Quick wins

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/benchmark-against-competitors on share-of-voice rank

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
- Is there a way to measure our share of voice in AI chatbot answers?
- What's the best way to benchmark my brand's visibility in LLM answers against competitors?
- What metrics should a marketing team use to measure presence in AI assistant answers?

## What the assistant said
P9: top picks were Profound, Peec AI, Scrunch and Peec AI across the search answers.

## Who wins the question today
https://help.peec.ai/article/decision-lab-what-is-share-of-voice-and-how-is-it-calculated-23. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/benchmark-against-competitors 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 how to benchmark against competitors. Popcorn records every product named in each answer, computes each prompt set's share-of-voice rank and recommended/mentioned rates day by day, and keeps the answers and citations behind each number. Include a worked example showing the competitor table and the rank trend, and explain why comparing top-pick counts on the same prompt set is the fair benchmark.

## Done when
A re-run of prompt 9 or 6 names Popcorn or cites this page.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/prioritize-ai-visibility-fixes with an owner-by-fix-type table

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it explains the topic without naming us or citing our pages. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- How should we prioritize fixes to improve how AI assistants describe our product?
- What are the quickest wins for improving our brand's visibility in AI search?
- Who should own AI visibility work: SEO, content, product marketing or the docs team?

## What the assistant said
P18 claude-code-opus search: top pick SEO, shaped by guptadeepak.com/the-geo-org-chart-who-actually-owns-ai-visibility-in-2026.

## Who wins the question today
https://guptadeepak.com/the-geo-org-chart-who-actually-owns-ai-visibility-in-2026/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/prioritize-ai-visibility-fixes 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
Give a prioritisation method: rank fixes by prompts they could flip times how directly they address the stated reason for losing. Assign each fix to a site and an owner (docs, product marketing, SEO). Show that Popcorn's fix list carries exactly these fields, including owner.

## Done when
Prompt 16 or 18 on the search track cites this post.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/check-if-chatgpt-recommends-you with a 15-minute walkthrough

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
- How can I find out whether ChatGPT recommends my product when people ask about my category?
- What tools track how often AI assistants like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini mention a brand?

## What the assistant said
P3 recall: top pick Peec AI. Search: top pick Otterly.AI. Codex cited help.openai.com/en/articles/8590148-memory-in-chatgpt.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.superlines.io/articles/best-chatgpt-tracking-tools. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/check-if-chatgpt-recommends-you 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 step-by-step how-to. Write 10-20 buyer questions as a TOML prompt set, run docker, configure OpenAI (ChatGPT's provider) and Claude keys or the local Codex/Claude Code CLIs, and set a daily budget. Then read the recommended/mentioned/absent grade, position and top pick for each question. Show a sample graded answer and contrast it with checking by hand in ChatGPT, where memory and personalisation skew results.

## Done when
A re-run of prompt 3 cites this page or names Popcorn in at least one search 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/see-ai-search-results with CLI and UI steps

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
- How can I find out why an AI assistant prefers a competitor's product over ours?
- How can I see the web search results an AI assistant gets for a question before it writes its answer, to understand why we're missing?

## What the assistant said
P13 codex-sol search: top pick Profound, sourced from tryprofound.com/blog/expanding-analysis-for-query-fanouts-in-profound.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/features/answer-engine-insights/query-fan-out. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/see-ai-search-results 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 on running a question on Popcorn's search track and opening the stored search results and citations the assistant used before it answered. Cover it in the web UI, CLI, JSON API and MCP server. Explain how comparing those results against the answer, the top pick and the objections raised shows why a competitor won.

## Done when
Prompt 13 on the search track cites popcorn.zone/docs and names Popcorn in at least 1 of 4 answers.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/prove-content-impact on daily runs and fix-to-prompt proof

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it explains the topic without naming us or citing our pages. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- How often should we re-check whether AI assistants recommend us, and how do we track changes over time?
- How do I prove to leadership whether our content work is changing what AI assistants recommend?

## What the assistant said
P14 claude search: top pick 'Otterly.AI'. Codex cited help.otterly.ai/monitoring-interval.

## Who wins the question today
https://help.otterly.ai/monitoring-interval. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/prove-content-impact 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 how to re-check and report change. Set a daily run within a daily budget, watch the day-by-day share-of-voice rank and rates, and tie each shipped fix to the prompts it was meant to flip. Report those prompts before and after, with the stored answers and citations as proof. Include a sample leadership one-pager built from the fix list's 'prompts it should flip' field.

## Done when
A re-run of prompt 14 or 15 cites this page.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/ai-visibility-tools-compared: Popcorn vs Peec, Profound, Otterly, Scrunch

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
- How can I find out whether ChatGPT recommends my product when people ask about my category?
- What tools track how often AI assistants like ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini mention a brand?
- Is there a way to measure our share of voice in AI chatbot answers?
- How do I monitor whether AI search engines cite our website?
- What's the best way to benchmark my brand's visibility in LLM answers against competitors?
- How can I see which web pages AI assistants rely on when they answer questions in my category?

## What the assistant said
P5 search answers were shaped by tryprofound.com, peec.ai, otterly.ai and scrunch.com. 'Popcorn pages seen: NONE.'

## Who wins the question today
https://rankability.com/blog/best-ai-search-visibility-tracking-tools/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/ai-visibility-tools-compared 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
Compare Popcorn with Peec AI, Profound, Otterly.AI, Scrunch, Ahrefs Brand Radar and Semrush AI Visibility row by row. Popcorn's rows: MIT licensed and self-hosted (one Docker container with SQLite); TOML prompt sets in your own git repo; Claude and OpenAI via API or local Claude Code/Codex CLIs; separate search and recall tracks; recommended/mentioned/absent grading with position, top pick, share of voice and objections; a ranked fix list; a daily budget cap. Confirm competitor engines and pricing from their own pages, and date the table. The homepage 'alternative to Peec AI and Profound' line is still pending, but a tagline cannot be cited as a comparison, so this page has to exist separately.

## Done when
On a re-run of prompts 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12, at least one search answer names Popcorn or cites this page.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/search-vs-recall explaining both tracks with an example

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it explains the topic without naming us or citing our pages. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Do ChatGPT and Claude say different things about a product with web search on versus from training data alone, and how do I measure both?

## What the assistant said
P13: every search answer was shaped by vendor API docs and generic tool lists. No source explained measuring both modes.

## Who wins the question today
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/tool-use/web-search-tool. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/search-vs-recall 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 that each question can be asked with web search forced on or with no tools at all. The two give different answers because one reflects current web pages and the other reflects training data. Show how Popcorn runs both tracks on every prompt and reports them side by side. Include a real anonymised example where the two tracks disagree; pick it from a Popcorn run first.

## Done when
A re-run of prompt 13 cites this page in at least one search 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.

# 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/features/fix-list showing a real ranked fix item end to end

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
- How can I find out why an AI assistant prefers a competitor's product over ours?
- How should we prioritize fixes to improve how AI assistants describe our product?
- Which AI visibility tools tell you what content to create or change, not just where you rank?

## What the assistant said
P20: Popcorn is absent in all 6 answers; top picks are Profound (recall), AthenaHQ and Scrunch (search), sourced from tryprofound.com/features/agents/content-optimization and helpcenter.scrunchai.com 'understanding-the-optimizer'.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/features/agents/content-optimization. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/features/fix-list 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 Popcorn as a tool that outputs a ranked fix list rather than a rank dashboard. Each item gives the exact page to create or change, what it must say, the prompts it should flip, which of your sites it belongs on, and its owner. Close with a worked example of one fix item, and say it is MIT licensed, self-hosted in one Docker container, and queries Claude and OpenAI models.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 20 on the search track names Popcorn in at least 2 of 4 answers, with popcorn.zone/features/fix-list among the sources.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/popcorn-vs-profound as a feature table with self-host and price rows

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
- How can I find out why an AI assistant prefers a competitor's product over ours?
- How can I see the web search results an AI assistant gets for a question before it writes its answer, to understand why we're missing?
- Which AI visibility tools tell you what content to create or change, not just where you rank?

## What the assistant said
P20: codex-sol and claude-code-opus recall both answer with top pick Profound from memory, no sources.

