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.
Siteall 8cheapseats.dev (marketing) 2cheapseats.dev/docs (docs) 3github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats (code) 1elsewhere 2
Gapall 2documentation 1third-party 1
Setall 23Finding out whether AI assistants recommend us 4Getting recommended instead of a competitor 6Choosing an AI visibility tool 7Cheap Seats head to heads 2Open-source and self-hosted AI visibility 4
Rewrite cheapseatsdev/cheapseats README top: coverage, cost, grading, docs link urgent documentation effort S flips 7 Cheap Seats head to heads
Where: https://github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats (README.md, About, Releases)
Must say: The repo is the only Cheap Seats page assistants find, and when they find it they recommend it (P1, P4, P6 search). Yet they report "0 stars, no releases" and "Claude and ChatGPT only" with no context. The first screen of the README must state:
- what it does: asks buyer questions on a search and a recall track, grades recommended/mentioned/absent, and builds a ranked fix list naming page, claim, prompts and owner;
- cost: free under MIT, you pay only API usage under a daily budget cap, or use existing Claude Code/Codex subscriptions;
- coverage: Claude and OpenAI models only;
- links to cheapseats.dev/docs and /compare.
Also cut a tagged release with notes, add the topics ai-visibility, ai-visibility-tracking, geo and aeo, and note the rename from Popcorn.
Done when: On a re-run, no search answer that cites the repo says "no releases", and every answer citing it states the cost model and the coverage correctly.
Why: "very new", has "0 GitHub stars, no releases yet", tracks only Claude and ChatGPT (P3, claude-code-opus search)
Prompt for Claude Code
# Rewrite cheapseatsdev/cheapseats README top: coverage, cost, grading, docs link 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 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? - 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? - 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 the assistant said "very new", has "0 GitHub stars, no releases yet", tracks only Claude and ChatGPT (P3, claude-code-opus search) ## Your task Write or update the page at https://github.com/cheapseatsdev/cheapseats (README.md, About, Releases) 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 The repo is the only Cheap Seats page assistants find, and when they find it they recommend it (P1, P4, P6 search). Yet they report "0 stars, no releases" and "Claude and ChatGPT only" with no context. The first screen of the README must state: - what it does: asks buyer questions on a search and a recall track, grades recommended/mentioned/absent, and builds a ranked fix list naming page, claim, prompts and owner; - cost: free under MIT, you pay only API usage under a daily budget cap, or use existing Claude Code/Codex subscriptions; - coverage: Claude and OpenAI models only; - links to cheapseats.dev/docs and /compare. Also cut a tagged release with notes, add the topics ai-visibility, ai-visibility-tracking, geo and aeo, and note the rename from Popcorn. ## Done when On a re-run, no search answer that cites the repo says "no releases", and every answer citing it states the cost model and the coverage correctly. ## 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 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.