Пишіть сторінки,
що тримають позиції.

Refresh brief: https://www.getlooploop.com/glossary/ai-visibility

Sources. Crawl 32 of getlooploop.com (28 Oct 2026, 300 of 300 pages, embeddings on) gave the fix list, get_pages data and semantic search. A live URL audit on 28 Oct 2026 at 14:11 GMT gave status, text, headings, JSON-LD and robots.txt. measure_text on the current page text gave passage positions. Anything marked "judgment" is mine.

The 3 most important changes

1. Add an author and real dates.
2. Crawl 32: ai.noAuthor and ai.noDate both fail for this page, and get_pages returns empty author, datePublished and dateModified.
3. URL audit: the visible text says "Updated September 2026" and "Prepared at GetLoopLoop", with no named person. The DefinedTerm JSON-LD has no dates and no author.
4. Change: show a byline linked to an author page, with a Person that has sameAs. Add datePublished and dateModified to the JSON-LD and show the same dates on the page.
5. What it unblocks: an assistant can see who stands behind the page and how current it is.
6. Verify: run audit_url and check that trust.author, trust.datePublished and trust.dateModified are filled. Then re-run crawl 32's checks and confirm the URL no longer appears under ai.noAuthor and ai.noDate.

1. Move the SEO-difference answer up, and add sections for the questions this page answers worst.
2. measure_text, current page, 10 passages: the answer to "How is AI visibility different from SEO?" sits at passage 8, although the tool's rule is that the answer should appear by passage 2. Its score is 0.727, so the content is fine and only the position is wrong.
3. measure_text, current page: the robots.txt question scores 0.464 at passage 6, and the timing question scores 0.470 at passage 3. Both scores are weak.
4. Semantic search, crawl 32, rank of this page among our pages: see the table in the next part.
5. Change: add the sections listed in "Sections to add" below.
6. Verify: run measure_text again with the new draft and the same six queries, and look for scores above the current ones and the SEO answer at passage 2 or earlier.

1. Source or remove the unsourced numbers, and label the example.
2. URL audit: the only source is the generic "Google Search Central" link. The page says "at least three high-quality backlinks" and "a few weeks" with no source.
3. URL audit: the "Worked example" is a made-up BrandX quote written as if it were a real test.
4. Change: link each figure to its source, or reword it as a judgment. Mark the BrandX example as illustrative.
5. Verify: audit_url should show trust.statSentences and external content links that match the claims.

Facts and dates to update

• Visible date. "Updated September 2026". Today is 28 Oct 2026. Update it only after you actually change the content, and put the same date in dateModified.
• Crawl 32 fix list for this page: titles.below30, ai.noAuthor, ai.noDate, content.lowRatio, headers.insecureCookies, security.no_xcto, security.no_csp, security.no_xfo, security.no_referrer.
• Title. The title is "AI Visibility — GetLoopLoop", 27 characters. Add the topic.
• Section 03 (measurement). It names "Google's AI Search or Microsoft Copilot". Check the product names against current ones.
• Section 03 (measurement). It says "no public score" and does not mention our own tools, Brandscope or Vectorscope. Judgment: say what they measure.
• Section 08 answers. Some start with "Yes" or "No" and do not answer the question asked. For example, "why isn't my brand showing up?" is answered with "Yes, the AI may not be pulling…".
• AI access, URL audit of 28 Oct 2026. robots.txt allows Googlebot, GPTBot, OAI-SearchBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot and Google-Extended for /glossary (group *, line 17). Bot by bot:
• OAI-SearchBot: allowed, so ChatGPT search can fetch the page.
• Googlebot: allowed, so Google Search and AI Overviews can fetch it.
• ClaudeBot: allowed. It controls training only, and says nothing about Claude search.
• Claude-SearchBot: not checked, because the tool did not list it.
• Sitemap. The URL audit reports inSitemap: false. Check sitemap.xml yourself before acting.
• Alt text. The URL audit reports 6 images with no alt text. Crawl 32 does not list images.missingAlt for this page, so the two sources disagree. Check this.
• Accessibility, axe-core in the URL audit: two serious violations, color-contrast (3 nodes) and link-in-text-block (the CC BY 4.0 link).

