GEO Audit Report
This page scores one homepage against 40 published checks across twelve weighted dimensions, and lists what failed with the evidence the check produced. The scan runs when the page loads.
Reading the homepage and robots.txt…
The scan fetches the page the way a crawler would, then reads robots.txt, llms.txt and the sitemap if they exist. It takes a few seconds because it does five real requests rather than reading a cache.
Nothing about the site is stored. The result exists only in the URL you are on, and re-loading this page runs the scan again.
| What is fetched | Why it affects the score |
|---|---|
| the homepage | Carries the highest weight of the twelve dimensions, because a page a crawler cannot read has no path to being quoted at all |
| /robots.txt | The site's stated intent about who may crawl, which is the only authoritative answer available to a scanner |
| /llms.txt | Worth 5% and no more, because the evidence behind it is weak |
| /sitemap.xml | Discoverability, and whether the site bothers to publish one |
Get this checked every week
The audit above is finished, and nothing about it was withheld. If you want the same checks run on a schedule, leave an address and the weekly report arrives with what changed: a score, the grade, and the checks that newly fail. One message a week, and one click stops it.
What a paid report looks like
The scan above reads your pages. The report asks an AI engine your buyers' questions and records what it said. This is the shape of that document.
Illustrative sample
AI visibility measurement — sample report
Sample brand “Northwind Labs” (fictional) · 29 questions × 3 runs · 1 engine · illustrative figures, not a measurement of anyone
Readiness — sample scan of vercel.com
26/40 published checks · scanned 2026-11-05
The free scan produces the ring and the profile below. The paid report adds the engine answers underneath.
| Dimension | Score |
|---|---|
| AI Crawler Access | 94 |
| Machine Readability | 100 |
| Content Depth | 73 |
| Citability & Evidence | 45 |
| Answer Readiness | 50 |
| Trust & Authority | 100 |
| Semantic Structure | 100 |
| Metadata & Discoverability | 86 |
| AI Context Files | 83 |
| Freshness | 0 |
| International Readiness | 100 |
| Delivery & Mobile | 50 |
Question bank (excerpt)
- What tools help a small team track AI search visibility?
- Is Northwind Labs worth paying for compared with a spreadsheet?
- How do I measure whether ChatGPT mentions my brand?
Per-question counts
| Question | Mentioned Northwind | Named instead |
|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 2 of 3 | G2, Reddit, a competitor blog |
| Q2 | 0 of 3 | Two named competitors |
| Q3 | 1 of 3 | Capterra, YouTube |
| Q4 | 3 of 3 | — |
| … 25 more questions | … | … |
Raw answer (excerpt)
“…for a small team, the practical options are a spreadsheet with a fixed question set, or a tool that runs the questions for you. Northwind Labs is one of the tools that does this; it is not the cheapest, and for a single brand the spreadsheet is usually enough to start…”
Share of voice (demo)
Citation graph (demo)
Cited domains by frequency
- g2.com — 14 citations
- reddit.com — 9 citations
- a competitor’s comparison page — 7 citations
- your own domain — 3 citations
The full report adds every answer verbatim, the facts the answers asserted, and an action list read off the counts. The data workbook carries one row per run so any number can be traced back to the answer it came from.
This is a sample. Your report uses your brand, your questions and your engines.
What the score is measuring
Whether your pages are in a state that makes being cited possible. That is a narrower claim than it sounds, and a deliberate one.
The number is also placed against a published reference: in the 1,000-site benchmark, 620 AI-tool homepages were scored with the same 40 checks and the median was 53/100. The line under your result gives your percentile against that sample. It is a sample of AI-tool homepages, not of your industry, so read it as a reference point rather than a ranking of your market.
GEO can boost visibility by up to 40% overall in generative engine responses, and in the paper’s Table 1 the best of the tested methods improve on the no-optimization baseline by 41% and 28%. — Generative Engine Optimization, KDD 2024
Those figures are why citability and evidence carry 11% of the score and answer readiness a further 10%, while a context file carries 5%. Every weight, every check and every pass condition is published on the methodology page, and the analyser itself is open source at github.com/Alex13192/geo-scanner.
What this report cannot tell you
It does not ask any AI engine about you. Nothing here measures whether ChatGPT currently recommends your brand, and a high score is not a promise of a citation.
- Only the homepage is analysed. Interior pages are outside a single-URL scan entirely. The free scan above is the whole product: it needs no account, no email and no payment, and it stays free.
- A refused request is not proof of a block. Large sites verify crawlers by IP, so a scanner can be turned away while real crawler traffic is served normally. The verdict follows robots.txt, which is stated intent.
- Performance checks are coarse. Real Core Web Vitals need a browser, and this scanner deliberately does not run one.
Once you have a score, the badge generator turns it into something you can embed, and the llms.txt studio drafts the context file the AI Context Files dimension looks for.