cd /news/ai-infrastructure/ai-crawler-user-agents-are-self-repo… · home topics ai-infrastructure article
[ARTICLE · art-106782] src=dev.to ↗ pub= topic=ai-infrastructure verified=true sentiment=· neutral

AI crawler user agents are self-reported: 468 real fetches, 991 fake ones

A developer found that most AI crawler traffic on their site is fake, with only 468 of 1,459 requests actually fetching articles. Using Cloudflare's verifiedBotCategory, they showed that only 13% of GPTBot claims were verified, while meta-externalagent and Applebot were 100% verified. The developer provides a method to distinguish real AI crawlers from impersonators using free Cloudflare tools.

read5 min views1 publishedAug 22, 2026

I used to watch AI crawler traffic on my site as a table grouped by User-Agent: so many requests from ChatGPT-User, so many from GPTBot. Numbers going up meant the AI systems were picking the site up.

Then I re-cut eight days of logs by verification result. Requests that actually fetched an article: 468. Requests probing for .env

and friends: 991. Of everything calling itself GPTBot, Cloudflare could verify 13% as OpenAI.

Here is how to separate the impersonators on a Cloudflare free plan, and what the numbers looked like.

Writing GPTBot/1.2

into a header costs nothing, so a table grouped by UA is a list of claims.

Behind Cloudflare there are two things to check those claims against:

verifiedBotCategory

What survives both filters is "verified bots fetching real pages", and that is the only number worth reporting.

Add userAgent

and verifiedBotCategory

to the dimensions of httpRequestsAdaptiveGroups

. clientAsn

and botClass

require a paid plan; verifiedBotCategory

does not.

QUERY_BY_UA_VERIFIED = """
query ($zoneTag: String!, $since: Time!, $until: Time!) {
  viewer {
    zones(filter: { zoneTag: $zoneTag }) {
      httpRequestsAdaptiveGroups(
        limit: 5000
        filter: { datetime_geq: $since, datetime_leq: $until }
        orderBy: [count_DESC]
      ) {
        count
        dimensions { userAgent verifiedBotCategory }
      }
    }
  }
}
"""

Two constraints to plan around:

def fetch_rows(token, query, zone_tag, since, until):
    all_rows, cursor = [], since
    one_day = dt.timedelta(days=1)
    while cursor < until:
        win_end = min(cursor + one_day, until)
        variables = {
            "zoneTag": zone_tag,
            "since": cursor.isoformat() + "Z",
            "until": win_end.isoformat() + "Z",
        }
        try:
            all_rows.extend(rows_from(gql(token, query, variables, exit_on_error=False)))
        except RuntimeError as e:
            print(f"    [skipped] {cursor.date()}-{win_end.date()}: {e}")   # past retention
        cursor = win_end
    return all_rows

That single extra dimension is enough to split claim from reality. Eight days:

Claimed UA Verified Unverified Verified share
ChatGPT-User 211 (AI Assistant) 336 39%
Amazonbot 135 (AI Crawler) 489 22%
ClaudeBot 133 (AI Crawler) 126 51%
OAI-SearchBot 61 (Search Engine Crawler) 132 32%
GPTBot 19 (AI Crawler) 123 13%
meta-externalagent 209 (AI Crawler) 0 100%
Applebot 56 (AI Search) 0 100%
PerplexityBot 0 144 0%
Perplexity-User 0 311 0%

Of 547 requests presenting as ChatGPT-User

, 211 came from an address that traced back to OpenAI.

Only two agents came through clean — meta-externalagent

and Applebot

, 100% verified with zero impersonation. Those are the only rows whose claimed totals are usable as-is. All 455 Perplexity-branded requests were unverified.

123 requests claimed Google-Extended

. Verified share 0%, and 70 of them hit credential-scanning paths.

No inference required. Google's crawler documentation states that Google-Extended

has no separate HTTP request user agent string: crawling happens under the existing Google user agents, and the token exists purely to be addressed in robots.txt for AI-training control.

So every request presenting that UA is, by definition, not Google. The same trick works for any operator that publishes IP ranges — OpenAI ships gptbot.json.

Verification alone isn't enough: a verified bot fetching robots.txt has read nothing.

SCAN_PATTERNS = (
    "wp-", ".env", ".git", ".aws", ".svn", ".ssh", "secrets", "credentials",
    "config.json", "service_account", "actuator", "api/auth", "phpinfo",
    ".bak", ".yml", ".yaml", ".php", ".sql", "id_rsa", ".npmrc", ".htpasswd",
)
OPS_PREFIXES = ("/robots.txt", "/sitemap", "/llms.txt", "/favicon", "/rss", "/feed", "/.well-known/")
ASSET_PREFIXES = ("/_astro/", "/images/", "/assets/", "/fonts/", "/cdn-cgi/", "/_image")

def classify_path(path, sitemap_paths):
    if not path:
        return "other"
    low = path.lower()
    if any(k in low for k in SCAN_PATTERNS):
        return "scan"
    if low.startswith(OPS_PREFIXES):
        return "ops"
    if low.startswith(ASSET_PREFIXES):
        return "asset"
    if not sitemap_paths:
        return "unknown"   # cannot assert existence, so cannot call it content
    return "content" if (path.rstrip("/") or "/") in sitemap_paths else "other"

Using the sitemap as the source of truth for existence is the part that holds up. Deciding from the response status looks easier, but redirects and paths that answer 200 without being real pages both leak in. The set of paths you declared public is a cleaner definition of "a page of mine".

Keep the unknown

branch too. Fold it into content

and your numbers spike on any day the sitemap fetch fails, with nothing in the output to explain it.

Claimed UA content ops scan total verified
ChatGPT-User 216 0 181 547 39%
meta-externalagent 93 9 0 209 100%
Amazonbot 85 1 284 624 22%
Applebot 27 9 0 56 100%
OAI-SearchBot 17 43 74 193 32%
PerplexityBot 13 8 67 144 0%
GPTBot 7 9 72 142 13%
ClaudeBot 6 129 70 259 51%
Google-Extended 0 0 70 123 0%
Perplexity-User 0 0 173 311 0%

content

totals 468, scan

totals 991. By status code, 403s came to 957 against 705 served with 200.

The ClaudeBot row is worth pulling apart: of 133 verified requests, 6 fetched articles and 129 fetched robots.txt and similar. "ClaudeBot sent 259 requests" and "six articles were read" are the same data.

Keep the verified share as a column in whatever you output. When a series' share collapses, that is your signal to stop reading it as a metric for that snapshot.

The week-over-week comparison (content 610 → 468 while scan went 357 → 991), why I cannot tell a genuine drop in interest apart from impersonation being reclassified, and the point where WAF blocks overtook served requests are all on Aulvem → Aulvem | AI crawler user agents are self-reported: 468 real fetches, 991 fake ones

── more in #ai-infrastructure 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @cloudflare 3 stories trending now
sponsored brought to you by zahid.host 4,200+ EU-deployed projects
reading about agents? ship yours in a single git push.

Run your AI side-project on zahid.host

EU-based hosting, git-push deploys, automatic HTTPS, no cold starts. Free tier with a custom domain — perfect for shipping the agent you just read about.

$git push zahid main
Live at https://your-agent.zahid.host
Get free account → Pricing
from €0/mo · no card required
LIVE [news/ai-crawler-user-agen…] indexed:0 read:5min 2026-08-22 ·