Sections to add

Rank is this page's rank among our pages in semantic search on crawl 32. "Passage" is the best-matching passage number from measure_text on the current page.

What to add:

• A robots.txt section by bot. Say that OAI-SearchBot controls ChatGPT search, that Claude-SearchBot controls Claude search, and that Googlebot controls Google Search and AI Overviews. Say that GPTBot, ClaudeBot and Google-Extended control training only. This is the weakest question (rank 13).
• A short section on timing. The current answer, "a few weeks", has no source. Describe what to re-check and when. Do not promise a timeline.
• A "how to measure" section that names the tools. It should say what Brandscope and Vectorscope show, and link to them. /brandscope currently beats this page on this question.
• A "how to get cited" section. Cover which passages assistants quote. Judgment: link /news/brands-in-ai-answers-october-2026-a-market-analysis, which scored 0.548 on this question.

Limit of these results. Semantic search returned only the page-level block, headed "GetLoopLoop", for every result, so it could not name which section answers. I used measure_text passage numbers instead. Only passages 1 (intro), 3 (section 02) and 4 (section 03) have previews. The other numbers are positions only.

Sections to merge or remove (judgment, plus one measured fact)

• Section 08 "Asked out loud" and section 07 FAQ. Both are Q&A blocks that repeat each other, and the FAQ JSON-LD copies all 9 of them. Merge them into one FAQ of roughly 5 questions. Drop the generic ones, "Should we invest now or wait?" and "Is it still relevant after LLM updates?", unless you add specifics.
• Section 05 and the SEO FAQ answer. Both say AI visibility is different from SEO. Keep the answer once, near the top.
• "Quick audit checklist" and section 02. Both list the same actions. Keep one.
• The last sentence of section 01. "It is how often a brand appears…" repeats the definition in the intro.
• Section 09. It is an alphabetical list of unrelated terms: "Accountability, Action Space, ads.txt…". Replace it with 4 to 5 terms that really relate to this one.
• Cannibalization. The nearest page is /glossary/ai-overview at cosine 0.766, below the 0.94 cannibalization threshold. This page is not in the crawl 32 cannibal list. No merge is needed.

Internal links to add

• From the crawl 32 "links" opportunities: I searched all 239 for addLinkOn or linkTo pointing at this URL. There are none that point to it.
• The only entry involving this page goes outward: add a link from this page to /glossary/ai-overview with the anchor "ai overview" (similarity 0.814).
• Check. The single-page audit shows inlinks: 0 and linkScore: 0 for this page. That figure comes from the audit, not from the full crawl, so confirm it in crawl 32 before saying nothing links here.
• Judgment, not from the tool: /brandscope, /glossary/robots-txt, /glossary/share-of-voice and /glossary/ai-referral-traffic are the closest pages by meaning. Link them from the new sections above.

How to verify after publication

1. Run audit_url on the page. Check author, dates, title length, JSON-LD and the 6 robots.txt verdicts, and add a check for Claude-SearchBot if the tool supports it.
2. Run measure_text with the final draft and the same six queries. Look for the SEO answer at passage 2 or earlier and higher scores on the robots.txt and timing questions. Confirm that the nearest page stays below 0.94.
3. Run a new crawl, or audit_url for this page, and confirm the URL is no longer listed under ai.noAuthor, ai.noDate and titles.below30.
4. Run the semantic searches again and compare ranks with the table above.
5. Check the Spanish version /es/glossary/ai-visibility. It is linked through hreflang and needs the same date and author changes.

What I did not cover

• Search Console. There is no Search Console tool in this session, so I have no 90-day queries and no comparison with the previous 90 days.
• Crawl 32 size. It reached its limit of 300 URLs with 0 queued, so it may not include every page on the site.
• Semantic search. It gave page-level results only, with no named sections.
• measure_text baseline. I passed the page text as plain text, so the tool counted 3 passages. The live page measured 10, and I used the live page numbers.
• Not checked. I did not check Claude-SearchBot in robots.txt, and I did not check llms.txt.
• Other fixes. The security-header and cookie fixes are low importance and not covered here.

I can publish this as a shareable page if you want to pass it to the content team.

Stale, undated and unsourced content: crawl 32

Sources:

• Crawl 32 is the open crawl of getlooploop.com, 28 Oct 2026. It holds 300 pages, all with embeddings, and the URL limit was not hit.
• URL audit means audit_url runs on 10 pages, 28 Oct 2026 at about 14:13 UTC.
• No Search Console data was used.

No crawl was running. I did not start one.

Most important changes

1. Add a visible byline linked to an author profile page, plus a JSON-LD author Person. (crawl 32) 225 of 300 pages fail ai.noAuthor. I audited 10 of them (URL audit). The only Person in their JSON-LD is the site founder, "Olexandr", inside the sitewide Organization block. The skill pages name the publisher repo, such as agricidaniel/claude-seo, as an Organization author. The /questions answers are the exception. They carry a Person author with a LinkedIn URL, not an on-site profile.
2. The pages are built from templates, so this is a handful of template edits.
3. I did not check whether /about#author (the founder's @id) resolves to a real page. Check that first.
4. To verify, re-run the crawl, or run audit_url on one page, and confirm ai.noAuthor no longer lists the URL.
5. Show a publish or modified date on the page, and put the same date in JSON-LD. (crawl 32) 218 of 300 pages fail ai.noDate.
6. Every page that fails ai.noDate also fails ai.noAuthor.
7. On the 10 audited pages, JSON-LD has dateModified on only 2: /ai-volatility (2026-10-28) and /gllmolfar (2026-10-27). /questions has per-question dateCreated in JSON-LD (Aug 2026), but I did not see a visible date for it in the text I read.
8. On the skill pages the only visible date is "Last read Oct 26, 2026". That is a directory sync date. It is not a publish or modified date, and JSON-LD has none.
9. Verify with ai.noDate.
10. Link a source next to each number. (crawl 32) 42 pages fail ai.claims. 36 of them are in Technical seo (24) and Workflows published (14), and these are mostly skill pages.
11. On the 10 audited pages (URL audit), extContentLinks is 0 on every page, so there are no outbound links inside the content.
12. On /ai-volatility the figures are the site's own measurement, and a "How do we measure any of this?" section exists. Link that method from the numbers themselves.
13. Verify with ai.claims.

ai.stale flags 0 pages in crawl 32. That does not show the content is fresh. With 218 pages undated, the checker cannot judge age for them.

Access is not the problem. (URL audit) robots.txt allows Googlebot, OAI-SearchBot and ClaudeBot on all 10 pages. These fixes are on-page.

Pages by topic (crawl 32)

Each page was scored by how many of the 4 fix keys it fails. ai.stale is 0 for every page, so the maximum score is 3. 37 pages score 3.

The score columns come from my own set arithmetic over the get_pages lists. They sum to each topic's total.

The topic labels are GLLmolfar's embedding clusters, and they are loose. "Ai news" holds glossary hubs and category pages, not only news. I did not check each cluster.

URL audit of 10 pages

All 10 fail all three of ai.noDate, ai.noAuthor and ai.claims. Another 27 pages tie at the same score, so this is a spread across topics that I chose, not a ranking.

The skill pages already show an install count labelled "from the directory", with a skills.sh link in the text and in the schema. The gap is that this is not a source link attached to the number inside the content. I did not read the pages in full, so the dates and sources marked "none in the text I read" could appear lower on the page.

Plan per topic

• Workflows published (101 pages) and Technical seo (55 pages). These are mostly skill pages from one template.
• Add a "Last reviewed" or modified date to the template, and fill dateModified in JSON-LD from the same value. Use the directory sync date only if it is labelled as that.
• Add a GetLoopLoop reviewer byline linked to a profile page. Keep the skill's publisher in the page as the skill's publisher, not as the page's author.
• Attach the source link to the install counts and the "+x%" figures. Fix the 36 ai.claims pages first.
• Verify with a re-crawl and ai.noDate, ai.noAuthor and ai.claims.
• Ai getlooploop (53) and Ad affiliate (33). All 85 are glossary entries that fail the date and author checks, and none fails ai.claims.
• Add datePublished and dateModified to the glossary template.
• Add an author or reviewer line.
• Fix the template once. One template change covers the whole topic.
• Verify with a re-crawl, then ai.noDate and ai.noAuthor.
• Ai news (30). This is the only topic where ai.noAuthor (20) exceeds ai.noDate (14). The news articles and /news have a date but no author.
• Add a byline to the 5 news articles and /news.
• Add the date and byline to /ai-volatility, /questions and the three language glossary hubs.
• Link the method next to the volatility figures.
• Verify with ai.noAuthor, ai.noDate and ai.claims.
• Vectorscope ai (12). Add a date and author to /voicescope, /brandscope, /patternscope, /reviewscope, /vectorscope and /methodology. Add a byline to /vectorscope/claude-skill, which already has a date. Source the numbers on /voicescope. Verify with ai.noDate and ai.noAuthor.
• Text robots (10), Testing variance (5), No topic (1). These are glossary entries. The template fix for the glossary covers them. /glossary/robots-txt and /glossary/llms-txt are the pages where a date matters most, because the topic changes over time. Verify with ai.noDate and ai.noAuthor.

What I did not cover

• Only 10 of the 37 pages that score 3 were audited. The other 27 are in the ai.claims list. I did not audit any score 2 page or any page from the topics with no claims.
• audit_url returned only the start of each page's text, so whether a visible date or byline appears further down is unconfirmed.
• I did not check whether /about exists or has a Person profile.
• My first ai.noDate and ai.noAuthor calls were too large to print. I re-fetched them with only the columns url and topic, and all 218 and 225 rows came back. The set arithmetic for the table is mine.
• The shell was unavailable, so I did no scripted analysis of the saved files.
• The audits also showed schema errors (for example SoftwareApplication.aggregateRating|review) and security-header fixes. I did not report those here.
• No Jira tasks were created and no Search Console data was used.

I can write the Jira tasks (one per fix key) or publish this as a shareable page if you want either.

Structured data plan for getlooploop.com

Source: crawl 32, 2026-10-28 (300 pages, health 89). The page-level findings come from URL audits run on 2026-10-28 at about 14:15 UTC. Fix counts come from count_pages. The proposed JSON-LD is my judgment.

Crawl state: no crawl was running. I did not start one.

The 3 most important changes

1. *Fix the SoftwareApplication block on the /skills/ template.** This one template has 147 of the 156 error pages and 147 of the 161 warning pages.
2. The error is aggregateRating|review missing.
3. The warnings are Offer.url, Offer.availability, and Organization.url/logo/sameAs.
4. The Organization warnings probably come from the inline author, which has only a name.
5. Don't invent ratings. The pages show install counts, not reviews. Add the missing Offer and author properties and decide separately about the rating error (see Section 3).
6. Make the news headline match the visible H1 and clean up dateModified.
7. The headline in the JSON-LD is "Search & AI news, 22–26 Oct 2026: AI Overviews pass 80%". The visible H1 is "AI Overviews pass 80% as the clicks stay thin".
8. dateModified is 2 ms after datePublished, so it looks auto-generated. The page shows no modified date.
9. Fix /gllmolfar.
10. It lacks offers, which is an error.
11. It also lacks a rating or review.
12. Its publisher is an inline Organization that lacks logo and sameAs. Point it at the #organization node with an @id reference.
13. The page says "Preview 0.7.35", but get_status reports the local app as GLLmolfar 0.8.1. Confirm which version is current before you publish softwareVersion.

1. Counts by template (crawl 32)

Every page has some JSON-LD. The problem is incomplete properties, not absent markup.

2. URL audits (one URL per template)

3. Proposed JSON-LD

Facts in the snippets come from the audited pages. Anything marked TODO needs a real value from you.

Home (/)

The Organization already exists, and its sameAs lists only X and Discord. Add real profiles you own, such as a company LinkedIn page or GitHub org. Don't add a profile that doesn't exist.

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@graph": [
    {
      "@type": "Organization",
      "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/#organization",
      "name": "GetLoopLoop",
      "url": "https://www.getlooploop.com",
      "logo": "https://www.getlooploop.com/brand/getlooploop-logo.jpg",
      "sameAs": [
        "https://x.com/Looploopnow",
        "https://discord.gg/Z6cRuhprMa"
        /* TODO: add company LinkedIn / GitHub URLs if they exist */
      ],
      "founder": { "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/about#author" }
    }
  ]
}

In the existing home SoftwareApplication, add "url" to the Offer. Use the page that explains invite-only access, which is a TODO. In the ItemList, give each ListItem an item as well as url:

{ "@type": "ListItem", "position": 1, "name": "Vectorscope",
  "item": "https://www.getlooploop.com/vectorscope" }

• I only saw the first part of the home JSON-LD. The tool output cut it off partway through the ItemList. Re-check the rest after the change.
• The home Offer says price 0 with LimitedAvailability. The visible text says "Invite-only". Make sure the markup says the same.
• Don't add a date to the home page. The only date I saw on it belongs to an article card.

Posts (/news/*)

There are no errors. Change the headline, drop or correct dateModified, and add an image:

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "NewsArticle",
  "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/news/ai-overviews-pass-80-as-the-clicks-stay-thin#article",
  "headline": "AI Overviews pass 80% as the clicks stay thin",
  "datePublished": "2026-10-26T18:18:47.010Z",
  "dateModified": "2026-10-26T18:18:47.010Z",
  "image": ["TODO: https://www.getlooploop.com/<real article image>"],
  "author": {
    "@type": "Person",
    "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/about#author",
    "name": "Olexandr",
    "url": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/olexandr-tsyrkin-07460539"
  },
  "publisher": { "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/#organization" },
  "mainEntityOfPage": "https://www.getlooploop.com/news/ai-overviews-pass-80-as-the-clicks-stay-thin"
}

• Headline: the new text matches the visible H1.
• Dates: datePublished matches the visible "26 October 2026". Only set dateModified to a later time if the page shows a real update.
• Word count: the current wordCount of 2847 differs from the crawler's count of 3161 words. I left it out. Add it back only if it is computed from the rendered text.
• Author: "Olexandr" matches the visible author line.

Product (/gllmolfar)

Use SoftwareApplication. Product doesn't apply to a desktop app.

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "SoftwareApplication",
  "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/gllmolfar#software",
  "name": "GLLmolfar",
  "url": "https://www.getlooploop.com/gllmolfar",
  "applicationCategory": "SEO software",
  "operatingSystem": "Windows 10 or later, macOS on Apple silicon",
  "softwareVersion": "TODO: confirm (page says 0.7.35, local app is 0.8.1)",
  "offers": {
    "@type": "Offer",
    "price": "0",
    "priceCurrency": "USD",
    "url": "https://www.getlooploop.com/gllmolfar",
    "availability": "https://schema.org/InStock"
  },
  "publisher": { "@id": "https://www.getlooploop.com/#organization" }
}

• Offer: the page's visible text says "50,000 URLs per crawl, free with an account". price: 0 agrees with that. If paid levels get their own offers, add them.
• dateModified: the existing markup says 2026-10-27. I found no visible date to match it, so drop it unless the page shows one.

Skills (/skills/*)

Keep the existing SoftwareApplication, WebPage and BreadcrumbList. Change the author and the Offer:

"author": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "agricidaniel/claude-seo",
            "url": "TODO: the publisher's real URL shown on the page" },
"offers": { "@type": "Offer", "price": "0", "priceCurrency": "USD",
            "availability": "https://schema.org/InStock",
            "url": "https://www.getlooploop.com/skills/agricidaniel/claude-seo/seo-schema" }

• Generate these fields from the template data, so every skill page gets its own publisher and URL.
• The name seo-schema and the 7,079 installs agree with the visible page.
• Rating or review error: you have two choices.
• Add a real aggregate rating or review only if you collect and show them.
• Otherwise accept the error as "not applicable". I can't tell from the crawl whether the rating-or-review property is required for rich results, so check the current Google documentation.

4. Google changes the rich result types

Google changes the rich result types. Check the current Google documentation before you depend on one. The seo-schema skill page on your own site, a data point from the crawl, says Google retired several types in 2025. FAQPage is one that its text flags as having no Google SERP rich result benefit.

5. Verify

• Run audit_url on each representative page after the change. The page is clean when its structured.errors and structured.warnings keys no longer list it.
• Run a new crawl to confirm the full templates.
• Check the markup against Google's current documentation or Rich Results Test. This change only unblocks eligibility and does not promise a rich result.

