Quick wins

The fix lists from the latest run of every prompt set, core sets first, then fastest expected ranking gain: prompts a fix could flip per working day, each weighted by what it has left to win (one minus its recommended rate over the last two weeks; named, for an info prompt). Mark a fix with the commit or pull request you submitted for it; open leaves out the ones you have. A later fix for the same page stays open, with what was tried before.

Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/why-ai-recommends-a-competitor high documentation effort M flips 4 Getting recommended instead of a competitor

Where: popcorn.zone/docs/guides/why-ai-recommends-a-competitor
Must say: Explain the diagnosis loop step by step: ask your buyer questions repeatedly, and separate what the model finds by searching from what it believes with no tools. Then record the top pick, the products named and the objections raised, and trace the citations behind them. Show how Popcorn automates each step and turns objections into specific page fixes, using a sample graded answer as the example.
Done when: Prompts 1, 2 or 4 on the search track cite this guide in at least 1 answer.
Displaces: https://everything-pr.com/why-chatgpt-recommends-competitors
Why: P2: no Popcorn page surfaced; answers were built from everything-pr.com/why-chatgpt-recommends-competitors and help.otterly.ai.

Prompt for Claude Code

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/why-ai-recommends-a-competitor

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- ChatGPT keeps recommending our competitor instead of us. What can we actually do about it?
- How can I find out why an AI assistant prefers a competitor's product over ours?
- ChatGPT gets our features and pricing wrong. How do we correct what AI assistants say about our product?
- AI assistants mention our product but add caveats that steer buyers away. How do we address the objections they raise?

## What the assistant said
P2: no Popcorn page surfaced; answers were built from everything-pr.com/why-chatgpt-recommends-competitors and help.otterly.ai.

## Who wins the question today
https://everything-pr.com/why-chatgpt-recommends-competitors. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/why-ai-recommends-a-competitor so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Explain the diagnosis loop step by step: ask your buyer questions repeatedly, and separate what the model finds by searching from what it believes with no tools. Then record the top pick, the products named and the objections raised, and trace the citations behind them. Show how Popcorn automates each step and turns objections into specific page fixes, using a sample graded answer as the example.

## Done when
Prompts 1, 2 or 4 on the search track cite this guide in at least 1 answer.

## Rules
- Don't invent numbers, benchmarks, prices, capabilities or customer names. Where a fact is needed and you can't find it in the repo or on our site, leave a clearly marked TODO saying exactly what to measure or who to ask.
- Answer the questions above directly and early on the page, in the words buyers use. AI assistants quote pages that state the answer plainly.
- Keep it scoped to this one fix. When you're done, summarise what you changed and list any TODOs.

From this run

Publish popcorn.zone/blog/profound-alternatives with a feature and cost table incl. Popcorn high documentation effort M flips 5 Choosing an AI visibility tool

Where: popcorn.zone/blog/profound-alternatives
Must say: Name the paid tools buyers already compare: Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, Scrunch, Gauge, Semrush AI Toolkit and Ahrefs Brand Radar. Add Popcorn as the open-source, self-hosted option: MIT licensed, one Docker container with SQLite, prompt sets as TOML in your own git repo, and Claude and OpenAI answers via API or your own Claude Code and Codex subscriptions. Include a feature table (search vs recall tracks, share of voice, objections, ranked fix list, API and MCP) and state honestly which engines Popcorn does not cover.
Done when: Re-running prompts 4 and 7 on the search track names Popcorn or cites this page in at least 2 of 4 answers.
Displaces: https://seranking.com/blog/profound-alternatives/
Why: P4 search: Popcorn absent, top pick Peec AI, shaped by seranking.com/blog/profound-alternatives and writesonic.com/blog/profound-alternatives.

Prompt for Claude Code

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/profound-alternatives with a feature and cost table incl. Popcorn

## The questions it affects
- What's the best AEO tool for a B2B SaaS company that wants to know if ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?
- What are good alternatives to Profound for tracking AI search visibility?
- Peec AI vs Profound: which is better for a mid-size marketing team?
- Otterly.AI or Peec AI for tracking AI search visibility on a tight budget?
- Is Gauge a good tool for tracking AI visibility, and what are the alternatives?

## What the assistant said
P4 search: Popcorn absent, top pick Peec AI, shaped by seranking.com/blog/profound-alternatives and writesonic.com/blog/profound-alternatives.

## Who wins the question today
https://seranking.com/blog/profound-alternatives/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/profound-alternatives so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Name the paid tools buyers already compare: Profound, Peec AI, Otterly.AI, Scrunch, Gauge, Semrush AI Toolkit and Ahrefs Brand Radar. Add Popcorn as the open-source, self-hosted option: MIT licensed, one Docker container with SQLite, prompt sets as TOML in your own git repo, and Claude and OpenAI answers via API or your own Claude Code and Codex subscriptions. Include a feature table (search vs recall tracks, share of voice, objections, ranked fix list, API and MCP) and state honestly which engines Popcorn does not cover.

