A solo blogger can use AI at several points in an article: organizing notes, testing an outline, drafting a section, or finding gaps in an edit. Without a repeatable process, it is easy to lose track of which claims were checked, which sections still need work, and whether the post is ready to publish.
This AI writing SOP template turns those separate tasks into one procedure. Copy it for each new article, keep the evidence beside the draft, and stop at each review point until you can approve the work. AI assists with defined tasks; you remain the editor and publisher.
What is an AI writing SOP?
An AI writing standard operating procedure, or SOP, describes the steps used to take an article from assignment to final review. Each step has an input, a task, and a condition that must be met before moving on.
This version is designed for a solo blogger writing an original post for a defined audience. It covers topic scope, the content brief, research, outline, draft, fact-checking, human editing, WordPress preparation, and final approval. It works whether you ask AI to draft several sections or use it only to organize your own notes.
Google’s guidance on generative AI content describes research and structure as possible uses of AI while emphasizing accuracy, quality, and relevance. Those qualities require checks within the workflow; they do not appear automatically because a draft sounds polished.
What you need before starting
Open one working document for the article. Gather the following information before asking AI for a complete draft:
- The reader and their goal: Who is the post for, and what should they understand or be able to do afterward?
- The topic and scope: What question will the post answer, and what will it leave to another article?
- Existing site content: Which published posts cover related intent, and what distinct job will this one perform?
- Source material: Your permitted notes, real experience, documents, and sources you can open and verify.
- Publishing requirements: The intended category, internal links to check, any product relationships, and the person responsible for final approval.
If the new post would answer essentially the same question as a strong article you already have, consider improving that article instead of creating a competing page. For help defining a distinct angle, use the guide to building an AI content brief without losing search intent.
The nine-stage AI writing SOP
Stage 1: Confirm the article’s job
Action: Write the reader’s main question, the answer the post should deliver, and the article’s distinct angle. Review related posts on your site. Check whether the proposed title promises more than the available evidence can support.
Move on when: You can explain why this article should exist and how it differs from nearby content. Put the assignment on hold if its purpose still overlaps substantially with an existing post.
Stage 2: Complete the content brief
Action: Record the audience, search intent, working title, focus topic, scope, exclusions, desired structure, and internal linking opportunities. List claims that will need verification. Note any genuine first-hand experience you can contribute, and do not invent experience to fill a gap.
AI’s role: It can point out unclear instructions or suggest missing questions. You decide what belongs in the brief. The AI content brief template offers a fuller planning format.
Move on when: The brief tells a writer what to cover, what to avoid, and how a useful finished post will be judged.
Stage 3: Research and record evidence
Action: Collect sources for important factual claims. Open each source yourself. Record the source URL, the claim it supports, and when you checked it. Distinguish your own observations from statements drawn from outside sources.
AI’s role: It may suggest questions to research or organize notes you provide. Do not treat an AI-generated citation, quote, statistic, or search-volume figure as verified evidence. Use this guide to researching a blog post with AI without inventing sources when the research stage needs more structure.
Move on when: You have enough reliable material for the post’s main answer. If a central claim cannot be supported, change the claim or narrow the article.
Stage 4: Approve the outline
Action: Build an outline in which each main section answers a useful reader question. Put the core answer early. Remove sections that repeat a point, drift into another search intent, or exist only to make the post longer.
AI’s role: Ask it to propose a structure from the approved brief and supplied notes. Compare the proposal with the brief before accepting it.
Move on when: Every main section has a clear purpose and a route to supporting evidence. Mark unsupported sections for further research or remove them.
Stage 5: Draft in controlled sections
Action: Draft from the approved outline and verified notes. Work a section at a time when that makes claims easier to track. Give AI the exact section goal and the permitted source material. Ask it to flag missing information instead of filling gaps with plausible details.
AI’s role: It can prepare text for editing. It cannot establish that a claim is true or that a product was personally tested.
Move on when: The draft answers the brief, separates established facts from unresolved claims, and contains no invented personal experience or unsupported recommendation.
Stage 6: Verify claims against the original sources
Action: Go through the draft claim by claim. Open the original source and check that it supports the specific wording used. Check dates, numbers, product details, names, and statements about how a tool works. A real link can still point to a page that does not support the sentence beside it.
Resolve every “verify” marker. Correct, qualify, source, or remove claims you cannot establish. If the post covers a medical, legal, financial, or similarly sensitive topic, arrange suitable qualified review for claims that require it.
Move on when: Important factual claims are supported, uncertainty is expressed honestly, and the article does not rely on an AI-generated reference you have not checked. See how to fact-check AI-generated content before publishing for a deeper claim review.
