Audit the pages and protocols that AI answer systems can actually retrieve.
A GEO audit checks crawler access, source quality, entity clarity, answer structure, and machine-readable discovery files alongside technical SEO.
Review documented search and AI crawler directives by their actual purpose.
Check whether the page names products, organizations, claims, and relationships plainly.
Find pages where the main answer is buried, unsupported, or difficult to extract.
A GEO audit examines whether public content is accessible, unambiguous, attributable, and useful to systems that retrieve passages for generated answers. Index Instrument combines those checks with technical SEO because a blocked, duplicated, or non-canonical page is a weak source regardless of how well the copy is written.
GEO starts with the same web that search engines crawl
There is no separate, guaranteed route into generated answers. Public pages still need successful HTTP responses, stable canonical URLs, internal links, useful text, and access rules that match the site owner's intent.
The audit therefore checks established web controls first. It then reviews answer structure, entities, sources, and optional discovery files such as llms.txt. The report labels proposals and product-specific behavior instead of presenting them as universal standards.
The report points to the page that needs work
A site-wide warning is hard to act on. The audit records affected URLs and explains the shared cause where possible. For example, a canonical mismatch may come from one framework helper even though it appears on hundreds of pages.
Content findings follow the same rule. The report should identify the passage, claim, heading, or page pattern that makes an answer unclear. General advice such as “improve authority” is not a repair plan.
- Exact crawler directive and affected path.
- Observed canonical, expected canonical, and source URL.
- Unsupported or ambiguous claim with page context.
- Discovery file entry that conflicts with the visible site.
- Recommended repair and verification method.
Use the audit as a repair backlog
The useful output is a short, ordered set of shared fixes. Teams can export the report for an internal developer, prepare changes through the repository workflow, or request Human Review on the highest current plan.
After deployment, run the same checks again. The technical evidence should change immediately even if search indexes and answer products need more time to revisit the site.
One process with visible approval points.
Crawl the public evidence
Inspect the live pages, headers, directives, sitemaps, and discovery files.
Review source quality
Find unclear entities, buried answers, unsupported claims, and contradictory facts.
Create the repair order
Group findings by shared cause and business impact.
Verify the repair
Repeat the same checks and compare the evidence after deployment.
What customers control.
Is GEO different from SEO?
GEO adds source structure, answer usability, entity clarity, and AI-specific crawler considerations. It still depends on the technical SEO foundations that make a public page discoverable and canonical.
Does a GEO audit require repository access?
No. The audit can inspect public evidence from a URL. Repository access is optional and is used only when the customer wants the remediation flow to prepare code changes.
Is llms.txt required?
No. It is a voluntary proposal, not a replacement for robots.txt, sitemaps, or indexable pages. The audit checks it when present and explains its limited role.
Check the site before deciding how much work it needs.
Quick Scan gives you a free baseline. A paid audit opens the complete findings and remediation plan.
Run a free Quick Scan