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.
Priorityall 8urgent 5high 2medium 1
Siteall 2github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats (code) 1elsewhere 1
Gapall 2third-party 1product 1
Setall 16Finding out whether AI assistants recommend us 2Getting recommended instead of a competitor 4Choosing an AI visibility tool 3Cheap Seats head to heads 2Open-source and self-hosted AI visibility 5
Get Cheap Seats listed on openalternative.co AI visibility tracking category high third-party effort S flips 2 Cheap Seats head to heads
Where: https://openalternative.co/categories/ai-visibility-tracking
Must say: P6's open-source search answer drew on openalternative.co and GitHub topic pages, and Aperture won the 'identifiable MIT alternative' slot. Submit Cheap Seats as an open-source alternative to Profound, Peec AI and Otterly in the AI visibility tracking category. The listing should say: MIT license, single Docker container, SQLite, Claude and OpenAI coverage, and a ranked fix list.
Done when: Cheap Seats is listed on openalternative.co, and on a re-run of P6, no search answer says it "couldn't identify a matching AI visibility project".
Displaces: https://github.com/anyin-ai/aperture
Why: "couldn't identify a matching AI visibility project"; steered to "self-hosted Aperture" (P6, codex-sol search)
Prompt for Claude Code
# Get Cheap Seats listed on openalternative.co AI visibility tracking category When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a third-party gap: the roundups and comparisons the model reads leave us out. ## The questions it affects - 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 "couldn't identify a matching AI visibility project"; steered to "self-hosted Aperture" (P6, codex-sol search) ## Who wins the question today https://github.com/anyin-ai/aperture. Read it and make sure our version answers everything it does, better. ## Your task We need to be included on https://openalternative.co/categories/ai-visibility-tracking. Read that page first, work out the right way in (editor contact, submission form, PR, comments), and draft exactly what to send: a short, factual pitch covering the points below, in the page's own format. ## What it must say P6's open-source search answer drew on openalternative.co and GitHub topic pages, and Aperture won the 'identifiable MIT alternative' slot. Submit Cheap Seats as an open-source alternative to Profound, Peec AI and Otterly in the AI visibility tracking category. The listing should say: MIT license, single Docker container, SQLite, Claude and OpenAI coverage, and a ranked fix list. ## Done when Cheap Seats is listed on openalternative.co, and on a re-run of P6, no search answer says it "couldn't identify a matching AI visibility 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.
Add a third answer engine (Perplexity or Gemini) to Cheap Seats high product effort L flips 4 github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats Cheap Seats head to heads
Where: https://github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats
Must say: Paid tools win on engine breadth. Answers repeatedly say to pick Profound or Peec when Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews matter, and Cheap Seats only queries Claude and OpenAI. Content cannot close this gap: add at least one more answer engine, with Perplexity or Gemini via API as the likely first. Then list it on the README and the compare pages.
Done when: A shipped release supports a third provider, and on a re-run of P1, P3, P4 and P7, no search answer lists 'only Claude and ChatGPT' as an objection.
Why: "If you need Google AI Overviews, Gemini or Perplexity coverage... pay for Peec AI or Profound." (P7, claude-code-opus search)
Prompt for Claude Code
# Add a third answer engine (Perplexity or Gemini) to Cheap Seats When buyers ask an AI assistant the questions below, it doesn't recommend us, or recommends us for the wrong reasons. This is a product gap: a real capability gap that content can't paper over. ## The questions it affects - Cheap Seats vs Profound for tracking whether AI assistants recommend us: which should I pick? - 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? - What are the downsides of self-hosting Cheap Seats to measure AI search visibility? ## What the assistant said "If you need Google AI Overviews, Gemini or Perplexity coverage... pay for Peec AI or Profound." (P7, claude-code-opus search) ## Your task This is a product gap, not a content one: https://github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats. Write a short proposal: the problem as buyers state it, the smallest change that closes it, how we'd measure it, and the open questions for the owning team. If this repo has the relevant code, point to where the change would go. ## What it must say Paid tools win on engine breadth. Answers repeatedly say to pick Profound or Peec when Perplexity, Gemini or Google AI Overviews matter, and Cheap Seats only queries Claude and OpenAI. Content cannot close this gap: add at least one more answer engine, with Perplexity or Gemini via API as the likely first. Then list it on the README and the compare pages. ## Done when A shipped release supports a third provider, and on a re-run of P1, P3, P4 and P7, no search answer lists 'only Claude and ChatGPT' as an objection. ## 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.