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

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/popcorn-vs-profound 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 an honest open-source alternative comparison against Profound. Cover what Popcorn has: self-hosted, MIT licensed, single Docker container with SQLite, and prompt sets as TOML in your own git repo with PR review. Also cover search and recall tracks, retained search results and citations, a daily budget cap, and data going only to the providers you configure. Confirm Profound's current pricing, hosting and supported engines from its own pages before writing those rows, and state plainly where Popcorn covers fewer engines.

## Done when
Prompts 20 and 13 on the search track cite the page or name Popcorn as an alternative in at least 1 answer each.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/search-vs-recall on changing training-data answers

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it explains the topic without naming us or citing our pages. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- How do I get my product mentioned in Claude's and ChatGPT's answers?
- How do we change what an AI model says about us from its training data, not just what it finds when it searches the web?
- How long does it take for new content to change what ChatGPT and Perplexity say about us?

## What the assistant said
P6: Popcorn pages seen: NONE in every search answer; claude answers cite discoveredlabs.com and searchable.com instead.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/blog/the-half-life-of-an-ai-citation-is-11-days. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/search-vs-recall 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 difference between web search answers and model recall from training data, and why they need separate fixes. Show how Popcorn's two tracks, plus daily rank and rate tracking, let a team measure how long a content change takes to show up on each track. Do not quote timelines until you have measured them on real Popcorn runs.

## Done when
Prompt 6 or 19 on the search track cites this page.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/diagnose-ai-traffic-loss: GSC, Bing, GA4 then Popcorn

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
- Our organic traffic is down and I suspect ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews. How do I check whether AI search is what's taking it?
- How can I tell whether Google AI Overviews and AI Mode mention our brand for the topics we care about?

## What the assistant said
P7 codex search: top pick 'Ahrefs Brand Radar', shaped by support.google.com/webmasters/answer/16984139.

## Who wins the question today
https://developers.google.com/search/blog/2026/06/gen-ai-performance-reports. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/diagnose-ai-traffic-loss 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
Cover the free first-party checks: Search Console generative AI performance reports, Bing Webmaster Tools AI Performance, and GA4 referrals with utm_source=chatgpt.com. Then explain the gap those leave: they show clicks and impressions, not whether the assistant recommends you or a competitor. Close that gap by running the buyer questions on Popcorn's search track for AI Overviews-style answers and its recall track for model belief.

## Done when
A re-run of prompt 1 or 7 cites this page in at least one search 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/guides/choosing-prompts with measured prompt-count variance

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it explains the topic without naming us or citing our pages. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- Which questions should we track to measure AI visibility, and how many prompts do we need before the numbers mean anything?

## What the assistant said
P11 codex search: top pick 'Ahrefs Brand Radar', shaped by ahrefs.com/aeo/choose-prompts-to-track.

## Who wins the question today
https://cloro.dev/blog/ai-visibility-sample-size/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/guides/choosing-prompts 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
Give a method for picking buyer questions: split them into category, comparison, problem and info prompts, and store them as TOML files changed through pull requests. Give sample-size guidance only after measuring it: run one prompt set repeatedly in Popcorn and publish the observed run-to-run variance in the recommended rate. Do not cite a prompt count without that data.

## Done when
A re-run of prompt 11 cites this page.

## 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.

# Get popcorn.zone indexed: submit sitemap to Bing/Google, add llms.txt and JSON-LD

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
- Cheap Seats vs Profound for tracking whether AI assistants recommend us: which should I pick?
- Cheap Seats or Peec AI for a small marketing team?
- Cheap Seats vs Otterly.AI for a startup that wants to track AI visibility cheaply?
- How does Cheap Seats compare with Gauge for tracking and improving AI visibility?
- Cheap Seats or Semrush AI Toolkit for tracking our brand in ChatGPT and Claude?
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- What are the downsides of self-hosting Cheap Seats to measure AI search visibility?
- How does Cheap Seats decide whether an AI assistant recommended a brand?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for an agency tracking AI visibility for many clients?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for a developer-tools company checking whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?
- What does it cost to run Cheap Seats every day, and how do I keep the spend under control?

## What the assistant said
P8 search cites badpopcorn.ai/how-it-works, not popcorn.zone/docs/how-grading-works, even though that page shipped in PR #8.

## Who wins the question today
https://badpopcorn.ai/?lang=en. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/sitemap.xml 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
Neither the homepage rewrite (PR #4) nor /docs/how-grading-works (PR #8) has been seen in any search answer; the target is still 'not seen', so the pages are not being retrieved at all. Submit popcorn.zone/sitemap.xml to Bing Webmaster Tools and Google Search Console and request indexing for /, /docs and /docs/how-grading-works. Add /llms.txt that opens 'Popcorn (popcorn.zone) is an MIT-licensed, self-hosted AI visibility tracker, source at github.com/metcalfc/popcorn; not affiliated with badpopcorn.ai, trypopcorn.ai, popcorn.co or popcorn.ai'. Add SoftwareApplication JSON-LD with license MIT and sameAs pointing to the GitHub repo. Link the homepage and the GitHub README to every docs page.

## Done when
Bing 'site:popcorn.zone' lists /docs/how-grading-works, and on a re-run at least one popcorn.zone URL appears in 'Popcorn pages seen' for 4 or more of the 11 prompts, including prompt 8.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/popcorn-vs-promptfoo explaining eval harness vs visibility grader

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
- Is there an open-source alternative to Profound or Peec AI?
- Is there a self-hosted AI visibility tracker I can run in Docker?
- What's a good open-source way for a developer-tools startup to check whether AI assistants recommend it over alternatives?
- Can I test the same buyer questions against several AI models and compare the answers?
- How do engineering-led companies measure whether LLMs recommend their product, without a marketing tool?

## What the assistant said
P16: top pick promptfoo on both the recall and search answers from claude-code-opus

## Who wins the question today
https://github.com/promptfoo/promptfoo. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/popcorn-vs-promptfoo 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
Promptfoo is the assistants' default recall answer, so position Popcorn against it. Explain that Promptfoo is a general LLM eval tool, while Popcorn is built for brand visibility. Popcorn grades each answer recommended, mentioned or absent, records position, top pick, share of voice and objections, and builds a ranked fix list naming the page, the claim and the prompts it should flip.

## Done when
Rerun prompts 11 and 16 on search. Popcorn is named alongside or above Promptfoo in at least one 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting with Docker, Helm/Kubernetes and exe.dev install

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
- We want to track AI answer visibility without sending our data to another SaaS vendor. What are our options?
- Is there a self-hosted AI visibility tracker I can run in Docker?
- Can we run an AI search visibility tracker on our own Kubernetes cluster?
- What's the cheapest way to track our brand in AI answers ourselves instead of paying for a SaaS subscription?

## What the assistant said
P6: top pick Gego, from hub.docker.com/r/ouai2h/gego, with no Popcorn page seen

## Who wins the question today
https://github.com/elmohq/elmo. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting 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
Give a copy-paste `docker run` command, a Helm install for Kubernetes, and exe.dev VM steps. State that it is a single container with a SQLite file. State that prompts and answers go only to the model providers you configure, so no third-party SaaS vendor sees your data. Title and H1 should read 'Self-hosted AI visibility tracker: Docker and Kubernetes'.

## Done when
Rerun prompts 5 and 6 on search. Popcorn's docs page appears among the sources, and at least one answer names Popcorn as its Docker or Kubernetes pick.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/cli-and-ci with a scheduled CI workflow example

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
- Can I run AI visibility checks from the command line or in a CI pipeline?
- Can I test the same buyer questions against several AI models and compare the answers?
- How can I automatically ask ChatGPT and Claude the same set of questions every week and track how their answers about my category change?

## What the assistant said
P9: 'says only that the Popcorn repo "also appears on that topic page", giving no reasons to use it'

## Who wins the question today
https://llmpulse.ai/features/cli. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/cli-and-ci 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
Show the Popcorn CLI running a prompt set and exiting with the share-of-voice and recommended-rate results. Include a scheduled CI example that runs the set weekly; confirm the exact commands and the exit-code behaviour with engineering before publishing. State that the TOML prompt sets live in git and that changes go through pull requests, which LLM Pulse's hosted CLI does not offer.

