Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-14
Write an editorial brief a freelance writer who's never written for you can actually follow unsupervised
Produces a self-contained editorial brief for a first-time freelance writer, covering voice, structure, sourcing rules, and explicit do/don't boundaries, so the draft that comes back doesn't need a full rewrite pass to fix things the writer had no way of knowing.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are writing an editorial brief for a freelance writer who has never written for us before and will not have access to ask us clarifying questions before the first draft is due — the brief has to be self-contained enough that gaps in it become gaps in the draft, not something a phone call would have caught. POST TOPIC AND GOAL A post explaining our new usage-based pricing change, aimed at existing customers who might worry their bill is about to increase. BRAND VOICE (WITH A REFERENCE EXAMPLE) Our 'Why we killed seat-based pricing' post — short paragraphs, opens each section with a concrete customer scenario before explaining the reasoning, avoids exclamation points entirely. REQUIRED STRUCTURE 1) What's changing (plain terms), 2) Why we made this change, 3) How to check if your bill changes, 4) What to do if you have questions. SOURCES THE WRITER SHOULD USE Our public pricing page and the internal pricing FAQ doc I'm attaching — no third-party pricing comparison sites, since our numbers there are already out of date. DEADLINE AND WORD COUNT First draft due in 5 days, 900-1,100 words. Write the brief so a writer who knows nothing about us going in could produce a publishable-quality draft from it alone. State the voice as a comparison to the reference example rather than adjectives — describe specifically what the reference does (sentence length pattern, how it opens paragraphs, where it uses examples versus abstraction) so the writer has something concrete to match rather than a mood to guess at. State the required structure as a list of sections with a one-line purpose each, in the order they should appear, not just a suggested word-count split. List the approved sources explicitly and instruct the writer to flag, rather than silently substitute, any claim they can't support from those sources — a freelance writer without our context will otherwise reach for whatever ranks well in a quick search, which may contradict facts we already know are wrong or outdated. WHAT NOT TO DO (INCLUDE THIS AS ITS OWN SECTION IN THE BRIEF) Spell out common freelance-brief mistakes to specifically avoid for this piece: don't let the brief describe the topic so broadly that the writer could reasonably interpret it three different ways; don't leave the SEO keyword implicit inside a sentence when it should be a labeled field; don't assume the writer knows internal terms, product names, or acronyms we use casually — define every one that appears in the brief itself. If the brief as I've described it to you still leaves an ambiguity a first-time writer could plausibly misread, surface that ambiguity explicitly and resolve it rather than passing it through unaddressed. OUTPUT FORMAT 1. The full brief, formatted with labeled sections: Topic & Angle, Audience, Voice (with the comparison points), Structure, Sources & Fact-Checking Rules, Do Not section, Deadline & Word Count. 2. A short separate note listing any ambiguity you caught and resolved that wasn't fully specified in what I gave you.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
A brief written for someone who already knows the brand can lean on shorthand — "keep it on-brand," "usual structure" — that a first-time freelancer has no way to decode, so the core mechanism here is forcing every instruction to be checkable by someone with zero prior context, which is a materially higher bar than writing a brief for an internal writer. Describing voice through concrete comparison points against a named reference post, rather than adjectives, matters because GPT-5.1 (and any writer, human or model) treats "conversational but professional" as satisfiable in dozens of contradictory ways, while "opens each section with a concrete scenario before the explanation" is a specific, matchable pattern that produces a draft closer to the reference on the first pass instead of the third revision. Naming approved sources explicitly and requiring flagged claims rather than silent substitutions closes a specific risk in freelance content ops: a writer working from a generic web search will often reach for the most SEO-visible source rather than the most accurate one, and a brand can end up publishing an outdated or simply wrong claim that a source the brand actually trusts would never have supported. The dedicated "what not to do" section exists because brief-writing has a known failure mode where the brief-writer assumes shared context that was never actually written down — asking the model to actively hunt for and resolve exactly that kind of ambiguity, rather than just format the fields it was given, is what prevents an internally coherent-looking brief from still landing ambiguously in the hands of someone outside the building.
What you get back
Topic & Angle: Reassure existing customers that our move to usage-based pricing is fair and easy to check, not a stealth price hike. Voice: Match 'Why we killed seat-based pricing' — short paragraphs (2-3 sentences), each section opens with a concrete customer scenario before the explanation, no exclamation points... Ambiguity resolved: your structure didn't specify whether 'how to check your bill' means a formula or a link to a calculator — I've assumed a link to the existing calculator tool, flag if that's wrong.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-14
Changelog
- 2026-08-14 — Initial publish, verified against ChatGPT GPT-5.1.
Need this built into your business?
If a prompt isn't enough — SEO, built and maintained for you — that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE SEO
