ChatGPT + Claude: The Two-Model Writing Pipeline You Can Sell (Draft → Critique → Final)
Category: Monetization Guide
Excerpt:
Productize a two-model workflow: ChatGPT drafts, Claude critiques, then you finalize and deliver a clean, QA-backed content package. Includes SOP, prompts, pricing, refunds, and compliance.
Last Updated: January 24, 2026 | Review Stance: Practical workflow testing, includes affiliate links
- You sell a productized deliverable: Draft + QA Notes + Final.
- ChatGPT drafts fast. Claude critiques hard. ChatGPT finalizes and formats.
- Clients pay because they get speed and quality control, not just words.
This is how you avoid the classic complaint: this reads like AI.
- Market saturation: AI writing is crowded. Your edge is a repeatable QA workflow.
- Refunds: happen when scope is vague. Make deliverables and revision rules explicit.
- No outcomes: do not promise rankings, virality, or revenue.
I deliver publish-ready content that is drafted with AI, then aggressively edited and QA-checked before it hits your site.
No ranking guarantees. No traffic guarantees. Just clean deliverables on a predictable cadence.
Offer: pick ONE productized service (start simple)
| Package | Deliverables | Best for | Boundaries |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dual-Model Article Pack | 1 long-form article + SEO meta suggestions + internal link suggestions + QA notes (what was checked/changed). | B2B blogs, founders, agencies | 1 revision round within 7 days. Topic changes count as new work. |
| Newsletter + Social Bundle | 1 newsletter + 5 social posts + 3 hooks + 1 CTA bank, all edited for voice. | Creators, founders, teams | No performance promises. Copy only. |
| Monthly Content QA Retainer (add-on) | 4 QA passes/month on client drafts: tighten, fact-check cues, voice cleanup, and publish formatting notes. | Teams producing content internally | Scope cap required (articles/month or hours/month). |
Handoff Protocol: the “two-model handshake” that keeps quality high
Return: 1) Outline (H2/H3) 2) Draft 3) Claim list (bullets): each claim labeled as - common knowledge - needs citation - assumption/opinion 4) Client-specific insertion points (2–4)
That claim list is what makes critique fast.
- Cut filler intros and generic definitions.
- Flag unsupported claims and shaky stats.
- Rewrite for one consistent voice.
- Ensure headings are scannable and non-redundant.
- Force concrete examples (2+).
Claude is the editor that says no.
After critique, send the revised draft back to ChatGPT only for formatting and packaging: meta description ideas, CTA variants, and internal link placements.
Avoid re-drafting from scratch or you lose the editorial improvements.
SOP: 60–90 minutes per deliverable (solo-friendly)
- 10 min: intake brief + keyword + audience
- 20 min: ChatGPT draft + claim list
- 20 min: Claude critique + rewrite
- 10 min: ChatGPT packaging (meta, CTAs, internal links)
- 5–10 min: deliver + log proof (anti-dispute)
People generate drafts fast, then skip critique. The client can tell. Your entire monetization edge is that you do the uncomfortable edit pass.
Prompt Pack (copy/paste)
ChatGPT prompt: draft + claim list
Write an article draft for: Topic: [topic] Audience: [who] Tone: [tone] Primary keyword: [keyword] Internal URLs to link (optional): [list] Return: 1) H2/H3 outline 2) Draft (1200–2000 words) 3) Claim list: - claim - category: common knowledge / needs citation / assumption-opinion 4) 3 places to insert client-specific examples
Claude prompt: aggressive editor pass
You are a strict editor. Rewrite this draft to be: - shorter intros - fewer generic statements - more specific examples (add placeholders if needed) - consistent voice - flag any claim that needs proof Return: A) Revised draft B) List of risky/unsupported claims to verify C) 5 bullet summary for execs
ChatGPT prompt: packaging (meta + CTAs + internal links)
Given the final article, produce: - 5 meta title options (<= 60 chars) - 5 meta descriptions (<= 160 chars) - 3 CTA variants (soft/medium/direct) - 8 internal link placements (section + anchor text idea) Article: [paste]
Pricing tiers (non-hype)
| Tier | Price idea | Includes | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single deliverable | $80–$250 | 1 article + QA notes + 1 revision round | First-time clients |
| 4 deliverables / month | $300–$800 | Weekly cadence + consistent voice + revision caps | Small teams |
| QA-only retainer | $150–$600 | Edit/QA client drafts, fixed monthly cap | Teams writing internally |
Compliance corner (AI disclosure, refunds, safe claims)
AI may be used as a drafting and editing aid. Final deliverables are human-reviewed. Client approves final claims, especially for regulated topics.
Option A (clean): - Full refund only if deliverable is not delivered on time. - Once delivered, no refunds (service time provided). - One revision round included within 7 days. Option B (friendlier): - One revision round included. - If major factual errors remain after revision, 50% refund within 48 hours.
No ranking, traffic, revenue, or performance outcomes are guaranteed. Deliverables are provided for marketing/education purposes and require client review and approval.
Track more workflows here: https://aifreetool.site/?utm_source=aifreetool.site