Stage 7: Make the article yours
Action: Edit for clarity, accuracy, tone, and usefulness. Replace vague advice with steps the reader can follow. Add real observations or examples only when you have them. Remove repetitive introductions, unsupported certainty, and transitions that say little.
If the article recommends products or services, check that every recommendation reflects the evidence available. State relevant financial relationships clearly when they apply. The FTC’s endorsement guidance explains why a reader should be able to recognize a paid connection near a recommendation.
Move on when: You would stand behind the advice under your name and can explain how each significant recommendation was reached.
Stage 8: Prepare the WordPress draft
Action: Enter the approved title and article body. Review the heading order, slug, meta description, category, and links. Check internal link destinations and use anchor text that describes the destination. If the article contains images, inspect their relevance and appropriate alternative text.
Preview the post on a narrow screen. Look for crowded tables, broken formatting, empty headings, stray draft notes, and calls to action that lead to the wrong place. Confirm that any disclosure needed for a recommendation appears where readers can understand the connection.
Move on when: The WordPress preview is readable, the links work, and the page contains the approved text.
Stage 9: Perform the final human review
Action: Read the post as a new visitor. Ask whether its opening answers the promised question, whether the important facts are supported, and whether any section could mislead someone who reads only that section. Recheck the title, introduction, conclusion, and any recommendation after the final edit.
Release condition: Publish only when the brief, sources, claims, disclosure where applicable, internal links, and WordPress preview have passed review. Record unresolved work as a reason to hold the post, not as a note to fix after publication.
Copy-and-paste AI writing SOP template
Duplicate this working record for each article. Replace the blanks, keep source URLs with your notes, and mark each gate complete only after checking the actual work.
ARTICLE WORKING RECORD Working title: Reader: Reader's main question: Useful answer this article must deliver: Distinct angle: Related articles on my site: How this article differs: Topic or keyword: Scope: Out of scope: Category: Writer and final approver: Working draft location: SOURCE RECORD Source URL: Claim supported: Date checked: Relevant limitation or uncertainty: Repeat the source record for each important claim. STAGE 1 - ARTICLE JOB [ ] Reader question is clear. [ ] Related site content has been checked for overlap. [ ] The article has a distinct purpose. Status: Approved / Hold Reason if on hold: STAGE 2 - BRIEF [ ] Audience, intent, scope, and exclusions are recorded. [ ] Claims requiring research are listed. [ ] Real experience is distinguished from outside sources. [ ] Potential internal links are identified. Status: Approved / Hold STAGE 3 - RESEARCH [ ] Important sources have been opened. [ ] Each major factual claim has a supporting source. [ ] Missing evidence is marked. Status: Approved / Hold STAGE 4 - OUTLINE [ ] The main answer appears early. [ ] Each section serves a reader question. [ ] Repeated or unsupported sections are removed. Status: Approved / Hold STAGE 5 - DRAFT [ ] Draft follows the approved scope and outline. [ ] AI-added claims are marked for verification. [ ] No invented sources, statistics, tests, or experience. Status: Approved for fact-check / Hold STAGE 6 - CLAIM REVIEW [ ] Important claims match their original sources. [ ] Dates, numbers, names, and product details are checked. [ ] Unsupported claims are corrected, qualified, or removed. [ ] Sensitive claims have appropriate review where needed. Status: Verified / Hold STAGE 7 - HUMAN EDIT [ ] The opening answers the reader's question. [ ] Advice is clear, specific, and useful. [ ] Recommendations reflect available evidence. [ ] Relevant paid relationships are disclosed where needed. [ ] The post sounds like the site, not a generic AI draft. Status: Edited / Hold STAGE 8 - WORDPRESS PREVIEW [ ] Title, slug, meta description, and category are checked. [ ] Heading order and mobile layout are checked. [ ] Internal and external links lead to the intended pages. [ ] Draft markers and formatting errors are removed. Status: Ready for final review / Hold STAGE 9 - FINAL APPROVAL [ ] The finished post matches the original brief. [ ] Important claims remain accurate after editing. [ ] The title does not overpromise. [ ] I would stand behind this post under my name. Decision: Publish / Hold Final reviewer: Review date: Reason if on hold:
Three prompts for the right stages
Use prompts on the material you have approved for that stage. Replace the bracketed fields with your own information. Do not paste private client material into an AI tool unless you are permitted to use it there.
Prompt 1: Turn the brief into an outline
When to use it: After you have completed the brief and gathered research notes. This prompt asks AI to organize the article and expose evidence gaps; it does not ask for a draft.
