Start with one repeatable editorial task
A product team might paste approved release notes and ask: “Turn this into a help article, a LinkedIn post and a newsletter introduction.” The service drafts each format from that source. An editor can say, “Change the second paragraph: this feature is available on Team plans only,” request a version for a specific market, inspect the preview and source notes, then approve, schedule or publish. Each revision stays linked to its editor and version.
Build around your publishing setup
We design and build the chat workspace, editorial rules and connections for your team. Keep an existing CMS when its API supports drafts and approvals; otherwise, we can build a publishing backend for your site. Your organization owns its content. Connector access follows agreed API permissions, with revision history and a clear rollback path.
- Source notes
- Chat draft
- Editor review
- CMS or backend
- Measure
A person checks accuracy and approves each release; the system records versions and publishing status.
Keep quality and outcomes visible
- Use approved product notes, briefs and brand guidance as the source for each draft.
- Request a precise edit, a market version or another format, then compare it in preview.
- Require a named editor to approve publishing; retain revision history and a rollback route.
- Track qualified leads and conversions only where consent and analytics rules allow; no ranking or traffic result is guaranteed.
Read the practical content workflow guide and SEO and paid search work. Tell us about your editorial process to scope a custom build.
Create content by chat with your CMS in 2026
Chat-based AI drafting is easier to review when it starts with approved facts and ends with a named publishing approval. Consider a hypothetical scheduling app launching waitlists in Denmark and the Netherlands. Only workspace admins on paid plans can enable waitlists on desktop; mobile controls ship later.
Prepare a small source pack
The product owner shares the release brief, plan matrix, interface labels and support notes. The brief lists eligibility, launch date, supported platform and claims to avoid. Writers use those current sources rather than old campaigns; missing facts become questions for the owner.
- Release facts: dates, eligibility, platform limits and an accountable owner.
- Audience context: common questions and approved terms for each market.
- Publishing rules: formats, reviewers, destination and scheduling permission.
Ask for three assets—a help-centre intro, a customer email and a launch-page section—from the same source pack. Tie each factual claim to a note and flag missing dates or plan details. A useful workflow pauses for clarification instead of filling gaps with plausible copy.
- Approved brief
- Chat drafts
- Fact check
- Market review
- CMS approval
One source pack feeds each format; an editor approves the final version before scheduling.
Correct the claim and retain the change
If a draft says every account can use waitlists, the product owner can ask: “Limit this to paid plans and desktop; update the heading and remove mobile steps.” The editor checks the revision against the plan matrix and compares a saved version diff before approval.
For Dutch and Danish pages, use the actual interface strings and ask a market-aware reviewer to check phrasing. Preserve eligibility, dates and caveats; localized copy can sound natural while changing the implied promise.
Publish through a controlled route
When the CMS API supports drafts, reviewer assignment and scheduling, connect those actions under approved permissions. Keep content as a draft until approval. If those states are unsupported, scope a publishing adapter or small backend. The client owns the content; revision history records who approved, published or restored each version.
Measure usefulness, not volume
Track factual corrections per draft, time to approval, accepted suggestions and publishing errors. After launch, measure qualified leads or conversions only where consent and analytics allow. Generated volume or a hoped-for ranking increase is not evidence of customer value.
Google’s guidance on generative AI content emphasizes accuracy, original value for readers and human review. It offers no ranking shortcut or guarantee; publish because the page helps its audience, not because it was generated at scale.
See the custom AI content service and SEO and paid search work. Discuss a workflow with the team.
FAQ
How is this adapted to our team?
We map your content sources, formats, markets, review roles and publishing setup, then scope and build the chat workflow around them. Discovery defines integrations, permissions and approval steps.
Do we have to replace our CMS?
No. We can keep your CMS when its API and permissions support the agreed draft, review and publishing flow. If they do not, we can build a publishing backend and connect it to your site.
Who owns the content, and how do you measure results?
Your organization owns the content. Editors can review sources, approve versions and roll back changes. We can report qualified leads and conversions where consent and analytics allow; we do not promise search rankings or fabricated results.