AI internal link suggestions help an editor decide where an existing page could point to useful detail elsewhere on the same website. Screpy compares one public source URL with one to five candidate destination URLs you choose. It returns possible links using words already present in the extracted source text, with supporting excerpts from both pages.
Use the result as an editorial shortlist. The tool does not search your entire site, discover every destination or add links automatically. Your job is to check whether each proposed link helps the reader at that point, then implement the links you accept.
Choose destinations that answer the reader's next question
Enter the Source page URL, then one complete candidate destination URL per line. You can submit one to five candidates. They must use exactly the same hostname as the source: www.example.com and example.com are different hostnames, even if your website treats them as equivalent. Use public pages that can be read without signing in.
Submit the version of the hostname where the pages actually remain after redirects. If the source redirects to another hostname, it cannot be analyzed in this request. A candidate that redirects elsewhere is excluded as a destination. A redirect is not permission to compare a different website.
Choose candidates by the reader's likely next question. If a paragraph mentions a process without explaining it, a detailed guide to that process may be useful. A page sharing the same broad product keyword may add little. Read enough of each candidate to know what it offers before adding it to the shortlist.
The direction matters: this analysis proposes links from your source to those candidates. It does not find every other page that could link back to the source. For another source page or another set of destinations, run a separate comparison. An omitted URL is outside this request's scope, not a rejected opportunity.
Read the anchor and both supporting excerpts
Each suggestion contains an anchor phrase, a destination URL, an explanation, existing source text and supporting target text. The highlighted anchor helps you locate the proposed wording. It comes from an unlinked segment in the extracted source, rather than a new sentence written to force a link.
The tool checks that the anchor exists in that retained segment. Source and target excerpts are taken from the analyzed text, and the destination comes from a submitted candidate after validated redirects. The AI does not get to invent another URL or supply an invented quotation as evidence. These checks constrain the suggestion; they do not certify that it is the best editorial choice.
Read the source excerpt as a sentence, then read the target excerpt as an answer. Does the destination provide what a reader would expect after clicking those words? A topic match is weaker if the target only mentions the phrase in passing or addresses a different task.
Choose the explanation language for the reasoning. The anchor and supporting excerpts remain in their source languages so you can compare the actual words. Changing this setting does not translate the page or create a translated anchor.
Google's link guidance recommends descriptive, reasonably concise anchor text relevant to both pages, with useful surrounding context. Keep that reader expectation in mind instead of squeezing extra keywords into the link.
Compare a strong candidate with a weak one
Consider a fictional project-management website. These addresses and excerpts are an editorial illustration, not live pages or a recorded result from the tool.
The source page is https://example.com/guides/project-organization/. An unlinked passage says:
Keep current work in the workspace and move older records into an archive. Our guide to archiving completed projects explains how to keep finished work easy to find.
A candidate at https://example.com/guides/archiving-projects/ contains:
The archive guide covers moving a completed project out of the active list and finding it again when the team needs its records.
Another candidate, https://example.com/pricing/, contains:
Compare monthly project limits, team seats and billing terms across plans to choose the subscription that fits your organization.
The existing phrase “archiving completed projects” gives a clear expectation: an explanation of that process. The archive guide supports it directly. The pricing page discusses projects, but its excerpt does not answer the archiving question.
| Candidate | Evidence fit | Editorial decision |
|---|---|---|
| Archive guide | Explains moving completed work and finding it again. | A defensible destination for the existing archiving phrase, subject to full-page review. |
| Pricing page | Explains limits, seats and billing rather than archiving. | Do not force a link from this phrase merely because both pages mention projects. |
This is a relevance decision, not a keyword-count contest. It also does not predict exactly what the AI will return. A result may contain no suggestion if the retained text cannot support an appropriate existing anchor. If a relevant target lacks a suitable phrase in the source, decide whether the paragraph needs a genuine explanatory edit; the tool does not invent and insert that wording for you.
Interpret candidate coverage before judging the result
Read Candidate coverage as well as the suggestion list. Submitted candidates, analyzed candidates and proposed links are different counts. At most five suggestions are returned, with no more than one per destination. A successfully analyzed page does not have to receive a recommendation.
| Coverage state | What it tells you | Useful next action |
|---|---|---|
| Analyzed | Readable candidate material was available for comparison. | Review any suggestion and whether the scope is a limited excerpt. |
| Already linked | A link to that checked destination was found in the source HTML. | Inspect the existing placement instead of adding a duplicate automatically. |
| Source page itself | The candidate resolves to the source being reviewed. | Choose a distinct destination. |
| Duplicate destination | Another submitted candidate represents the same checked URL. | Keep a single useful version in the shortlist. |
| Unavailable | The candidate could not be retrieved for analysis. | Check public access and the URL before trying again. |
| Redirected to another hostname | The final page is outside the required hostname. | Review the destination and submit suitable same-host pages. |
| Not enough readable content | Too little usable text was extracted from the candidate. | Check what is present in the returned HTML. |
An already-linked status concerns the source HTML that was checked. It is not a verdict that the page has the perfect number or placement of links. Duplicate handling compares the checked URLs, not the full meaning of two articles; similar topics or alternate query strings are not automatically the same destination.
Zero suggestions can be a valid result when the available evidence does not justify a link, or when candidates are excluded before comparison. Partial coverage means some pages were unavailable or only excerpts were retained. If no required candidate can be analyzed, the request can be reported as unavailable rather than producing invented recommendations. None of these outcomes establishes that your entire website has no opportunities.
Account for HTML and excerpt limits
The tool reads returned HTML without running JavaScript. It selects readable content blocks, preferring the main content when a main region exists, and excludes common navigation and explicitly hidden content. This is not the same as rendering the page in a browser. Text loaded only after scripts run may be absent from the comparison.
Analysis retains up to 8,000 characters from the source and 1,500 from each candidate, with at most 80 text blocks per page. Reaching a limit is shown as excerpt-only coverage. A relevant section farther down a long destination may therefore be outside the evidence. An unobserved topic is not proof that the full page lacks it.
Each page fetch has a four-second budget and a 2 MiB HTML limit. These are retrieval bounds, not a promise that the whole AI comparison finishes in four seconds. Slow, inaccessible or unsupported pages can leave coverage incomplete.
When the result does not match what you see in your browser, compare the reported scope with the actual source and target content before dismissing it. Check whether the useful passage is in the original HTML and inside the retained excerpt. Review the full destination yourself before adding a link, especially when a truncation or availability notice is present.
Add only links you can defend in context
Choose Copy anchor and URL after reviewing the full pages. The button copies the phrase and address as text; it does not insert a link into your site or produce an automatic content update. Find the phrase in your editor, use the normal link control and check the surrounding sentence again.
After publishing the edit, open the source page and follow the new link. Confirm that the wording describes the destination, the URL reaches the intended content and the link is present where you expected. If you edit HTML directly, use an ordinary anchor element with an href pointing to the destination, as described in Google's linked guidance above.
There is no need to use all five possible suggestions. Google does not prescribe a universal ideal number of links per page. Add the links that serve a distinct reader need without turning neighboring words into a chain of competing links. A suggestion count is not a ranking or indexing guarantee.
Use Internal Link Analyzer to inspect links already present on a page. If an existing destination appears broken or unreachable, use Broken Link Checker to investigate that separate problem. AI Internal Link Suggestions helps you make an editorial connection; it does not replace a site-wide link audit or measure the search impact of the edit.