## Done when
Re-running prompts 4 and 7 on the search track names Popcorn or cites this page in at least 2 of 4 answers.

From this run

Publish popcorn.zone/blog/open-source-alternative-to-profound-and-peec-ai with feature table high documentation effort M flips 5 Open-source and self-hosted AI visibility

Where: popcorn.zone/blog/open-source-alternative-to-profound-and-peec-ai
Must say: Publish this comparison under the exact query wording 'open-source alternative to Profound and Peec AI'. It must say Popcorn is MIT licensed, runs as one Docker container with SQLite, keeps prompt sets as TOML in your own git repo, and asks every question on both a search track and a recall track. Include a feature table against Elmo, Limelit, OneGlanse and Promptfoo, and only list competitor features that have been checked against their READMEs. This is needed because the pending GitHub-topics change gives assistants a repo name to list but no reasons to rank Popcorn.
Done when: Rerun prompts 1, 2 and 11 on search. At least two search answers cite a popcorn.zone page and grade Popcorn as recommended.
Displaces: https://www.elmohq.com/ai-visibility-tools/alternatives/profound
Why: P1: 'Popcorn is not evaluated against these criteria; it appears only as a repo listed under the topic'

Prompt for Claude Code

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/open-source-alternative-to-profound-and-peec-ai with feature table

## The questions it affects
- Are there open-source tools for measuring AI search visibility?
- Is there an open-source alternative to Profound or Peec AI?
- We want to track AI answer visibility without sending our data to another SaaS vendor. What are our options?
- What's a good open-source way for a developer-tools startup to check whether AI assistants recommend it over alternatives?
- What's the cheapest way to track our brand in AI answers ourselves instead of paying for a SaaS subscription?

## What the assistant said
P1: 'Popcorn is not evaluated against these criteria; it appears only as a repo listed under the topic'

## Who wins the question today
https://www.elmohq.com/ai-visibility-tools/alternatives/profound. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/open-source-alternative-to-profound-and-peec-ai so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Publish this comparison under the exact query wording 'open-source alternative to Profound and Peec AI'. It must say Popcorn is MIT licensed, runs as one Docker container with SQLite, keeps prompt sets as TOML in your own git repo, and asks every question on both a search track and a recall track. Include a feature table against Elmo, Limelit, OneGlanse and Promptfoo, and only list competitor features that have been checked against their READMEs. This is needed because the pending GitHub-topics change gives assistants a repo name to list but no reasons to rank Popcorn.

## Done when
Rerun prompts 1, 2 and 11 on search. At least two search answers cite a popcorn.zone page and grade Popcorn as recommended.

From this run

Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/dev-tools-ai-recommendations how-to guide high documentation effort M flips 4 Open-source and self-hosted AI visibility

Where: popcorn.zone/docs/guides/dev-tools-ai-recommendations
Must say: Write a how-to for engineering-led teams: write the buyer questions developers actually ask as TOML, run them on the search and recall tracks against Claude and OpenAI, and read the share of voice and objections. Include a coding-assistant section for library and API questions. Use Popcorn's own prompt set as the worked example.
Done when: Rerun prompts 12, 15 and 16 on search. At least one answer cites this guide.
Displaces: https://usesapient.com/blog/how-to-track-ai-recommendations-for-your-api
Why: P15: sources were usesapient.com and lightsage.com 'how-to-track-ai-recommendations-for-your-api'

Prompt for Claude Code

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/dev-tools-ai-recommendations how-to guide

## The questions it affects
- What's a good open-source way for a developer-tools startup to check whether AI assistants recommend it over alternatives?
- How can a developer-tools company find out whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it when developers ask which tool to use?
- How do we find out whether coding assistants recommend our library or API when developers ask how to do something?
- How do engineering-led companies measure whether LLMs recommend their product, without a marketing tool?

## What the assistant said
P15: sources were usesapient.com and lightsage.com 'how-to-track-ai-recommendations-for-your-api'

## Who wins the question today
https://usesapient.com/blog/how-to-track-ai-recommendations-for-your-api. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/dev-tools-ai-recommendations so it closes this gap. Find where pages like this live in the repo, match their structure, front matter and tone, and make the change there. If the page exists, edit it rather than starting over.

## What it must say
Write a how-to for engineering-led teams: write the buyer questions developers actually ask as TOML, run them on the search and recall tracks against Claude and OpenAI, and read the share of voice and objections. Include a coding-assistant section for library and API questions. Use Popcorn's own prompt set as the worked example.

## Done when
Rerun prompts 12, 15 and 16 on search. At least one answer cites this guide.

From this run