Back/Content
AdvancedContent

How to Use AI as an 'AP English Teacher' to Draft and Refine Blog Posts

Draft from source material and examples of your own writing, then use an exacting English teacher rubric to expose weak hooks, arguments, evidence, transitions, and conclusions before you make the final editorial pass.

How to Use AI as an 'AP English Teacher' to Draft and Refine Blog Posts

Tomasz uses a podcast transcript and relevant posts from his own archive to create a draft, asks an AI English teacher to grade the hook, argument, evidence, paragraphs, conclusion, and engagement, runs three revision loops, then makes the final edit himself.

Before you start

What you need

  • A topic, thesis, and source material for the post
  • A searchable archive of writing you own or may use
  • A small set of relevant posts that represent the voice for this topic
  • A grading rubric that reflects the publication and audience
  • Facts, quotes, links, and claims that must remain tied to their sources

What you’ll make

A concise draft with a documented critique history, stronger structure and evidence, accurate links and quotations, and a final edit that sounds like the author rather than the grader.

Step by step

The workflow

Follow the sequence once, then adapt the prompts, checks, and handoffs to your own setup.

6 steps

Step01

Create a Style Vector Database

Index writing you own or are allowed to use, along with title, date, topic, and URL. Retrieve a small set of relevant posts for each assignment and summarize their structural and stylistic patterns without copying sentences.

Step02

Generate a Style-Matched First Draft

Give the model the thesis, sources, audience, length, and selected style observations. Require citations or placeholders for factual material and a draft that advances the author's point of view.

Example prompt
Draft a post for [audience] arguing [thesis], using only the supplied sources for factual claims. Voice characteristics: [observed characteristics from my examples]. Length: [limit]. Preserve exact quotes and links. Mark unsupported claims [SOURCE NEEDED]. Avoid section headers unless the argument needs them. Sources and notes: [material].
Step03

Implement the 'AP English Teacher' Grading System

Ask a separate grading pass to evaluate the draft like a demanding English teacher. It should score specific dimensions, cite the passage behind each judgment, and propose targeted changes before producing any rewrite.

Example prompt
Grade this draft using the rubric below. For each dimension, give a score, quote the relevant passage, explain the deduction, and propose one concrete revision. Be demanding and do not reward polish without substance. Dimensions: hook, thesis, argument, evidence, paragraph flow, conclusion, brevity, and engagement. Do not rewrite yet. Draft: [text].
Step04

Define the Grading Rubric

Keep the rubric stable across rounds. Give extra weight to the opening, argument clarity, evidence, paragraph flow, conclusion, brevity, and reader value, with an explicit penalty for unsupported claims or altered quotations.

Example prompt
You're an experienced English teacher. Here's the letter grade numerical score, and then here are the evaluations, the hook, which, you know, argument, clarity, evidence, and examples, paragraph structure, conclusion, strength, overall engagement.
Step05

Iterate and Refine the Draft

Apply only the useful recommendations, then grade the new version against the same rubric. Repeat no more than a few times and compare word count, factual spans, and the specific problems fixed in each round.

Example prompt
Revise this draft using only these accepted recommendations: [list]. Keep every fact, quote, number, and link unchanged. Stay under [word count]. Then list the exact passages changed and which rubric issue each change addresses. Draft: [text].
Step06

Apply the Final Human Touch

Read the draft as the author. Restore natural phrasing, sharpen the point of view, check every claim and link against its source, and remove any transition or conclusion that sounds mechanically inserted. Publish only the version the author has actually read.

What good looks like

  • The draft makes one clear argument supported by source material rather than a generic topic summary.
  • The grader cites passages and explains score deductions instead of offering praise and a number.
  • Revision improves the hook, logic, evidence, transitions, conclusion, and brevity without changing facts.
  • The author verifies claims and links, rejects off voice edits, and approves the final text.

Build your next product with ChatPRD

Turn an idea into a PRD, user stories, and a plan.

Try ChatPRD free

After the steps

Runbook notes

How to recover when the loop fails and where human judgment helps.

Recover

If it goes sideways

Retrieved examples are topically similar but produce a generic imitation of the author
Choose a few representative pieces, describe the positive voice characteristics, and use the archive as reference rather than permission to copy phrases.
The model gives inflated or unstable scores with vague feedback
Require evidence for every deduction, use the same rubric each round, and compare the actual revision rather than chasing a target number.
A rewrite changes a quotation, number, link, or source claim
Lock cited material, compare factual spans after every round, and correct the draft from the original source.
Repeated self revision makes the post longer or mechanically polished
Limit the rounds, set a word budget, inspect each change, and let the author perform the last edit.

Start shipping
better products.

Join 100,000+ product managers who use ChatPRD to write better docs, align teams faster, and build products users love.

Free to start
No credit card
SOC 2 certified
Enterprise ready