## Done when
Rerun prompts 9 and 14 on search. Popcorn is recommended, not merely mentioned, in at least one answer, and this page is cited.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/cost explaining AI visibility pricing drivers and Popcorn's cost

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
- Otterly.AI or Peec AI for tracking AI search visibility on a tight budget?
- What's a cheap way to start measuring AI visibility for a small startup?
- How do AI visibility tools price their plans, and what drives the cost: prompts, models, brands or seats?

## What the assistant said
P13 search: shaped by otterly.ai/alternatives/pricing and get-ryze.ai pricing comparison.

## Who wins the question today
https://otterly.ai/alternatives/pricing/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/cost 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 that hosted tools price by prompts, engines, brands and seats. Contrast that with Popcorn: no license fee (MIT), and cost is only your model API spend under a configurable daily budget, or $0 extra when run through the Claude Code and Codex subscriptions you already have. Add a worked example once the cost per run has been measured for a typical prompt set.

## Done when
Prompts 13 and 11 on the search track cite this page or name Popcorn in at least 1 answer each.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting covering upkeep, costs, data flow and tradeoffs

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
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- What are the downsides of self-hosting Cheap Seats to measure AI search visibility?

## What the assistant said
P7: 'couldn't verify an official self-hosted AI visibility project under that name'.

## Who wins the question today
https://brandcitation.com/methodology. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting 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 an honest self-hosting page that answers the objections the assistants invented. Maintenance: one container plus a SQLite file, with upgrade steps. Costs: a daily budget cap on API calls, or local CLIs on existing subscriptions. API vs consumer answers: the search track forces web search and the recall track uses no tools. Trend discipline: daily share-of-voice rank with every answer and citation kept. Data control: prompts go only to the providers you configure.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 7 shows popcorn.zone/docs/self-hosting cited in at least one search answer, and no answer says it 'couldn't verify an official self-hosted project'.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/costs with measured per-run spend and daily budget config

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
- Cheap Seats vs Otterly.AI for a startup that wants to track AI visibility cheaply?
- What does it cost to run Cheap Seats every day, and how do I keep the spend under control?

## What the assistant said
P11 search cites docs.popcorn.co/getting-started/pricing-and-credits, a different product.

## Who wins the question today
https://docs.popcorn.co/getting-started/pricing-and-credits/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/docs/costs 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 that Popcorn the software is free (MIT) and the only running cost is model calls. Show how the daily budget caps API spend and how running through local Claude Code/Codex CLIs uses existing subscriptions. Publish a measured example first: the cost of one daily run of an 11-prompt set on both tracks for each configured model, measured before publishing.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 11 cites popcorn.zone/docs/costs instead of docs.popcorn.co or popcornai.art pricing.

## 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.

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

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
- 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.

## 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.

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

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
- 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.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/api: JSON API, CLI and MCP reference with dashboard examples

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
- Which AI visibility tools have an API so we can pull the data into our own dashboards?

## What the assistant said
P16 search: shaped by tryprofound.com/blog/introducing-the-profound-api-cookbook and developers.scrunch.com.

## Who wins the question today
https://docs.tryprofound.com/cookbook/introduction.md. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/api 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
Document the JSON API endpoints, the CLI and the MCP server with copy-paste examples for pulling share-of-voice rank, rates by day, answers and citations into a dashboard. Title and headings should use the buyer's words: "AI visibility API" and "export data".

## Done when
Prompt 16 on the search track names Popcorn or cites popcorn.zone/docs/api in at least 1 of 2 answers.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/methodology on sampling, two tracks and auditable answers

When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it explains the topic without naming us or citing our pages. This is a documentation gap: the answer needed a page we don't have, or ours says the wrong thing.

## The questions it affects
- AI answers change every time you ask. How do AI visibility tools make their numbers reliable, and how can I check them?

## What the assistant said
P14 search: shaped by meikai.ai/blog/how-many-times-run-ai-visibility-prompts and thrivestack.ai research.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.meikai.ai/blog/how-many-times-run-ai-visibility-prompts. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/methodology 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 how Popcorn makes noisy answers checkable: every question runs on both a search track and a recall track. Rates and share-of-voice rank are tracked day by day, and every answer, search result and citation behind each number is kept for audit. Before publishing, confirm and state the samples per prompt and how day-to-day variance is shown.