6. What I did not cover

• Crawl limit: crawl 32 hit its limit of 300 pages. A larger skills directory or other sections may exist.
• Pages I audited: only 4 pages, one per template. I did not audit /methodology, /brandscope, /patternscope, /reviewscope, /voicescope, /vectorscope, /free-tools, /news and /notes. They may differ from my samples.
• Home JSON-LD: truncated in the audit output, as noted above.
• Lists: I saw all 156 error URLs and all 161 warning URLs. I cut none.
• Tools and sources: no tool failed. I did not use Search Console or the Rich Results Test. Embeddings were not relevant to this task.

Appendix: pages per template with warnings or errors

The full URL lists are in get_fix_urls for structured.errors (156) and structured.warnings (161). The /skills/* group has about 60 publisher folders. The largest are claude-seo (25 pages), affaan-m/ecc (11), google/skills (10), marketingskills (9), aaron-he-zhu/seo-geo-claude-skills (8) and wshobson/agents (8).

Brief for a product landing page (reverse prompting)

Source: reverse prompting of https://www.getlooploop.com/gllmolfar, run mvs7769j56e7de7a, 2026-10-28. Build status: built, 13 blocks from 15 candidates. This is my reading of the page (judgment), not crawl or audit data.

get_status showed no crawl running (crawl 32 loaded, idle). I did not start one.

Three things to know first

1. The page opens with the result, then admits it is a preview. Hero first, then a block saying the build is unfinished and unsigned. Keep that order: candour comes early, before the feature detail.
2. Every claim comes with a limit. Scores, similarity and AI-readiness are described as leads for human review, never as rank or traffic promises. Copy this pattern in each feature block.
3. The build passed on the second try. The first build listed 6 overlap problems (lines repeating 6+ words from the page). I fixed only those lines and rebuilt.

Page profile

• Language: en
• Fictional example product: Sitelens, a desktop auditor that scans a site, shows how assistants read it, and ranks repairs.
• Page type: product landing page for a downloadable, preview-stage desktop tool.
• Audience: SEO specialists, content teams, freelance consultants and site owners who must decide what to repair first.
• Awareness: comparing_solutions.
• Tone: candid, precise, technical but plain; formality 3; second person.
• Promise: {product} gives {audience} a clear, evidence-backed list of what to repair next, without guessing, spreadsheet juggling or sending page text to a cloud service.
• Logic: result and download, then preview limits, views, method, evidence, data boundary, answers, honest rival table, closing download.
• Threads:
• each finding links to the exact pages behind it;
• analysis runs on the user's machine;
• limits are stated openly;
• a score is a lead for review.

Block prompts

Each prompt starts "Write a … block for {product}, aimed at {audience}. Write in English." Below are the job and the structure, with word counts as the build gives them.

Techniques that recur across blocks

• Put the result before the mechanism, and the mechanism before the numbers.
• Open each answer or card with the direct point, then one concrete detail, then a limit.
• Give each caveat its own plain sentence.
• Mark every comparison row with a symbol and a short qualifier, and concede rows where rivals do more.
• Avoid: superlatives, ranking or citation promises, naming rivals, apologetic wording.

What I did not cover

• Dropped candidates: b01 (navigation, tool menu and footer links) and b12 (two placeholder release notes). The brief also excluded one 13-word overlay.
• Truncated source text: several long paragraphs in the brief end in "…". My word ranges for those blocks rest on the brief's counts, not the full text.
• Build warnings: the build flagged 7 example lines as outside the stated range by more than 20%. The blocks are fine, and these are example texts only:
• Signal family 1 paragraph: 14 words against 18–25.
• Conduct note: 51 words against 80–95.
• Depth modes paragraph: 45 words against 75–90.
• Local storage paragraph: 30 words against 40–50.
• FAQ answer 1: 23 words against 35–135. It is only just outside the 20% tolerance and sits under the lower bound.
• Comparison headline: 7 words against 3–5.
• Comparison row 1 cell: 7 words against 20–60.
• Fix: lengthen or shorten those example lines, or widen the ranges, then rebuild.
• Names removed: the brand, rival and tool names are replaced with generic wording, as the rules require, so the examples contain no real product names.
• Not run: no crawl, semantic search, URL audit or Search Console data. Nothing here is a ranking or traffic claim.

To verify the changes, rebuild with the corrected example lines and check that reverse_prompts_build returns no warnings.