For content teams Turn the questions AI answers without you into your editorial calendar.

Seerly turns tracked AI answers into a gap list: the specific buyer questions where an AI assistant recommends someone else, cites a source you do not own, or answers without mentioning you.

That gives a content calendar built from observed answers rather than from a keyword tool export or a brainstorm.

• Prompts where competitors are cited and your brand is absent
• Citation sources each engine leans on for your category
• Topics surfaced by the Trend Agent from conversations on X and Instagram
• Coverage against your tracked prompt set: 25 per month on Basic, up to 100 on Pro

Each item traces back to the run and the verbatim response that produced it, so a brief can be argued with before it is written.

Seerly produces full publish-ready drafts, not only briefs. The Content Agent turns a visibility gap or a trending topic into a complete piece aimed at both Google rankings and AI citations.

Formats follow the shape of the gap, so a comparison question produces a comparison page rather than a generic blog post.

• Comparison pages, FAQ pages, and long-form articles
• Drafts tied to the specific prompt and engine that exposed the gap
• Content credits: 250 per month on Basic, 1250 on Pro
• Agent chat for revisions: 100 messages per month on Basic, 500 on Pro

Editors generally treat the output as a strong first draft to shape, not as finished copy.

Yes. Every draft an agent produces lands in an approvals queue and waits for a person. Nothing Seerly writes publishes autonomously, on any plan.

The agents run on a schedule and keep working in the background, but the queue is the gate between the agent and anything public.

• Every item is reviewed, edited, or rejected before it moves
• Drafts can be revised through agent chat before approval
• Publishing to WordPress happens only after approval, and only on Pro
• Rejections stay recorded, so the same weak idea does not keep resurfacing

Teams with a strict style guide usually approve into a CMS draft state and run the final editorial pass there, which keeps voice and formatting decisions with the editors who own them.

Seerly includes an optional WordPress integration on Pro and Enterprise plans, so an approved draft can be pushed into WordPress without copying and pasting it by hand.

The integration is optional, and plenty of teams skip it. They export the approved draft and move it into their own CMS or publishing workflow, which keeps the final formatting pass where their editors already work.

• WordPress integration on Pro and Enterprise plans, not on Basic
• Publishing happens only for drafts that already cleared the approvals queue
• No CMS access is required for tracking, auditing, or drafting
• Everything else in Seerly runs against public pages alone

Connecting a CMS is never a prerequisite for measuring visibility or generating content, so it can wait until the workflow settles.

Content credits are the monthly allowance Seerly draws on when it generates drafts and content work for you. Basic includes 250 per month and Pro includes 1250.

They exist so a content team can plan volume up front rather than discovering a ceiling halfway through a sprint. Credits reset each month with the billing cycle.

• 250 content credits per month on Basic
• 1250 content credits per month on Pro
• Custom volume on Enterprise, scoped to the account
• Agent chat metered separately: 100 messages on Basic, 500 on Pro, unlimited on Enterprise
• Prompt tracking, audits, and reporting metered under their own plan limits

Tracking, audits, and reporting never consume content credits. Only generating drafts and content work does, so measurement continues regardless of how much writing you commission.

AI answers are assembled from sources the engine can parse and trust, so Seerly reports which sources are actually being quoted for your category rather than guessing at a formula.

Citation patterns differ noticeably by industry and by engine, which is why the observed list is more useful than a generic checklist.

• Every URL each engine cited on your tracked prompts
• Whether the cited source is a page you own, a marketplace, a review site, or a reference site
• Which of your own pages already earn citations, and on which prompts
• Sources driving competitor mentions that you have no presence on

The pattern that emerges is usually specific: one source type carries most of the answers in your category.

No. The structural work that helps an AI engine parse a page, such as clear question-led headings and unambiguous factual statements, is the same work that helps a search crawler understand it.

Seerly is built around that overlap: the same account tracks your Google search footprint next to your AI answer presence.

• A site audit covering 800 pages on Basic, or all pages on Pro
• Page-level issues that affect how machines read your content
• Your Google search footprint tracked alongside the AI results
• Drafts written for both ranking and citation rather than one or the other

In practice this is an addition to an existing content program, not a rewrite of it.

Seerly keeps every scored run, so a piece published against a specific gap can be checked against the same prompts afterward, on the same engines, with the earlier runs still available.

Because the prompt set is fixed and runs are scheduled, the before-and-after uses identical questions rather than a fresh sample.

• Rolling comparisons across 7 days, 30 days, and 3 months
• Whether your page entered the citation list for the target prompt
• Movement per engine, since one usually shifts before the rest
• The verbatim response for any run, kept for inspection

Timing depends on how quickly engines pick up newly published work, so the honest read is the measured change, not a predicted one.