# Reddit r/SEO — post draft

**Subreddit:** r/SEO
**Flair:** "Tools" if available; otherwise "Discussion"
**Account:** 6+ months old, with comment history in r/SEO or r/bigseo
**Title (≤ 300 chars):**
*I built an AI outline tool that enforces a strict schema + kills fabricated methodology + warns on YMYL. Looking for brutal feedback on the schema.*

---

## Post body

I've been working on [OutlineAI](https://outlineai.dev/r/seo) — a tool
that generates SEO blog outlines. I want feedback on the **schema
itself**, not the marketing.

## What the schema enforces

- 1 H1 (10-240 chars), 1 meta description (50-160 chars)
- 5-8 H2 sections, each with estimated word count + 2-5 H3s
- 5-8 FAQs, each with question + 1-2 sentence `a_brief`
- 1 primary keyword + 5-12 secondary keywords
- 3-6 internal link suggestions
- **Exactly 3** title alternatives (not 2, not 5)
- 1 risk category: `standard` / `financial` / `health` / `legal`
- No duplicate H2s
- No duplicate title alternatives
- H1 must differ from all title alternatives
- No fabricated methodology — the LLM gets rejected if it writes
  "How we chose...", "Our experts tested...", "We reviewed..." unless
  the user explicitly said they tested something
- No stale recent years — if the topic is "2026" and the model
  sneaks in "trends for 2024", it gets retried

If the LLM misses any of the above, the request is retried **once**
with a list of the specific failures. If it misses twice, the user
gets a clean 502. No half-baked outlines.

## What I'd love feedback on

1. **The "exactly 3" title alternatives rule.** I picked 3 because
   it's a number a human can actually A/B test. Is that right for
   SEO, or is 5 better for a multivariate setup?
2. **The internal-link-suggestions field.** It outputs 3-6 *titles*
   of related articles, not URLs. Reasoning: URLs change as the
   site grows, titles are stable. Is that how you think about it,
   or do you want URL-shaped suggestions?
3. **The "no fabricated methodology" rule.** Currently I reject on
   regex: `how we (chose|tested|...)`, `our (testing|experts|...)`,
   `we (tested|interviewed|...)`, `real-world testing`. Missing
   anything obvious?
4. **The YMYL decision.** I serve YMYL outlines (health, finance,
   legal) with a non-dismissible fact-check warning at the top of
   the page and in the Markdown export. The warning is part of the
   document. Is that the right call for a paid tool, or should I
   block YMYL entirely and refer users to a different workflow?

The [full build log is here](https://outlineai.dev/r/build-log) and
the [5 published samples are public](https://outlineai.dev/r/samples)
(2 of which are YMYL, so you can see the warning in context).

Brutal feedback welcome. If you want to actually try the schema on
real topics, the free tier is 3/day with no signup — your work
email gets you 6 months of Pro if you comment here with a Loom of
how you used it. I have 5 codes set aside for serious reviewers.