## Done when
Prompt 14 on the search track cites popcorn.zone/docs/methodology in at least 1 of 2 answers.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/for/developer-tools showing the git/TOML, CLI, API and MCP workflow

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
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for a developer-tools company checking whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?

## What the assistant said
P10: if Popcorn 'only reports brand mentions or an opaque aggregate score it will not adequately answer the question'.

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/for/developer-tools 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
Make the developer-tools case concretely. Prompt sets are TOML in your own git repo, changed by pull request. There is a CLI, a JSON API and an MCP server, and it deploys with Docker, Helm or an exe.dev VM. Every answer is graded recommended, mentioned or absent with position and share of voice, not an opaque score; this directly answers P10's warning about tools that report 'only brand mentions or an opaque aggregate score'.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 10 shows at least one answer naming Popcorn as a fit with a stated reason (git/TOML, MCP or per-answer grading), or citing this page.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/security on self-hosting, data flow and no third-party data custody

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
- Which AI visibility platforms meet enterprise security requirements like SOC 2?

## What the assistant said
P15 search: top pick Conductor, shaped by citedindex.com/collections/ai-visibility-tools-with-sso-or-soc-2.

## Who wins the question today
https://citedindex.com/collections/ai-visibility-tools-with-sso-or-soc-2. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/security 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
For SOC 2 buyers, state that Popcorn is self-hosted (Docker, Helm on Kubernetes, or an exe.dev VM) and stores data in a SQLite file you control. Prompts and answers go only to the model providers you configure, so there is no third-party vendor to assess. Say plainly that Popcorn itself holds no SOC 2 report.

## Done when
Prompt 15 on the search track names Popcorn as a self-hosted option in at least 1 of 2 answers.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/raw-data-and-api documenting stored answers, citations, JSON API

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
- We want every raw AI answer and citation behind an AI visibility score, not just a dashboard. Which tools give us that?

## What the assistant said
P10: top pick Scrunch on search for both models, sourced from Scrunch API docs

## Who wins the question today
https://developers.scrunch.com/api-reference/introduction. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/raw-data-and-api 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
State that every answer, search result and citation behind each score is kept in your own SQLite database. Show how to pull them through the JSON API and the MCP server. Include one example JSON response.

## Done when
Rerun prompt 10 on search. Popcorn appears among the tools named for raw answer and citation access.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/docs/models-keys-and-budget: own API keys, CLI subscriptions, daily cap

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
- Should we build our own AI visibility tracker on the OpenAI and Anthropic APIs, or buy a tool?
- Which AI visibility tools let us use our own OpenAI and Anthropic API keys?
- How much does it cost in API fees to run our own AI visibility checks every day, and how do we cap it?
- What's the cheapest way to track our brand in AI answers ourselves instead of paying for a SaaS subscription?

## What the assistant said
P7: top picks were Lettertrace and an Apify actor; Popcorn was absent on all four answers

## Who wins the question today
https://www.producthunt.com/products/lettertrace. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/docs/models-keys-and-budget 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 that Popcorn calls Claude and OpenAI through your own API keys, or through local Claude Code and Codex CLIs on your own subscriptions. Explain that a daily budget caps API spend. Include a worked cost example for N prompts × 2 tracks × M models per day, but measure real token and web-search costs from a Popcorn run before publishing any figures.

## Done when
Rerun prompts 7 and 8 on search. At least one answer cites this page and names Popcorn as supporting your own OpenAI and Anthropic keys with a spend cap.

## 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.

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

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
- 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.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/compare/peec-ai with a feature table, cost model and fit guidance

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
- Cheap Seats or Peec AI for a small marketing team?
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for an agency tracking AI visibility for many clients?

## What the assistant said
P2: Peec AI is 'a solid, proven pick for a small team' while Popcorn 'lacks reliable details'.

