A content gap matters when it stops a reader from understanding something, making a decision or completing a task. Screpy's AI Content Gap Analyzer compares your page or draft with one reference you choose. It returns up to eight coverage ideas with source excerpts, an assessment of your existing discussion and an editorial priority. Use those ideas to decide what deserves a better explanation. The comparison does not discover competitors, inspect their rankings or prove that a topic is missing from your whole website.
Choose two pages that answer the same reader need
Start with the page you want to improve and a reference addressing a similar question for a similar audience. A beginner's setup guide and another setup guide make a useful pair. A setup guide and a pricing page may share product terminology while serving different purposes. A famous competitor is not automatically the right reference.
For each side, independently choose a public page URL or pasted text. This lets you compare two published pages, a draft with a live reference, or two drafts. Pasted text must contain 200–10,000 characters. Keep the title, relevant headings, examples and qualifications rather than stripping the text down to isolated keywords. Each source needs enough meaningful readable content to compare.
- Put the material you want to improve under Your content.
- Put the comparison material under Reference content. Its presence does not make it authoritative or correct.
- Optionally enter a topic or keyword to focus the comparison. This field guides the editorial task; it does not retrieve search volume or competing results.
- Choose the language for generated explanations and recommendations, then compare the content.
The output language does not translate the supporting source excerpts. Those remain in their original language so you can find and check them. Review the source summary and analyzed character counts before treating the ideas as a comparison of the complete pages.
Read coverage and evidence before priority
Each idea combines a topic, a recommendation, a priority and an assessment of coverage in your analyzed text. The coverage label answers a narrower question than whether your page is good enough.
| Coverage label | How to interpret it | What to check next |
|---|---|---|
| Observed | The analyzed text discusses the topic | Does it answer the reader's question clearly, or could the explanation improve? |
| Limited discussion | Some relevant discussion was identified | Is there a missing step, example, qualification or decision? |
| Not observed in analyzed text | The analysis did not identify coverage in the supplied excerpt | Read the full page before deciding it is absent |
| Uncertain | The comparison could not confidently assess coverage | Inspect both sources and decide manually |
Open Evidence to read the reference excerpt and, when available, your own excerpt. The quoted text comes from retained source material. That makes the quotation traceable; it does not establish that the model interpreted it correctly or that the reference's claims are true. A missing primary excerpt is not proof that your full page omits the subject.
Priority is a separate judgment. Red, amber and blue distinguish high, medium and low editorial priorities; they do not report technical errors or measured SEO severity. A high-priority suggestion may still be inappropriate for your audience. The summary counts ideas, not lost traffic, keyword difficulty or predicted ranking gains. Evaluate the evidence and reader need before acting on the color.
A content gap example: adding a missing decision
Consider these original, fictional excerpts from two guides about exporting project tasks. They illustrate an editorial comparison, not an actual tool response or a tested product feature.
Your draft
Open the project, choose Export and save the CSV file. You can select a date range before exporting. The download contains the tasks visible in your current view. If the file looks incomplete, check your filters and try again. Keep a copy of the original export before editing it.
Reference excerpt
Before exporting project tasks, clear filters if you need the complete project. Check whether completed tasks are included in the view. After downloading the CSV, compare its task count with that view. Our enterprise plan also includes custom onboarding for large teams.
Both passages discuss export completeness. The draft already mentions filters, so recommending a new generic paragraph about filters would add little. The reference gives a more specific decision: whether the visible view includes completed tasks. It also contains a sales detail that does not necessarily belong in a practical export guide.
| Possible idea | Editorial decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Explain filters again | Adapt the existing troubleshooting sentence | Avoid repeating advice already present |
| Check inclusion of completed tasks | Investigate, then add a step if supported | It could explain an incomplete export, but the behavior must be verified for your own product |
| Add enterprise onboarding | Reject for this guide | A competitor's commercial offer does not establish a reader need or a feature you provide |
A useful brief would ask the editor to verify export behavior, show where the inclusion setting is located if one exists, and explain how readers can check the result. It would not copy the reference or claim the draft lacks all troubleshooting. The value comes from resolving a specific uncertainty, not matching another page's section count.
Prioritize useful changes without copying the reference
Treat the ideas as candidates for review. First ask what the reader cannot currently do or understand. Then check whether the proposed addition solves that problem within this page's purpose. A troubleshooting step might belong in a how-to guide; a detailed contract comparison might belong on another page.
Confirm the facts independently. A reference excerpt can contain outdated instructions, unsupported statistics or capabilities your business does not offer. Repeating those claims would make the page less trustworthy even if the AI assigned a high priority. Use your own documented process, examples and evidence when writing the improvement.
Google's guidance on helpful content asks whether a page adds original value beyond copying or rewriting other sources. It also states that Google has no preferred word count. A content gap analysis should therefore produce a better answer, not an arbitrary requirement to add a certain number of words to every topic.
Choose the smallest complete change that resolves the reader's problem. That might be one clear sentence, a worked example or a substantive new section. If the opportunity depends on search demand or business value, assess those separately using relevant evidence; the editorial priority in this report does not measure either.
Understand limited excerpts and unsuccessful comparisons
URL mode reads page HTML without running JavaScript. It retains up to 10,000 characters and 80 text blocks, excluding common navigation and explicitly hidden content. A long article, an interactive page or text loaded only after a click may therefore be represented incompletely. A Limited excerpt warning means suggestions apply to the retained material, not the full page.
If an important section is missing from that material, paste the relevant text instead. Keep enough surrounding context and stay within the 200–10,000-character limit. Pasted text beyond the limit is rejected rather than silently shortened. Selecting a narrower excerpt also narrows what the comparison can establish; do not interpret it as a full-article audit.
Distinguish three outcomes:
- No coverage ideas: comparable material did not produce a defensible opportunity. This does not certify complete coverage or strong SEO performance.
- Not comparable: the sources did not share enough topic and purpose. Choose a more relevant reference rather than forcing unrelated pages into a gap list.
- Source unavailable: a required page could not supply enough readable content or could not be retrieved. Check the URL and public access, or explicitly switch that source to pasted text. The tool does not substitute a different page.
Repeated runs can produce different judgments. When a recommendation conflicts with the visible source, trust the source review over the label. Never interpret an empty or unsuccessful analysis as evidence that the page needs no work.
Turn selected gaps into an editorial brief
For each accepted idea, record the reader question, the source evidence, the change you intend to make and how you will verify its accuracy. Note whether it expands an existing explanation or warrants a new section. This gives the writer a defined task instead of a vague instruction to make the article longer.
Use Heading Structure Analyzer to inspect the existing page outline before choosing where a new explanation belongs. If several accepted changes require restructuring a draft, use AI Content Outline Generator to develop an outline from the topic and your editorial requirements. Neither step turns the comparison into automatic publication.
After editing, reread the whole page for repeated advice, contradictions and unsupported claims. Check that the new material answers the original reader question and that examples describe your own product or process accurately. The final decision is whether the page now helps readers complete their task, not whether it contains every subject mentioned by the reference.