How CiteFuel Scores AI Visibility — Full Methodology
Why we publish this: the GEO/AEO space has a snake-oil problem. Tools publish opaque "AI scores" with no explanation of inputs, weights, or validation. We publish ours because (a) transparency builds trust, (b) you should understand what you're optimizing for, and (c) if our weights are wrong, we want to hear about it. Email hello@citefuel.com with disagreements.
Every audit runs the same 23 checks worth a combined
111 points. Your 0-100 score is the share of available points you earn:
score = earned ÷ available × 100. A partial result earns half the check's weight.
A skipped check (e.g. AI answer sampling temporarily unavailable) is excluded from the
denominator — you are never penalized for checks we couldn't run.
Category 1 — AI Crawler Access · 6 checks · 28 pts (25.2%)
The access layer: can AI systems physically read your content? No content-quality improvement matters if the crawler is blocked. Failing checks here are P0 severity — they make you invisible to that AI system regardless of how good your content is.
ai_robots_gptai_robots_claudeai_robots_geminiai_robots_perplexityai_robots_metawaf_block_heuristicCategory 2 — llms.txt Presence & Quality · 2 checks · 13 pts (11.7%)
llms.txt is the AI-native site index. We check that it exists, parses, has the required structure (H1 + description + page entries), and that every URL it lists actually exists in your sitemap — a malformed llms.txt can be worse than none.
llms_txt_presentllms_txt_qualityCategory 3 — Schema Markup AI-Readiness · 3 checks · 15 pts (13.5%)
AI systems parse JSON-LD to extract authoritative entities, definitions, and factual claims. We check presence, Organization + WebSite coverage, and sanity: domain-locked @id values, a valid schema.org @context, and no injection vectors.
jsonld_presentjsonld_coveragejsonld_sanityCategory 4 — Passage Citability & Entity · 2 checks · 13 pts (11.7%)
Passage-level citability is scored by an LLM against the criteria AI retrieval systems reward: answer-first structure, entity naming over pronouns, standalone coherence, 40-150-word length. Entity footprint estimates how distinct your brand is as a knowledge-graph entity.
citability_passageentity_footprintCategory 5 — Technical Foundation · 8 checks · 28 pts (25.2%)
The classical technical foundation that AI retrieval inherits from search: canonical correctness, Core Web Vitals (field data via PageSpeed Insights), HTTPS integrity, sitemap discoverability, Open Graph completeness, and mobile viewport.
canonical_tagcwv_lcpcwv_clscwv_inphttps_tlssitemap_presentog_tagsviewport_metaCategory 6 — Live AI Answer Presence · 2 checks · 14 pts (12.6%)
The outcome layer: we sample live AI answer engines and check whether your brand is actually surfaced and accurate. When sampling is unavailable, these checks are marked "skipped" and excluded from your score denominator — you are never penalized for checks we could not run.
ai_brand_sample_chatgptai_brand_sample_perplexityGrades & scoring tiers
| Score | Grade | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | S | Exceptional — full AI citation eligibility. Maintain with monthly re-audit. |
| 75-89 | A | Strong AI citation eligibility. Small refinements available. |
| 60-74 | B | Meaningful gaps. P1 fixes recommended within 30 days. |
| 45-59 | C | Significant gaps. Multiple issues limiting citation. |
| 0-44 | D | P0 blocks likely present. AI citation unlikely regardless of content quality. |
Severity tiers
Every failing check is assigned a severity: P0 means an AI system cannot cite you at all (configuration-level invisibility), P1 means a weak or missing signal that materially reduces citation probability, and P2 is a quality refinement. Free reports show your full severity-tiered gap list; paid audits deliver the fix files.
Changelog
- v1.0 (2026-06-11) — initial 23-check framework. We update when major AI crawlers document behavior changes; weight changes are recorded here.