## Who wins the question today
https://peec.ai/pricing. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/compare/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
Add a feature-by-feature table against Peec AI. Popcorn side: MIT license and free software, single Docker container with SQLite, Claude and OpenAI coverage via API or local Claude Code/Codex CLIs, search and recall tracks, recommended/mentioned/absent grading with position and share of voice, and a ranked fix list naming the page, claim, owner and prompts to flip. Peec AI side: use its published plans from peec.ai/pricing. State plainly what a small team gives up: you host it yourself. For the agency question (P9), confirm and state how many brands or prompt sets one instance tracks before claiming multi-client support.

## Done when
On re-run of prompts 2 and 9, at least one search answer cites popcorn.zone/compare/peec-ai and no answer says it cannot tell which Popcorn is meant.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/blog/how-to-evaluate-ai-visibility-tools with a scored checklist

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
- How do generative engine optimization tools work, and which ones are worth paying for?
- What should I look for when evaluating AI visibility or GEO tools?
- Are Semrush's AI Toolkit or Ahrefs Brand Radar enough, or do we need a dedicated AI visibility tool?

## What the assistant said
P2 search: no product picked, shaped by piabo.net/comparisons/geo-platforms-compared and tooljunction.io.

## Who wins the question today
https://marketerhire.com/blog/best-generative-engine-optimization-tools. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at popcorn.zone/blog/how-to-evaluate-ai-visibility-tools 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
Give buyers concrete criteria to check any tool against:
- Does it separate web-search answers from model recall?
- Does it keep every answer, search result and citation so numbers can be audited?
- Does it grade recommended vs mentioned vs absent, with position and top pick?
- Does it output a ranked fix list naming the page to change?
- Who owns the prompts and data?

Answer prompt 8 directly: Semrush AI Toolkit and Ahrefs Brand Radar track mentions, while a dedicated tool adds per-prompt grading and fixes. Show how Popcorn meets each criterion.

## Done when
Prompts 1, 2 and 8 on the search track cite this page or name Popcorn in at least 2 of 6 answers.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/compare/profound with a feature table and pick-this-if guidance

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
- Cheap Seats vs Profound for tracking whether AI assistants recommend us: which should I pick?
- Is Cheap Seats a good open-source alternative to paid AI visibility tools?
- Is Cheap Seats a good fit for a developer-tools company checking whether ChatGPT and Claude recommend it?

## What the assistant said
P1: 'I can't give you an accurate feature-by-feature comparison, and I'd rather not invent one.'

## Who wins the question today
https://www.tryprofound.com/pricing. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/compare/profound 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
Say who should pick Profound: enterprise buyers who want a managed service. Say who should pick Popcorn: teams that want to own the data, keep every answer and citation, review TOML prompt sets by PR in git, and cap spend with a daily budget. Include a feature table covering engines, search vs recall tracks, grading, the fix list, and the API, MCP and CLI interfaces. Cite tryprofound.com/pricing for Profound's side.

## Done when
Re-running prompt 1 shows popcorn.zone/compare/profound among the cited pages, and no recall or search answer says it 'can't give an accurate feature-by-feature comparison'.

## 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.

# Publish popcorn.zone/compare/otterly-gauge-semrush with pricing and feature tables

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
- Cheap Seats vs Otterly.AI for a startup that wants to track AI visibility cheaply?
- How does Cheap Seats compare with Gauge for tracking and improving AI visibility?
- Cheap Seats or Semrush AI Toolkit for tracking our brand in ChatGPT and Claude?

## What the assistant said
P3: Otterly is 'the safer starting point'; Popcorn 'only worth choosing if its entry plan demonstrably covers that same set for less'.

## Who wins the question today
https://otterly.ai/pricing. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better.

## Your task
Write or update the page at https://popcorn.zone/compare/otterly-gauge-semrush 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
One page with three sections, each with its own H2 and anchor. Each section names the competitor's published entry price from its own pricing page; Popcorn's cost is its API spend under the daily budget, or $0 extra on existing Claude Code/Codex subscriptions (measure a typical run first). Each section shows Popcorn's differentiator: a ranked fix list, not only monitoring. For Semrush, state that Popcorn covers both Claude and ChatGPT/OpenAI models, since P5 flagged Claude coverage as unclear.

## Done when
Re-running prompts 3, 4 and 5 shows a popcorn.zone/compare URL cited in at least 2 of the 3 search answers.

## 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.