding to help editors judge which to trust. ### The topic is sensitive or high-risk. He works alongside Vera to flag where evidence and compliance risk overlap. ## Kenji reviews the evidence. Editors decide what to do. Kenji does not certify truth, compliance or ranking impact. If evidence is missing, he says it is missing. ### Boundary checklist - Kenji reviews the support behind findings, he never edits or approves content himself. - Missing or weak evidence is reported clearly, never quietly upgraded to certainty. - His review is an input to the approval decision, not the decision itself. - Claims outside what the available evidence supports are flagged for manual verification. ### Will not - Invent citations, facts or proof - Treat weak evidence as certainty - Fetch unrelated sources as confirmed evidence - Approve claims automatically - Publish or edit content ## Workers Kenji works alongside. - **Patrick — Page Inspector**: Provides source facts for evidence review. Output: Page signals. - **Vera — Editorial Risk & Claims Compliance Worker**: Uses evidence and claims context to flag risk. Output: Risk & compliance report. - **Dana — Editorial Approval Gate Worker**: Uses evidence state as part of final readiness review. Output: Approval gate. --- # Check whether the page matches what the reader came to find. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/intent-analyst/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/intent-analyst/index.md # Check whether the page matches what the reader came to find. Yuna reviews whether the content, structure, metadata and next step of a page line up with the likely search or reader intent. --- A page can be well-written and still miss the intent. It may answer the wrong question, promise more than it delivers, or mix several reader needs into one confused page. Yuna reviews whether the content, structure, metadata and next step line up with the likely search or reader intent. ## The page answers something, but not always the thing that matters. Search intent is the reason behind the visit. A reader may want a definition, a comparison, proof, a guide, pricing clues, reassurance or a clear way to act. Yuna checks whether the page is serving that reason. ## Intent review before optimisation. Yuna compares what the page appears to promise with what it actually delivers. She helps the editor see whether the page’s job is clear enough before rewriting, expanding or approving it. ### Checks - Likely reader or search intent - Metadata promise versus page delivery - Missing reader questions - Page format fit - Section order - Next-step alignment ### Improves - Search-intent fit - Brief quality - Page purpose clarity - Rewrite direction ### Prepares - Intent assessment - Reader-need gaps - Recommended page angle - Search-aligned next actions ### Surfaces for human review - Intent mismatch - Mixed or competing page goals - Missing decision information - Sections that distract from the page’s purpose ## What Yuna works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page title and metadata - Page copy - Page structure - Source signals - Topic or keyword context where available ### Produces - Intent assessment - Reader-need gaps - Search promise notes - Recommended page role - Intent-aligned next actions ## When to use Yuna ### A page ranks but does not convert. Yuna checks whether the page is actually serving the intent it ranks for. ### A draft feels unfocused. She identifies which reader need the draft should be built around. ### Metadata promises something the page does not deliver. Yuna flags the gap between the search promise and the actual content. ### A content brief needs a clear reader need. She gives the brief writer a confirmed intent to plan around. ### A page format decision is needed. Yuna hands Ivan an intent assessment to check the format against. ### SEO recommendations are pulling in different directions. She grounds the review in what the reader actually came to find. ## Yuna clarifies intent. Editors decide the strategy. Yuna does not rewrite the page, choose the business strategy or guarantee ranking improvement. She gives editors a reviewable intent assessment. ### Boundary checklist - Yuna assesses intent from the page and its context, she never rewrites content herself. - Her assessment is a starting point for planning, not a strategy decision. - Recommended page angles are suggestions for editors, not automatic changes. - Ranking outcomes are never promised or implied by her findings. ### Will not - Fetch or fabricate live SERP data - Rewrite content automatically - Guarantee ranking improvement - Choose strategy without human review - Publish or write to any CMS ## Workers Yuna works alongside. - **Patrick — Page Inspector**: Extracts the source signals Yuna reviews. Output: Page signals. - **Ivan — Content Format & SERP Fit Worker**: Checks whether the page format matches the expected search shape. Output: Format review. - **Diane — Conversion & CTA Alignment Worker**: Checks whether the next step fits the reader’s intent. Output: Conversion review. --- # Review the paths readers and crawlers can actually follow. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-link-pathway/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-link-pathway/index.md # Review the paths readers and crawlers can actually follow. Felix reviews internal link pathway health: orphan risk, anchor text quality, hub-and-spoke relationships, missing next-step links, competing links and pathway coherence. --- Internal links are not just SEO signals. They are routes through the site. Good links help readers move from question to proof, from guide to service, from supporting page to commercial page and from broad topic to specific action. Felix reviews internal link pathway health: orphan risk, anchor text quality, hub-and-spoke relationships, missing next-step links, competing links and pathway coherence. ## Links exist, but they do not always create a useful path. A page may have internal links that are vague, disconnected, buried, distracting or pointed at the wrong next step. It may fail to connect to its hub, support pages or conversion path. Felix reviews whether links form a coherent pathway, not just whether links are present. ## Internal link pathway review before link edits. Felix reviews already-visible page signals and link context. He does not edit anchors, fetch linked pages, crawl the whole site or publish changes. He gives editors a structured pathway review. ### Checks - Internal link presence and placement - Anchor text clarity - Missing next-step links - Hub, spoke and supporting-page signals - Competing or distracting links - Pathway coherence ### Improves - Reader movement through the site - Internal link quality - Topic-cluster support - Conversion-path clarity ### Prepares - Internal pathway review - Link action prompts - Anchor-quality notes - Manual site-graph checks ### Surfaces for human review - Weak anchors - Missing supporting links - Confusing link paths - Internal links that may compete with the page's purpose ## What Felix works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Internal links - Anchor text - Content relationship review - Intent and format signals - Conversion alignment signals ### Produces - Pathway review - Anchor-quality notes - Missing-link prompts - Competing pathway risks - Recommended link actions ## When to use Felix ### A page has links but no clear journey. Felix checks whether the links form a useful pathway. ### A topic cluster needs better support. He reviews whether the page connects to hubs, spokes or supporting pages. ### Anchor text feels vague. Felix flags links that do not explain their destination. ### A page has weak conversion movement. He checks whether internal links support or distract from the intended next step. ### A page may be isolated. Felix lists orphan-risk signals and manual checks. ### Editors are planning link improvements. He gives reviewable link actions before anyone edits the page. ## Felix reviews pathways. Editors decide link changes. Felix does not add, remove or rewrite links automatically. He does not crawl the full site or confirm full orphan status unless discovery data exists. He produces review-only pathway findings. ### Boundary checklist - Felix flags pathway issues, he never edits links himself. - Findings come from already-visible page signals, not a full site crawl. - Orphan status is only confirmed when discovery data exists. - Recommended link actions are prompts for editorial review, not automatic changes. ### Will not - Edit links or anchors automatically - Fetch every linked page - Confirm site-wide orphan status without crawl data - Create redirects or navigation changes - Publish or write to any CMS ## Workers Felix works alongside. - **Leo — Content Relationship Worker**: Reviews the broader page relationship layer. Output: Link assessment. - **Zara — Topical Authority & Coverage Gap Worker**: Checks whether link pathways support the topic cluster. Output: Coverage review. - **Diane — Conversion & CTA Alignment Worker**: Checks whether the pathway supports the intended action. Output: Conversion review. --- # Check whether the page connects to the rest of the site. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-linking/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/internal-linking/index.md # Check whether the page connects to the rest of the site. Leo reviews how a page connects to other content: internal links, external links, anchor quality, reader pathways and whether the page appears isolated or poorly connected. --- A page rarely works alone. It needs related pages, supporting resources, clear next steps and useful internal links. Leo reviews how the page connects to other content. He checks internal links, external links, anchor quality, reader pathways and whether the page appears isolated or poorly connected. ## A useful page can still sit outside the journey. A page may have no clear next step, vague anchor text, weak supporting links, too many distractions or no obvious relationship to the surrounding topic cluster. Leo checks whether the page behaves like part of a connected site. ## A page-level relationship pass. Leo reviews the links and pathways visible on the page. He does not crawl the whole site or confirm every orphan. He gives editors a grounded page-level relationship review. ### Checks - Internal link presence - External link use - Anchor text clarity - Reader next-step pathways - Page-level orphan risk - Supporting content signals ### Improves - Reader movement between pages - Internal link usefulness - Topic-cluster coherence - Visibility of weak pathways ### Prepares - Link assessment - Pathway review - Anchor-quality notes - Manual site-graph checks ### Surfaces for human review - Missing next-step links - Generic or weak anchors - Distracting links - Pages that may need stronger cluster support ## What Leo works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Page links - Anchor text - Page structure - Intent signals - Content inventory signals ### Produces - Relationship review - Internal link assessment - Anchor-quality notes - Reader pathway gaps - Manual site-graph checks ## When to use Leo ### A page feels isolated. Leo checks whether it has the links and pathways a connected page should have. ### Links exist but do not help the reader. He reviews anchor text and placement for real usefulness, not just presence. ### A topic cluster needs stronger connections. Leo hands Zara a relationship review to check against cluster coverage. ### A conversion path is unclear. He flags where the page lacks a clear next-step link for the reader. ### The page has distracting links. Leo surfaces links that pull attention away from the page’s purpose. ### Link advice needs source context. He gives Felix a page-level starting point before a deeper pathway review. ## Leo reviews pathways. Editors decide what links change. Leo does not add links, remove links, rewrite anchors or publish changes. He shows what needs review. ### Boundary checklist - Leo reviews the links visible on the page, he never adds or removes links himself. - His review covers the page level, not a confirmed full-site orphan or crawl status. - Anchor and pathway suggestions are for editors to apply, not automatic changes. - Linked pages are noted, not fetched and reviewed as if Leo had read them. ### Will not - Rewrite anchor text automatically - Add or remove links - Confirm full-site orphan status without site data - Fetch linked pages as if they were reviewed - Publish or write to any CMS ## Workers Leo works alongside. - **Patrick — Page Inspector**: Extracts links and page signals for Leo to review. Output: Page signals. - **Zara — Topical Authority & Coverage Gap Worker**: Reviews topic-cluster support. Output: Coverage review. - **Felix — Internal Link Pathway Worker**: Reviews internal link pathways in more detail. Output: Pathway review. --- # Start with what the page actually says. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/page-inspector/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/page-inspector/index.md # Start with what the page actually says. Patrick inspects the page and extracts the source signals the rest of the workflow depends on: title, meta description, headings, links, images, schema, word count and visible page structure. --- Before Word Presto recommends changes, the page needs to be read properly. Patrick inspects the page and extracts the source signals the rest of the workflow depends on: title, meta description, headings, links, images, schema, word count and visible page structure. He gives the team an accurate, current picture of the page as it actually exists, not as anyone assumes it to be. ## You cannot review a page you have not actually inspected. Teams often work from memory, from an old screenshot or from what a page is supposed to contain rather than what it actually contains. Titles get rewritten without checking the live one. Headings are assumed instead of confirmed. Missing schema goes unnoticed. The review starts from guesswork instead of the page itself. Patrick inspects first, so the rest of the workflow starts from what is really there. ## A source layer for page-level review. Patrick reads the live page and extracts its source signals, giving other Workers and editors a confirmed starting point instead of an assumed one. ### Checks - Page title and meta description - Heading structure and hierarchy - Visible page structure and sections - Internal and outbound links - Images and alt text presence - Schema markup presence - Word count ### Improves - Accuracy of page review - Briefing and audit starting points - Confidence in technical checks - Handoff quality to other Workers ### Prepares - Page signals summary - Confirmed source facts - Structure notes for review - Flags for missing elements ### Surfaces for human review - Titles or descriptions that may need attention - Heading structure issues - Missing or thin schema - Pages with unusually low word counts ## What Patrick works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Live page URL - Website project - Site discovery results - Existing page metadata ### Produces - Page signals summary - Confirmed title and meta description - Heading and structure notes - Link and image inventory - Schema presence check ## When to use Patrick ### A page is selected for review. Patrick confirms exactly what the live page contains before review begins. ### A title or meta description needs checking. He reports the current live values rather than what the team assumes they are. ### A technical check is needed. Patrick surfaces schema, heading and structure signals for Maya to assess further. ### A content brief needs source facts. He gives the brief writer a confirmed picture of the page as it stands today. ### An audit covers many pages. Patrick inspects each page so the audit is built on current, not assumed, information. ### Search intent or evidence review is next. He hands Yuna and Kenji a confirmed source page to work from. ## Patrick reports what the page says. Editors decide what to do about it. Patrick inspects and reports source signals. He does not rewrite the page, judge quality, assign priority or publish. Editors and other Workers use his findings to decide what happens next. ### Boundary checklist - Patrick reports the page as it exists, he never edits or rewrites it himself. - His findings are source facts, not quality judgements or priority calls. - Missing elements are flagged clearly, not silently assumed to be fine. - Deeper technical or editorial judgement stays with the relevant Worker or editor. ### Will not - Rewrite or edit page content - Publish or write to any CMS - Judge content quality or assign priority - Assume page facts without checking the live page - Replace human review of what the findings mean ## Workers Patrick works alongside. - **Maya — Technical Health Worker**: Takes the confirmed page signals and reviews the wider technical picture. Output: Technical findings. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Uses the inspected page to assess how well it matches search intent. Output: Intent assessment. - **Kenji — Evidence Worker**: Checks the claims on the inspected page against available evidence. Output: Evidence bundle. --- # Make good content easier to read. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/readability/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/readability/index.md # Make good content easier to read. Priya tightens sentences, simplifies structure and improves flow so content reads clearly for its intended audience. For drafts that are correct but harder to read than they need to be. --- Content can be factually accurate, well-structured and on-brief, and still be harder to read than it needs to be. Priya tightens sentences, breaks up dense paragraphs, removes unnecessary qualification and improves flow, without changing meaning or losing voice. ## Dense, correct content still loses readers. Most readability problems are not about the words; they are about sentence length, paragraph density and the ratio of hedging to assertion. A reader who gives up at paragraph three has not read the content, however accurate it was. ## A readability pass that gets content actually read. Priya does the sentence-level and paragraph-level work that turns technically correct content into something a reader finishes. Not a rewrite; a tightening pass that removes everything that makes reading harder. ### Checks - Sentence length against intended audience - Paragraph density and scanning ease - Unnecessary qualification and hedging ### Improves - Sentence structure so it reads naturally - Paragraph length and breathing room - Opening sentences so each paragraph leads with the point ### Prepares - An improved draft with a readability pass applied - Readability notes for the editor - Content ready for final review ### Surfaces for human review - Sections where meaning was sacrificed for density - Passages that need additional information to make sense - Audience-level mismatches between content and reader ## What Priya works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Existing draft - Audience definition - Brand voice guidelines - Readability target or brief note - Review notes ### Produces - Improved draft - Readability pass notes - Specific sentence and paragraph improvements - Editor handoff notes ## When to use Priya ### A technical product page written by an engineer. Priya translates without dumbing down: clear for the target audience, still accurate. ### A long-form article that is dense from end to end. A readability pass creates breathing room and makes the piece readable in one sitting. ### Content produced from AI that is grammatically fine but hard to scan. She improves flow and sentence rhythm without changing the structure. ### A compliance document that legal have to read. Readability improvements make it faster to read and easier to act on. ### A client who keeps saying the content 'feels heavy'. A readability pass usually resolves this without structural changes. ### A landing page with a high bounce rate. Readability is often the difference between a page someone reads and a page someone leaves. ## Priya improves readability. Writers and editors keep the voice. A readability pass improves flow without changing meaning or overriding voice decisions. If a sentence is deliberately complex for stylistic reasons, Priya surfaces it rather than flattening it. ### Boundary checklist - Priya improves readability, she never changes meaning. - Stylistic decisions that look like errors are surfaced, not changed. - Readability changes are documented for editorial review. - Readability supports the voice, it does not override it. ### Will not - Change meaning or intent - Override deliberate style choices - Simplify specialist content without guidance ## Workers Priya works alongside. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Produces the shaped draft that the readability pass follows. Output: Shaped draft. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Reviews the improved draft for clarity and readiness. Output: Review notes. - **Rosa — Section Rewrite Worker**: Rewrites sections that need more than a readability pass. Output: Rewritten sections. --- # Turn proposed changes into decisions an editor can manage. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/review-queue/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/review-queue/index.md # Turn proposed changes into decisions an editor can manage. Riley converts proposed changes into structured review items, showing what needs a human decision, why it matters and what action is available. --- A content review can produce dozens of findings. Without a queue, those findings become noise: unclear priority, no decision state, no ownership and no path to approval. Riley converts proposed changes into structured review items. Each item shows what needs a human decision, why it matters and what action is available. ## Findings are not the same as decisions. A page audit can produce useful recommendations, but the editor still needs to know what to approve, reject, defer or investigate. Without that layer, the workflow feels busy but not operational. Riley turns findings into a queue the team can work through. ## A queue layer between worker findings and human approval. Riley does not decide for the editor. He organises findings into reviewable items so editors can make decisions without losing context. ### Checks - Proposed changes from review workers - Decision type needed - Priority and affected area - Whether more evidence is needed - Whether an item should be approved, rejected, deferred or assigned ### Improves - Review workflow clarity - Editorial throughput - Decision tracking - Human approval readiness ### Prepares - Review queue - Pending decision items - Item rationale - Available editor actions ### Surfaces for human review - Items needing approval - Items needing more evidence - Items that should be deferred - Items with unclear ownership or priority ## What Riley works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Safe change plans - Worker findings - Proposed changes - Evidence and risk signals - Page review context ### Produces - Review queue - Decision items - Priority labels - Review rationale - Pending action states ## When to use Riley ### A page has many recommendations. Riley organises them into a queue the editor can work through in order. ### The editor needs decision options. He shows what action is available for each item: approve, reject, defer or assign. ### A review session is becoming messy. Riley brings structure back by turning loose findings into tracked items. ### Multiple workers have raised related issues. He groups them so the editor sees the full picture, not scattered notes. ### A page is moving towards approval. Riley gives Dana a clear view of which queue items are still unresolved. ### The team needs a clean handoff. He keeps the queue state visible so nothing gets lost between sessions. ## Riley organises decisions. He does not make them. Riley does not approve changes, edit content, apply fixes or publish. He coordinates the review queue so humans can decide. ### Boundary checklist - Riley organises proposed changes into a queue, he never approves or rejects them himself. - Priority labels are a starting point for editors, not a final ranking. - Unresolved items stay visible in the queue rather than being silently dropped. - Final decisions and content changes remain with the editor and the relevant Worker. ### Will not - Approve or reject items automatically - Apply content changes - Publish or write to any CMS - Hide unresolved review items - Replace human decision-making ## Workers Riley works alongside. - **Sam — Safe Change Planner**: Turns findings into proposed changes Riley can queue. Output: Change plan. - **Helen — Review Worker**: Summarises findings and review actions for the editor. Output: Review summary. - **Dana — Editorial Approval Gate Worker**: Checks whether unresolved queue items block approval. Output: Approval gate. --- # Turn complex findings into a clear editorial review. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/review/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/review/index.md # Turn complex findings into a clear editorial review. Helen collates findings and recommendations into a structured review summary for human action, making the review understandable without removing the nuance. --- A page review can involve technical issues, content gaps, evidence concerns, readability notes, intent problems and approval blockers. Editors need a clear summary, not another pile of disconnected findings. Helen collates findings and recommendations into a structured review summary for human action. She makes the review understandable without removing the nuance. ## A useful audit still fails if the editor cannot act on it. Too many findings create fatigue. Too little detail hides risk. A good review summary needs to preserve the important signals while making the next action clear. Helen gives editors the version they can actually use. ## A review layer for human decision-making. Helen reads the available findings and turns them into a calm, structured summary. She does not approve, edit, apply or publish. She helps the editor understand what matters. ### Checks - Worker findings and recommendations - Manual review items - Priority and severity - Evidence limitations - Approval blockers - Action order ### Improves - Editorial clarity - Human review speed - Approval preparation - Understanding across teams ### Prepares - Review summary - Prioritised action list - Manual review notes - Blocker summary ### Surfaces for human review - Critical issues first - Items needing manual judgement - Conflicting or uncertain findings - Recommendations that should not proceed yet ## What Helen works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Worker results - Review queue items - Proposed changes - Evidence limitations - Approval signals ### Produces - Editorial review summary - Priority action list - Manual review notes - Blocker summary - Decision-support context ## When to use Helen ### A page review has too many findings. Helen turns them into a clear summary. ### An editor needs the next action. She highlights what to review first. ### A handoff is needed. Helen makes the findings readable for someone who did not run the analysis. ### Approval is approaching. She surfaces blockers and unresolved review items. ### Findings are mixed across teams. Helen groups technical, content, evidence and governance issues into one review. ### The team needs a calm editorial view. She reduces noise without hiding important concerns. ## Helen summarises. Editors decide. Helen does not approve content, edit copy, apply changes or publish. She prepares a review summary so humans can make better decisions. ### Boundary checklist - Helen summarises findings, she never approves or edits content herself. - Blockers are always surfaced, never hidden to make a page look ready. - Summaries preserve important nuance rather than flattening it away. - Specialist legal, compliance or accessibility review is never replaced. ### Will not - Approve content automatically - Rewrite or apply fixes - Hide blockers to make a page look ready - Publish or write to any CMS - Replace specialist legal, compliance or accessibility review ## Workers Helen works alongside. - **Riley — Review Queue Worker**: Organises proposed changes into decision items. Output: Review queue. - **Sam — Safe Change Planner**: Turns findings into proposed changes. Output: Change plan. - **Dana — Editorial Approval Gate Worker**: Uses the review state to assess readiness for approval. Output: Approval gate. --- # Turn findings into changes that can be reviewed safely. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/safe-change-planner/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/safe-change-planner/index.md # Turn findings into changes that can be reviewed safely. Sam converts worker findings into structured proposed changes, labelling affected area, risk and expected benefit, without editing the page or applying anything. --- A finding is not yet a change. "The page needs clearer structure" is useful, but an editor still needs to know what might change, where, why, what risk is involved and whether the change should move forward. Sam converts worker findings into structured proposed changes. He prepares the review layer without editing the page or applying anything. ## Teams jump from finding to edit too quickly. A worker may identify a real issue, but the next step should not be automatic editing. The proposed change needs context: what area is affected, why the change matters, how risky it is and what benefit is expected. Sam creates that decision layer. ## A structured plan before any content change. Sam maps findings to proposed changes. He does not rewrite, apply or publish. He prepares a human-reviewable plan that can move into Riley's queue or a later approval workflow. ### Checks - Worker findings and recommendations - Affected content area - Change type - Priority and expected benefit - Risk level - Evidence or approval requirements ### Improves - Safety of content workflows - Quality of review decisions - Clarity before edits begin - Separation between recommendation and action ### Prepares - Proposed change plan - Affected-area labels - Risk and benefit notes - Approval-ready review items ### Surfaces for human review - Changes that need approval - High-risk edits - Items needing more evidence - Recommendations that are not safe-edit ready ## What Sam works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Worker findings - Evidence review - Content analysis outputs - Risk and claims signals - Page context ### Produces - Change plan - Proposed changes - Affected-area notes - Risk labels - Expected benefit ## When to use Sam ### A review has produced several findings. Sam turns them into proposed changes the editor can evaluate. ### The team needs to avoid automatic edits. He creates a planning layer before any content is touched. ### A recommendation may be risky. Sam flags risk and evidence needs before it moves forward. ### A page is entering the review queue. He prepares the structured items Riley can organise. ### The editor needs clearer priorities. Sam labels what matters most and why. ### A change should not be safe-edit ready yet. He keeps proposed changes in review-only state until approved. ## Sam plans changes. Editors approve or reject them. Sam does not edit the page, draft safe edits, apply changes or publish. He prepares proposed changes for human decision. ### Boundary checklist - Sam plans changes, he never edits or applies them himself. - Proposed changes stay review-only until an editor approves them. - Risk and evidence needs are flagged, not skipped or assumed safe. - A finding is never treated as already approved. ### Will not - Rewrite content automatically - Apply proposed changes - Treat a finding as approved - Publish or write to any CMS - Bypass evidence or risk checks ## Workers Sam works alongside. - **Riley — Review Queue Worker**: Turns Sam's proposed changes into a decision queue. Output: Review queue. - **Helen — Review Worker**: Summarises review actions for human editors. Output: Review summary. - **Dana — Editorial Approval Gate Worker**: Checks whether proposed changes block approval. Output: Approval gate. --- # Describe the page so machines understand it too. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/schema/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/schema/index.md # Describe the page so machines understand it too. Sofia reviews the structured data on a page and recommends the schema types that match what the page actually is, for human review. No invented fields, no false markup. --- Structured data tells search engines what a page actually is: an article, a product, a guide, a business. Sofia reviews the schema already present, assesses what the page really represents, and recommends the types that fit, so the markup describes the page honestly. ## Structured data only helps when it tells the truth. Schema is easy to copy and hard to keep honest. Pages inherit markup from a template, describe themselves as something they are not, or carry no structured data at all. Sofia reviews what is there against what the page actually is, and recommends types that match. ## A reviewer who matches schema to what the page really is. Sofia reports the structured data she detects, assesses the apparent page type, and recommends suitable schema. She never invents fields or marks a page as something it is not. ### Checks - Structured data already on the page - Whether detected types match the content - Missing schema the page could honestly use ### Improves - Type recommendations that fit the page - Markup that reflects the real content - Clarity on what each type is for ### Prepares - A schema review with detected types - Recommended types for approval - Notes on why each type fits ### Surfaces for human review - Markup that claims more than the page does - Fields that would need real data to fill - Cases where a human should decide the type ## What Sofia works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Existing structured data - Page content and headings - Apparent page type - Business or organisation context - Technical review where available ### Produces - Detected schema report - Recommended schema types - Reasoning for each recommendation - Notes on fields that need real data - Review-ready schema summary ## When to use Sofia ### A guide carrying product markup from a template. Sofia flags the mismatch and recommends the article or how-to types that actually describe the page. ### A page with no structured data at all. She assesses what the page is and recommends a sensible starting set, for a person to approve. ### A business page missing organisation details. Sofia points out the schema that would describe the organisation, without inventing facts to fill it. ### An FAQ that could support FAQ markup. She notes the opportunity and refers the snippet implications to Morgan, leaving the decision to the editor. ### Schema copied across a whole section. Sofia reviews where the inherited markup no longer fits the individual pages it sits on. ### A claim-heavy page in a regulated field. She surfaces markup that would assert more than the page can support and leaves it for human review. ## Sofia recommends the schema. People approve the markup. Structured data is a statement about the page. Sofia reviews and recommends, but never writes false markup, invents fields or marks a page as something it is not. Recommendations go through human approval before anything is applied. ### Boundary checklist - Sofia recommends schema, she never fakes markup. - Detected types and recommendations are shown for review. - Fields that need real data are surfaced, not filled. - Sofia supports the team, she does not replace judgement. ### Will not - Write false or invented markup - Mark a page as what it is not - Fill fields without real data ## Workers Sofia works with. - **Morgan — SERP Snippet Worker**: Connects schema opportunities to how the page appears in results. Output: Snippet review. - **Maya — Technical Health Worker**: Checks the wider technical signals the page depends on. Output: Technical findings. - **Nadia — SEO Title & Metadata Worker**: Drafts the title and description that sit alongside the markup. Output: Metadata drafts. --- # Fix the weak section without rewriting the whole page. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/section-rewrite/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/section-rewrite/index.md # Fix the weak section without rewriting the whole page. Rosa rewrites individual sections that are unclear, thin or off-brief without touching the rest of the piece. For targeted section-level improvements after review. --- When review notes flag a specific section as thin, off-brief or unclear, the answer is not a full page rewrite. Rosa rewrites the specific section that needs fixing, working against the brief and in the voice of the surrounding content, without disturbing what is working. ## One weak section can undermine a page that otherwise works. It is rarely the whole page that needs a rewrite. Usually it is the third section that buries the point, or the proof section that does not have enough in it, or the conclusion that does not close. Rewriting the whole page to fix one section wastes the work that is already good. ## A section editor that fixes what needs fixing without touching what does not. Rosa rewrites at section level: the specific paragraph, the weak proof block, the introduction that does not land. No full-page rewrite, no disruption to the sections that are working. ### Checks - Whether the section fulfils its stated purpose - Whether it matches the brief and surrounding tone - Whether it is earning its place in the page structure ### Improves - Section clarity and specificity - Section tone alignment with the rest of the piece - Section length and economy ### Prepares - A rewritten section, ready to drop in - Section notes for the editor - Brief alignment confirmation ### Surfaces for human review - Sections where a rewrite is not enough and structural change is needed - Missing information that the writer needs to supply - Brief conflicts that caused the section problem ## What Rosa works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - The specific section for rewrite - Original content brief - Review notes - Brand voice guidelines - Surrounding page context ### Produces - Rewritten section - Section edit notes - Brief alignment check - Handoff notes for editor ## When to use Rosa ### A review flagged the proof section as too thin. Rosa rewrites that section with stronger specifics, without changing anything around it. ### A client requested one section be reconsidered after sign-off. She rewrites the specific section against the client note without reopening the rest of the piece. ### The introduction does not match the page the brief described. A targeted intro rewrite realigns the page opener without a full revision. ### An AI draft where some sections are good and one is clearly not. Rosa fixes the weak section and leaves the others in place. ### A long-form article where the middle third loses momentum. Section-level rewriting of the weak middle brings the piece back on track. ### A writer who produced a strong draft but struggled with the CTA. One section rewrite is faster and better than sending the whole piece back. ## Rosa rewrites sections. Editors approve the changes. A rewritten section is a replacement option, not a final edit. Rosa produces the revised version; whether it goes in, gets adjusted, or gets sent back is an editorial decision. ### Boundary checklist - Rosa rewrites sections, she never publishes them. - Rewritten sections are presented for editorial review. - Scope is limited to the flagged section unless instructed otherwise. - Section rewrites support the brief, not the Worker's preference. ### Will not - Rewrite beyond the agreed section - Publish changes directly - Alter brief scope ## Workers Rosa works alongside. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Reviews the full draft and flags which sections need work. Output: Review notes. - **Priya — Readability Worker**: Improves flow and clarity after section rewrites. Output: Improved draft. - **Ada — Brief-to-Draft Alignment Worker**: Checks the rewritten section aligns with the brief. Output: Alignment report. --- # Find the concepts the page is missing. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/semantic-search-analyzer/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/semantic-search-analyzer/index.md # Find the concepts the page is missing. Sema reviews semantic coverage by comparing content against Word Presto's knowledge layer and project context, surfacing missing subtopics and thinly covered entities. --- Good content does not just mention the target keyword. It covers the entities, subtopics, relationships and supporting ideas that make the page genuinely useful. Sema reviews semantic coverage by comparing the content against Word Presto's knowledge layer and project context. She surfaces missing subtopics, thinly covered entities and coverage gaps that should be reviewed before the page is approved. ## Pages mention the topic but miss the surrounding meaning. A page can include the right keyword and still fail to cover the subject properly. It may skip key entities, avoid important comparisons, miss supporting concepts or leave questions unanswered. Sema looks beyond keyword presence. She reviews whether the page has enough semantic depth to deserve confidence. ## Semantic coverage review with evidence boundaries. Sema compares content against available knowledge and project context, then produces reviewable coverage gaps. She does not stuff keywords, fabricate entities or rewrite the page automatically. ### Checks - Missing subtopics - Thinly covered entities - Semantic depth - Term distribution health - Coverage gaps against retrieved knowledge - Evidence support for suggested additions ### Improves - Topic depth - Brief quality - Authority-building content plans - Confidence before content approval ### Prepares - Semantic coverage review - Entity and subtopic gap list - Evidence-linked findings - Review prompts for editors ### Surfaces for human review - Important concepts missing from the draft - Overused or underdeveloped terms - Coverage gaps that need source support - Areas where the page is semantically thin ## What Sema works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Draft or page content - Project context - Knowledge neighbours - Evidence signals - Topic and entity candidates ### Produces - Semantic coverage review - Entity gap list - Subtopic findings - Term-distribution signal - Evidence-linked recommendations ## When to use Sema ### A page needs deeper topical authority. Sema identifies what the content is missing beyond obvious keywords. ### A draft feels shallow. She finds missing entities, subtopics and supporting concepts. ### A brief needs richer context. Sema gives editors coverage gaps to consider before drafting. ### A page competes in a complex topic. She helps surface the concepts stronger pages usually cover. ### A content update needs evidence-led expansion. Sema lists gaps that should be reviewed with supporting context. ### You want semantic SEO without keyword stuffing. She focuses on meaning, coverage and source-linked gaps. ## Sema identifies gaps. Editors decide what belongs in the page. Sema does not automatically add topics, stuff keywords, rewrite copy or publish. Her findings are review-only and should be judged by an editor. ### Boundary checklist - Sema flags gaps, she never adds topics or rewrites copy herself. - Coverage findings are compared against retrieved knowledge, not invented from nothing. - Suggested additions are prompts for editorial review, not automatic insertions. - Retrieved neighbours are treated as signals for review, not unquestionable truth. ### Will not - Stuff keywords into content - Invent unsupported entities - Rewrite or expand the page automatically - Publish or write to any CMS - Treat retrieved neighbours as unquestionable truth ## Workers Sema works alongside. - **Zara — Topical Authority & Coverage Gap Worker**: Reviews page-level topic support and cluster gaps. Output: Coverage review. - **Kenji — Evidence Worker**: Reviews whether suggested additions are supported. Output: Evidence bundle. - **Cassius — Competitor Intelligence Worker**: Compares coverage against real competitor SERP evidence when available. Output: Competitor coverage review. --- # Get the title, description and H1 right. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo-metadata/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/seo-metadata/index.md # Get the title, description and H1 right. Nadia reviews the SEO title, meta description and H1 against search intent, then drafts clearer options for the writer to approve. Metadata that reads well for people and search. --- The title, meta description and H1 are the first thing a reader sees in search, and the easiest thing to leave as an afterthought. Nadia reads them against the page and the intent behind the query, flags what is missing, weak, overlong or off the mark, and drafts clearer options. ## Good content with a weak title still loses the click. Metadata is usually written last, in a hurry, by whoever is closest to the publish button. The result is titles that repeat the brand, descriptions that restate the H1 and pages that undersell what they actually offer. Nadia treats the SERP-facing layer as part of the writing. ## A metadata editor that reads intent, not just keywords. Nadia checks the title, description and H1 the way a careful editor would: against what the page is for and what the reader was looking for, then proposes drafts you can accept, edit or reject. ### Checks - Title, description and H1 against search intent - Length, duplication and keyword stuffing - Promises the page does not actually keep ### Improves - Vague titles made specific and readable - Descriptions that say what the page offers - H1 and title that work together, not against ### Prepares - Draft metadata with length guidance - Clear before-and-after for review - Notes on the intent each option targets ### Surfaces for human review - Titles where intent is genuinely unclear - Claims in metadata that need evidence - Compliance-sensitive wording to check ## What Nadia works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page content and current H1 - Existing title and meta description - Detected search intent - Target topic or query - Brand and compliance rules ### Produces - Draft SEO title options - Draft meta description - H1 suggestions - Length and intent notes - Review-ready metadata pack ## When to use Nadia ### A strong article with a forgettable title. Nadia rewrites the title and description to match what readers are actually searching for, without overpromising. ### Titles that all start with the brand name. She moves the value to the front so the page leads with what it offers, not who published it. ### Descriptions that just repeat the heading. Nadia turns a restated H1 into a description that tells the reader what they will get from the page. ### A page targeting the wrong intent. When the metadata promises one thing and the page delivers another, she flags the mismatch for a human to resolve. ### Migrating a library of old posts. She reviews titles and descriptions at scale and surfaces the weakest first, so a metadata pass starts where it counts. ### A regulated topic where wording matters. Nadia drafts carefully and surfaces claims that need sign-off, rather than writing a promise the page cannot back up. ## Nadia drafts the metadata. People decide what ships. A title is a promise to a reader. Nadia proposes and checks, but she is built to stop at the draft. Nothing she writes is published or pushed to a CMS without a person approving it first. ### Boundary checklist - Nadia drafts metadata, she never publishes it. - Every option is shown for an editor to approve. - Mismatches and risky claims are surfaced, not hidden. - Nadia supports the writer, she does not replace judgement. ### Will not - Publish or push to CMS - Promise rankings or traffic - Stuff keywords to game search ## Workers Nadia works with. - **Morgan — SERP Snippet Worker**: Looks at how the page appears in results and where snippets can be won. Output: Snippet review. - **Sofia — Schema Worker**: Reviews structured data so the page can qualify for richer results. Output: Schema review. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Checks the draft itself is clear and ready before metadata is finalised. Output: Review notes. --- # Shape how the page shows up in search. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/serp-snippet-opportunity/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/serp-snippet-opportunity/index.md # Shape how the page shows up in search. Morgan reviews how a page is likely to appear in search results and points out snippet and rich-result opportunities worth shaping for. Review-only, never a guarantee. --- A page does not just rank, it appears. The title, description and the way content is structured all shape what a reader sees in the results. Morgan reviews those snippet elements and points out where a clear answer, a list or a structured section could earn a richer result. ## The result a reader sees is not always the page you wrote. Search engines build the snippet, not you. If the page buries its answer, has no clear list or question structure, or leaves the description to chance, the result reads as flat as everything around it. Morgan reviews the elements that shape that snippet, honestly, without promising a feature will be granted. ## A reviewer who reads the page the way a result page does. Morgan looks at the title, description and on-page structure together and surfaces concrete, reviewable opportunities, so the page has the best honest chance of a clear, useful snippet. ### Checks - Title and description quality for results - Whether the page answers its query directly - Structure that supports lists, steps or FAQs ### Improves - Answers moved up and made explicit - Sections shaped for a cleaner snippet - Question-led content made scannable ### Prepares - A list of rich-result opportunities - Suggested snippet improvements - Notes on which result types fit the page ### Surfaces for human review - Opportunities that need a schema check - Claims that would need evidence to feature - Where intent and format do not match ## What Morgan works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Page title and meta description - Headings and content structure - Detected search intent - Question and list patterns on the page - Schema review where available ### Produces - Snippet opportunity review - Rich-result suggestions - Structure improvement notes - Priority of quick wins - Review-ready summary ## When to use Morgan ### A how-to that never lists its steps. Morgan suggests a clear numbered structure so the steps can be read at a glance and stand a chance of featuring. ### An FAQ page with the answers hidden in prose. He points out where short, direct answers would help both readers and the results page. ### A strong guide with a flat description. Morgan flags the snippet elements that are letting the page down and hands them to Nadia for redrafting. ### A page that could earn a rich result. He notes which structured result types genuinely fit and refers the schema work to Sofia, without promising Google will grant it. ### Comparing two pages competing for the same query. Morgan reviews how each is likely to appear and surfaces which structure serves the reader best. ### A reader question buried three paragraphs deep. He recommends leading with the answer so the page is useful immediately, on the page and in search. ## Morgan reviews the opportunity. Search still decides. No tool controls what a search engine shows. Morgan reviews and recommends, and is careful never to promise a snippet, a ranking or traffic. Every suggestion is for a person to weigh and approve. ### Boundary checklist - Morgan reviews snippets, he never guarantees one. - Recommendations are shown for an editor to approve. - Opportunities needing schema or evidence are flagged. - Morgan supports the writer, he does not replace judgement. ### Will not - Guarantee a featured snippet - Promise rankings or traffic - Force structure that hurts reading ## Workers Morgan works with. - **Nadia — SEO Title & Metadata Worker**: Drafts the title and description that shape the snippet. Output: Metadata drafts. - **Sofia — Schema Worker**: Reviews the structured data that rich results depend on. Output: Schema review. - **Omar — Content Analyst**: Assesses the underlying content the snippet is drawn from. Output: Content analysis. --- # Find the pages before the work begins. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/site-discovery/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/site-discovery/index.md # Find the pages before the work begins. Claire helps identify the pages in a website project so editors can see what needs review, where the content opportunities are and how the site begins to fit together. --- A strong content workflow starts with knowing what exists. Claire helps identify the pages in a website project so editors can see what needs review, where the content opportunities are and how the site begins to fit together. She gives the team an organised view of the site's pages, early content signals and discovery notes, so the rest of the Word Presto workers can start from a clearer project picture. ## You cannot improve the content if you do not know what pages you are dealing with. Most content work starts too late in the process. Teams jump into one page, one keyword or one draft before they understand the wider site. Important pages get missed. Weak pages stay hidden. Link opportunities are overlooked. The project starts with fragments instead of a map. Claire gives the workflow a clearer starting point. ## A discovery layer for website projects. Claire helps the team understand the pages that make up a website project. She prepares the starting view for content inventory, page inspection, link review and deeper project intelligence. ### Checks - Pages that should be part of the project - Site sections and page groups - Early content and structure signals - Pages that may need review - Internal relationship opportunities - Follow-up checks for editors ### Improves - Project setup - Content audit planning - Page review prioritisation - Internal linking and site-structure visibility ### Prepares - Site discovery review - Page list for inspection - Early site-structure notes - Follow-up review prompts ### Surfaces for human review - Pages worth inspecting - Sections that may be thin or unclear - Areas where the site structure needs attention - Pages that may need stronger internal links ## What Claire works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Website project - Known site pages - Site sections - Page relationships - Project setup context ### Produces - Site discovery review - Pages for review - Site section notes - Internal relationship prompts - Follow-up checks ## When to use Claire ### A new website project is starting. Claire helps establish which pages should be part of the first review. ### A site audit needs structure. She gives editors a clearer view of the pages and sections they are working with. ### A content inventory needs a starting point. Claire prepares page discovery context before Nora classifies the assets. ### Internal linking work needs a site view. She surfaces page relationships and areas that may need link review. ### The team does not know where to begin. Claire helps turn a website into a reviewable project. ### A project needs deeper intelligence. She gives other workers a cleaner starting map before analysis continues. ## Claire discovers pages. Editors decide what matters. Claire helps organise the site for review. She does not decide strategy, delete pages, rewrite copy or publish. Editors choose which pages to inspect, prioritise and improve. ### Boundary checklist - Claire organises pages for review, she never edits or deletes them herself. - Discovered pages are a starting list for editors, not an automatic priority order. - Site structure notes support planning, they do not replace human judgement on strategy. - Follow-up checks are listed clearly so editors know what still needs confirming. ### Will not - Rewrite or edit content - Delete, merge or redirect pages - Publish or write to any CMS - Treat every discovered page as automatically important - Replace human review of site priorities ## Workers Claire works alongside. - **Patrick — Page Inspector**: Inspects individual pages once they are selected for review. Output: Page signals. - **Nora — Content Inventory Worker**: Classifies pages as content assets and records planning signals. Output: Inventory review. - **Leo — Content Relationship Worker**: Reviews how selected pages connect to related content. Output: Link assessment. --- # Give every draft a clearer shape. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/structure/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/structure/index.md # Give every draft a clearer shape. Marcus shapes headings, sections and page flow so content has a clear editorial structure before or during drafting. For pages that need a proper shape before writing starts. --- Content without structure is hard to review, easy to misread, and frustrating to edit. Marcus maps the heading hierarchy, section order and content flow so every draft starts or continues with a shape that makes sense editorially and for the reader. ## Badly structured content cannot be fixed by better writing. You can improve every sentence on a page and it will still fail if the sections are in the wrong order, if the headings do not tell a story, or if the most important point is buried in the middle. Structure is not formatting, it is editorial logic. ## Editorial architecture that gives every page a reading path. Marcus does the structural work that prevents content from becoming a pile of sections. Every page that goes through a structure pass comes out with a clear, defensible shape. ### Checks - Heading hierarchy and section logic - Section order against reader journey - Missing or duplicated structural elements ### Improves - Section sequencing so it follows editorial logic - Heading clarity so each one does editorial work - Page flow from opening to close ### Prepares - A structured outline for the writer - Heading structure for the CMS - Section notes for the brief ### Surfaces for human review - Structural decisions that need editorial input - Sections where purpose is unclear - Content blocks that belong on a different page ## What Marcus works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Content brief or stated page goal - Existing draft or raw notes - Content analysis - Brand guidelines - Reader journey notes ### Produces - Structured content outline - Ordered heading hierarchy - Section plan - Flow notes for the writer - Structural recommendations ## When to use Marcus ### A long-form page written in one session that lacks shape. Marcus reorganises the sections into a clear reading order without the writer having to start again. ### A brief that needs a structural skeleton before drafting. He maps the heading hierarchy so writers know exactly what goes where. ### A landing page with too many competing sections. Marcus identifies which sections earn their place and in which order they should appear. ### A migrated page that was structured for a different purpose. He reshapes the structure for the current goal without touching the content itself. ### A product page where the most important section is last. Moving proof before pricing is often all a page needs to perform better. ### A content team where each writer structures differently. A structure pass creates a shared shape standard before writing starts. ## Marcus structures. Editors and clients approve the shape. Structure is a recommendation, not a directive. Marcus maps the best reading path based on the content goal. Whether to use that shape, adjust it or overrule it is an editorial and client decision. ### Boundary checklist - Marcus structures and organises, he never rewrites content. - Structural choices are documented for editors to review. - Unclear purpose sections are flagged, not removed. - Structure supports the brief, it does not override it. ### Will not - Rewrite or edit copy - Remove sections without instruction - Impose structure against the brief ## Workers Marcus hands off to. - **Luca — Content Brief Builder**: Builds the brief around the approved structure. Output: Content brief. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Drafts within the structural framework Marcus sets. Output: Shaped draft. - **Helena — Voice & Style Worker**: Applies voice guidance to the structurally shaped draft. Output: Voice & style guidance. --- # Check the technical signals behind the page. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/technical-health/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/technical-health/index.md # Check the technical signals behind the page. Maya checks the technical signals behind a page, metadata, headings, indexability and structure, and reports what needs a closer look. Standards-backed and review-only. --- Great writing can still be held back by quiet technical problems: a missing title, a broken heading order, a page that cannot be indexed. Maya reviews those signals against established standards and reports findings by category, so nothing technical is left to chance. ## A strong page can be let down by signals no one checked. Technical issues rarely announce themselves. A page with a missing meta title, headings that skip levels, or an accidental noindex can read perfectly while quietly underperforming. Maya reviews these signals against standards and reports what needs attention, in plain language. ## A technical reviewer who reports findings, not noise. Maya runs standards-backed technical checks and groups what she finds into clear categories with scores, so a person can see what matters and decide what to fix. She reviews, she does not change the page. ### Checks - Metadata, headings and indexability - Page structure and technical signals - Schema presence and accessibility basics ### Improves - A clear picture of technical health - Findings grouped by category - A sensible order to fix things in ### Prepares - Standards-backed technical findings - Category scores for the page - Notes on what to check before publish ### Surfaces for human review - Issues that need a developer to resolve - Findings that need a human decision - Signals a single page cannot confirm alone ## What Maya works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Page metadata and headings - Indexability signals - Page structure and content sections - Schema presence - Accessibility and technical signals ### Produces - Technical health findings - Category scores - Prioritised issues to review - Notes for developers where needed - Review-ready technical summary ## When to use Maya ### A page accidentally set to noindex. Maya flags it before publish, so a page meant to be found is not quietly hidden from search. ### Headings that skip from H1 to H3. She reports the broken hierarchy so the structure reads cleanly for readers, assistive tech and search. ### A new template before it ships. Maya reviews the technical signals on a sample page so issues are caught once, not on every page later. ### A content refresh that touched the markup. She checks that titles, headings and indexability still hold up after the edit. ### A page that reads well but ranks poorly. Maya surfaces the technical signals that might be holding it back, for a person to investigate. ### Handing a list of fixes to a developer. She groups findings by category and priority so the technical work is clear and scoped. ## Maya reports the findings. People decide the fixes. A technical review is information, not an instruction. Maya checks and reports, but she does not edit the page, change settings or push anything live. Her findings are for a person to act on. ### Boundary checklist - Maya reviews the page, she never edits it. - Findings are reported for a person to act on. - Issues needing a developer are flagged clearly. - Maya supports the team, she does not replace judgement. ### Will not - Edit the page or change settings - Publish or push anything live - Claim a fix without human review ## Workers Maya works with. - **Sofia — Schema Worker**: Reviews the structured data among the technical signals. Output: Schema review. - **Nadia — SEO Title & Metadata Worker**: Drafts the metadata Maya checks for presence and quality. Output: Metadata drafts. - **Alex — Trust & Author Credibility Worker**: Reviews the trust signals that sit alongside technical health. Output: Trust review. --- # See whether the page has enough topical support. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/topical-authority/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/topical-authority/index.md # See whether the page has enough topical support. Zara reviews topical coverage signals and content gaps, helping editors see whether a page looks strong, needs support, is incomplete, or requires a wider content plan. --- A page may cover its subject clearly but still sit in a weak content cluster. It may lack supporting pages, miss related subtopics, sit too far from its hub, or carry a topic role that the site has not properly built around. Zara reviews topical coverage signals and content gaps. She helps editors see whether a page looks strong, needs support, is incomplete, or requires a wider content plan. ## One good page does not always make a strong topic. Search performance often depends on the surrounding content system. A page may need supporting explainers, comparison pages, service pages, evidence-led resources, internal links or clearer topic-cluster placement. Zara reviews whether the page appears well-supported or whether it is carrying too much topic responsibility on its own. ## Topical coverage review before expanding content. Zara reviews topic depth, cluster support and missing coverage signals from the page evidence available. She does not create new pages or claim a complete site-wide topic map without crawl and project data. ### Checks - Topic role and page purpose - Supporting subtopic gaps - Internal link and cluster support - Intent coverage - Orphan-risk signals - Manual topic-cluster checks needed ### Improves - Content planning quality - Topic-cluster structure - Internal support decisions - Confidence before building briefs or new pages ### Prepares - Coverage gap review - Recommended page role - Supporting content ideas - Manual cluster checks ### Surfaces for human review - Missing supporting pages - Thin topic coverage - Weak internal link support - Cluster conflicts or gaps that need confirmation ## What Zara works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Intent assessment - Content relationship signals - Content inventory review - Page structure and depth - Evidence gap signals ### Produces - Coverage review - Topic gap list - Recommended page role - Supporting content prompts - Manual cluster checks ## When to use Zara ### A page needs stronger topic authority. Zara checks whether the surrounding content support appears strong enough. ### You are planning a content cluster. She identifies supporting content gaps from the page's topic role. ### A page seems too broad. Zara flags whether subtopics may need separate supporting assets. ### Internal linking feels weak. She checks whether the page has enough topic relationship support. ### A brief needs better topical context. Zara helps define what else the article or page should cover or connect to. ### Search performance depends on authority. She gives editors a clearer view of topic depth and coverage gaps. ## Zara reviews coverage. Editors decide the content plan. Zara does not create pages, build clusters automatically, publish new content or claim complete site-wide authority from one page review. She flags coverage signals and planning gaps. ### Boundary checklist - Zara flags coverage gaps, she never creates or publishes pages herself. - Supporting content ideas are prompts for planning, not automatic briefs. - Site-wide cluster claims are only made with supporting project or crawl data. - Manual checks are listed clearly so editors know what still needs confirming. ### Will not - Create or publish supporting pages - Invent a complete topic map - Confirm site-wide cluster coverage without project data - Rewrite the page automatically - Apply changes to a CMS ## Workers Zara works alongside. - **Yuna — Intent Analyst**: Clarifies the reader intent Zara checks against topical coverage. Output: Intent assessment. - **Leo — Content Relationship Worker**: Reviews links and reader pathways that support topic connection. Output: Link assessment. - **Sema — Semantic Coverage Analyser**: Uses vector-grounded retrieval to find deeper semantic coverage gaps. Output: Semantic coverage review. --- # Show who stands behind the content. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/trust-author-credibility/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/trust-author-credibility/index.md # Show who stands behind the content. Alex reviews the trust, authorship and credibility signals around a page so readers and search engines can see who stands behind the content. Review-only, never invented. --- On topics that affect money, health or major decisions, readers and search engines both want to know who wrote this and why they can be trusted. Alex reviews the author context, organisation identity, evidence support and credibility signals around a page, and reports where trust is clear and where it is missing. ## Good advice from nobody in particular is hard to trust. Plenty of genuinely expert content is published with no visible author, no organisation context and no sign of who reviewed it. The expertise is real, but the reader cannot see it, and neither can search. Alex reviews the signals that make credibility visible. ## A reviewer who checks whether trust is actually visible. Alex reviews authorship, organisation ownership, evidence support and credibility signals, returns a readiness read and surfaces what needs a human eye, especially on sensitive topics. He reports signals, he never invents credentials. ### Checks - Author byline, bio and credentials - Organisation ownership and context - Evidence support and review signals ### Improves - A clear picture of trust readiness - Gaps in authorship made visible - Where credibility could be shown better ### Prepares - A trust and credibility review - A readiness read for the page - Notes on sensitive-topic risk ### Surfaces for human review - High-stakes claims that need expertise shown - Missing author or reviewer context - Credibility decisions for a human to make ## What Alex works from, and what he produces. ### Works from - Author context and byline - Organisation and ownership signals - Evidence support on the page - Topic sensitivity (advice, health, money) - Schema credibility signals ### Produces - Trust and credibility review - A trust readiness read - Authorship gap notes - Sensitive-topic risk flags - Review-ready trust summary ## When to use Alex ### Health or finance advice with no named author. Alex flags the missing authorship so a real, qualified person can be credited before the page goes live. ### A respected organisation that never says so. He points out where organisation context and ownership could make existing credibility visible. ### A page that should show a reviewer. Alex notes where a reviewed-by signal would reassure readers on a higher-stakes topic. ### Claims that lean on expertise not shown. He surfaces where the page assumes authority it has not demonstrated, and refers evidence work to Theo. ### Preparing content for a regulated sector. Alex reviews trust signals alongside Vera so credibility and compliance are considered together. ### A guest post from an unknown contributor. He flags the missing author context so a person can decide how to attribute and stand behind it. ## Alex reviews the trust signals. People stand behind the page. Credibility cannot be manufactured. Alex reviews and reports, but he never invents an author, fabricates credentials or claims a review that did not happen. What he surfaces is for a person to act on honestly. ### Boundary checklist - Alex reviews trust signals, he never invents them. - Authorship gaps are surfaced for a person to fill. - Sensitive-topic risks are flagged for human review. - Alex supports the team, he does not replace judgement. ### Will not - Invent authors or credentials - Claim a review that did not happen - Assume authority the page has not shown ## Workers Alex works with. - **Theo — Evidence Gap Worker**: Turns weak or missing evidence into a clear checklist. Output: Evidence checklist. - **Vera — Editorial Risk & Claims Compliance Worker**: Flags unsupported claims and compliance risk before approval. Output: Risk & compliance report. - **Sofia — Schema Worker**: Reviews the structured data that carries credibility signals. Output: Schema review. --- # Keep the voice in the work. Canonical: https://wordpresto.com/workers/voice-style/ Markdown: https://wordpresto.com/workers/voice-style/index.md # Keep the voice in the work. Helena checks every draft against your voice rules and approved examples, shaping it back to your house style before review. For teams with one consistent voice to keep. --- When different writers and AI tools all touch the same site, brand voice drifts page by page. Helena reads your voice rules and approved examples, then checks and shapes every draft, so it still sounds like you by the time it reaches review. ## Brand voice is the first thing to break in an AI-assisted workflow. Generating text was never the hard part. The hard part is that every writer, and every AI tool, has its own default voice. Across a real site, that drift is the difference between a brand and a pile of pages. ## A voice editor that reads every draft against your house style. Helena does the work a good voice editor does: consistently, on every page, before anyone has to read the draft cold. ### Checks - Tone against brand voice rules - Banned and cliché phrasing - Consistency across sections ### Improves - Off-voice sentences, rewritten in style - Vague phrasing made concrete - Rhythm and readability ### Prepares - A shaped draft, ready for rewrite - Voice and style guidance notes - A clean handoff to review ### Surfaces for human review - Voice calls it is unsure about - Meaning that may have shifted - Claims that need a human eye ## What Helena works from, and what she produces. ### Works from - Brand voice rules - Approved examples - Content brief - Existing draft - Review notes ### Produces - Voice & style guidance - Shaped draft - Rewritten section - Review notes - Handoff pack ## When to use Helena ### Three writers, one brand, three voices. Helena reads each draft against the same voice rules, so the by-line changes but the voice does not. ### AI drafts that are fine, but sound like everyone else. She strips the generic AI register and pulls the writing back toward your house style before review. ### A new freelancer has not found the voice yet. Helena turns 'close, but not quite us' into concrete, sentence-level guidance they can act on. ### Migrating old pages with tone all over the place. She flags the worst offenders first, so a re-voicing pass starts where it actually matters. ### A campaign needs to feel like one piece, not ten. Across landing pages, emails and posts, Helena holds a single voice so the campaign reads as one. ### You are rewriting your voice rules and need a test. Run a few real pages through Helena to see where the new rules actually land, and where they do not. ## Helena shapes the voice. People still make the call. Voice is a judgement, not a rule. Helena suggests, checks and prepares. She is deliberately built to stop where editorial judgement begins, and nothing she touches is published without a human approving it. ### Boundary checklist - Helena suggests on-voice rewrites, she never publishes. - Voice calls are structured for an editor to review. - Uncertain or risky lines are surfaced, not hidden. - Helena supports editorial judgement, it never replaces it. ### Will not - Publish or push to CMS - Override an editor - Flatten a deliberate choice ## Workers Helena hands off to. - **Ellis — Draft Rewrite Worker**: Rewrites the full draft using Helena's voice guidance. Output: Rewritten draft. - **Quinn — Draft Quality Reviewer**: Checks the shaped draft for clarity and readiness. Output: Review summary. - **Audrey — Approval Report Worker**: Assembles the review into a clear approval decision. Output: Approval report. ---