Role: Act as an editorial planning assistant for a solo blogger. Task: Propose an article outline that answers the reader's main question using only the brief and source notes below. Reader and goal: [INSERT] Main question: [INSERT] Working title: [INSERT] Scope and exclusions: [INSERT] Distinct angle and related site articles: [INSERT] Source notes with URLs: [INSERT] Output: 1. A one-sentence answer the article should deliver. 2. Suggested H2 and H3 headings in a logical order. 3. The reader question each H2 answers. 4. The supplied source note, if any, that supports each factual section. 5. Sections that need more evidence or should be removed. Constraints: Do not invent a source, statistic, personal experience, or claim. Do not add a section outside the approved scope. Mark unsupported sections as NEEDS RESEARCH. Do not draft the article yet.
Customize and check: Supply the actual brief, related article titles, and source notes. Check that the first substantial section serves the reader’s main need, headings do not duplicate one another, and every factual section has evidence or a research flag. Revise the outline yourself before drafting.
Prompt 2: Draft one approved section
When to use it: After approving the outline. Give AI one section and only the notes relevant to it so you can review the claims closely.
Role: Act as a careful drafting assistant. I am the editor and will review the text before publication. Task: Draft only the approved section identified below. Reader and article goal: [INSERT] Approved H2 or H3 heading: [INSERT] What this section must answer: [INSERT] Verified notes and source URLs for this section: [INSERT] Site tone and formatting constraints: [INSERT] Output: Write a clear US English draft for this section. Use short paragraphs and concrete explanations. After the draft, list every factual claim that needs my verification. Constraints: Use only the supplied notes for factual claims. Do not create quotes, statistics, URLs, product tests, or first-hand experience. If a needed fact is missing, insert [VERIFY: describe the missing fact]. Do not write the next section or change the article's scope.
Customize and check: Replace the placeholders with the approved section goal and verified notes. Compare every factual sentence with the source itself. Rewrite generic wording, remove unsupported material, and add your own genuine observations where useful.
Prompt 3: Improve a passage after human review
When to use it: When you have identified specific problems in a passage. This prompt repairs those problems without giving AI permission to introduce new claims.
Role: Act as a line editor working under my direction. Task: Revise the passage below to address only the problems I list. Reader and section goal: [INSERT] Current passage: [INSERT] Problems I found: [INSERT] Verified facts that must remain unchanged: [INSERT] Tone and length constraints: [INSERT] Output: 1. Revised passage. 2. Brief list of what changed. 3. Any unresolved issue I still need to check. Constraints: Do not add new facts, sources, examples, or first-hand claims. Do not remove a necessary qualification. Preserve the meaning of verified facts. If a requested improvement needs new evidence, flag it instead of guessing.
Customize and check: Name the precise problem, such as an unclear explanation or repeated point. Compare the revision with the verified passage and source notes. Keep your own edit if it is more accurate or natural.
Example: using the SOP for a practical blog post
Imagine a blogger planning a post titled “How to Keep a Simple Blog Idea List.” The reader wants a usable way to collect and review ideas. Before drafting, the blogger checks whether an existing article already answers that question, then sets a narrower scope if necessary.
The brief identifies the reader, the intended process, and the parts the blogger can describe from real practice. The research record holds any outside claims that the post needs. AI proposes an outline from that brief. The blogger removes sections that drift into keyword research or full project planning, because those are different jobs.
AI may draft one section from approved notes. The blogger checks it against those notes, adds genuine details, and removes claims about results that were never measured. The post stays in WordPress draft status until its links, mobile preview, and final answer pass review. The same gates can be reused for the next article even when the topic changes.
When to pause or skip an AI step
- The article overlaps an existing strong post: Reconsider the topic or improve the existing page.
- The main claim lacks evidence: Research further, narrow the claim, or remove it.
- The material cannot be shared with an AI provider: Keep that work in an approved environment or do it manually.
- The article requires experience you do not have: Do not ask AI to simulate testing, ownership, client results, or a personal story.
- The topic needs specialist judgment: Arrange qualified review where appropriate before publishing.
- The tool changes verified meaning during revision: Restore the accurate wording and edit the passage yourself.
An SOP is useful because it tells you when to stop as well as what to do next. A hold is a normal editorial outcome when the brief, evidence, or final review is incomplete.
Final recommendation
Use this AI writing SOP template as the working record for each new post. Keep the brief, sources, draft, and approval decision together. Give AI small, well-defined tasks and inspect what it returns at every stage. The final article should reflect your evidence and editorial judgment, with a human making the decision to publish.
Frequently asked questions
Does AI need to write the entire article for this SOP to be useful?
No. You can use AI only for outlining or editing questions and follow the same research, claim review, and publishing gates. The procedure is for controlling the article, regardless of how much text AI drafts.
Can I use this SOP to update an existing post?
Yes, but begin by recording what the post already does well and what specifically needs to change. Preserve supported information and useful sections rather than replacing the whole page by default. The guide to updating old blog posts with AI covers that decision in more detail.