You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This automated audit analyzes the AI visibility and citation potential of the gh-aw documentation site and GitHub repository README using the geo-optimizer-skill.
📊 Scores
Target
Score
Band
Status
Docs site (github.github.com/gh-aw/)
46/100
Foundation
🟡 Needs improvement
README (github.com/github/gh-aw)
55/100
Foundation
🟡 Needs improvement
Sitemap avg (20 pages)
31.7/100
Critical
🔴 Requires attention
Score breakdown (Docs site):
❌ Robots.txt: 0/18 — Missing
❌ llms.txt: 0/18 — Missing
✅ Schema: 12/16
✅ Meta tags: 14/14
✅ Content: 11/12
✅ Signals: 6/6
❌ AI discovery: 0/6
🟡 Brand/entity: 6/10
⚠️ Negative penalty: -3
Score breakdown (README):
✅ Robots.txt: 15/18
✅ llms.txt: 14/18
❌ Schema: 0/16 — Missing
✅ Meta tags: 11/14
✅ Content: 12/12
🟡 Signals: 3/6
❌ AI discovery: 0/6
🟡 Brand/entity: 3/10
⚠️ Negative penalty: -3
✅ Top Strengths
Docs site:
✅ Complete meta tags (title, description, OG tags, canonical)
✅ Rich content (1,213 words, 26 headings, good structure)
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
GEO Audit Report — github/gh-aw
Audit Date: May 20, 2026
Run: §26178797978
This automated audit analyzes the AI visibility and citation potential of the gh-aw documentation site and GitHub repository README using the geo-optimizer-skill.
📊 Scores
github.github.com/gh-aw/)github.com/github/gh-aw)Score breakdown (Docs site):
Score breakdown (README):
✅ Top Strengths
Docs site:
README:
🚨 Critical Gaps
Both targets share several critical issues that significantly harm AI visibility:
❌ Hidden text cloaking penalty (both targets)
❌ Keyword stuffing (both targets)
❌ Missing AI discovery endpoints (both targets, 0/6 points)
/.well-known/ai.txtfor crawler permissions/ai/summary.json,/ai/faq.json,/ai/service.json❌ Docs site robots.txt missing (0/18 points)
❌ Docs site llms.txt missing (0/18 points)
❌ README missing JSON-LD schemas (0/16 points)
🟡 Weak Knowledge Graph signals (both targets)
🟡 Missing numerical data (docs site)
🔧 Recommended Fixes (Priority Order)
🔥 High Impact (Do First)
Fix hidden text cloaking issue (both targets)
display:noneandvisibility:hiddenCSSCreate docs site robots.txt with AI bot allowlist
Create docs site llms.txt
Add JSON-LD schemas to README
Reduce keyword stuffing (both targets)
🎯 Medium Impact (Next Phase)
Create AI discovery endpoints (both targets)
/.well-known/ai.txt— define crawler permissions/ai/summary.json— site name, description, key URLs/ai/faq.json— structured FAQ for AI search/ai/service.json— service capabilities descriptionAdd canonical link to README
Enhance Knowledge Graph signals (both targets)
Add numerical data to docs site
Add RSS feed to README
🧹 Low Impact (Polish)
Add /about page link to docs site
Improve WebMCP readiness (both targets)
Add form accessibility labels (docs site)
🤖 Platform-Specific Scores
📊 View ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI scores
Docs Site Platform Scores
• Well-structured content
• High citability (84/100)
• Add /llms.txt
• Content freshness
• RSS feed
• Add /llms.txt
• OG tags
• sameAs links
• Add more schemas
• Add /.well-known/ai.txt
README Platform Scores
• llms.txt present
• High citability (84/100)
• Add Organization schema
• llms.txt with links
• High citability (84/100)
• OG tags
• High citability (84/100)
• Add canonical tag
• Add /.well-known/ai.txt
• Add sameAs links
📄 Sitemap Page Scores
View all 20 pages from sitemap audit
Most pages score in the Critical band (27–33/100), indicating widespread optimization needs:
Insight: Blog posts inherit docs site issues (missing robots.txt, llms.txt, AI discovery). Fixing site-wide issues will lift all pages.
🔐 Trust Stack Analysis
View detailed trust signals breakdown
Overall trust grade: C (medium trust level)
Composite score: 15/25 points
• HSTS
• Missing X-Frame-Options
• Contact info
• Organization schema
• No author attribution
• 2/4 KG pillars
• Reviews/testimonials
• No authoritative sources (DOI, PubMed)
• No references section
• No mixed signals
• dateModified present
Biggest opportunity: Academic Trust — add statistics, cite authoritative sources, add References section.
📈 Quick Wins Summary
If you can only do 3 things this week:
Estimated combined impact: Docs site → 85/100 (Good band), README → 74/100 (Good band)
🔗 References
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions