cd /news/generative-engine-optimization/three-quick-checks-before-you-expect… · home › topics › generative-engine-optimization › article
[ARTICLE · art-169222] src=dev.to ↗ pub= topic=generative-engine-optimization verified=true sentiment=· neutral

Three quick checks before you expect AI search to quote your page

A developer built small Claude/Cursor skills that audit web pages for AI-search readiness and found three recurring gaps: missing or contradictory AI-crawler rules in robots.txt, absent or stale llms.txt files, and JSON-LD structured data that doesn't match the visible page. Checking public sites, the developer found stripe.com served an llms.txt while anthropic.com returned 404, and one payments explainer had a null author, missing dateModified and a brand-suffixed headline. The developer cautions the checks only remove cheap reasons a page might be skipped, not guarantee citation.

by read2 min views2 publishedNov 13, 2026

I've been building small Claude/Cursor skills that review pages for AI-search readiness. Running them on public pages kept turning up the same three gaps. You can check all three yourself in about ten minutes with curl and view-source. You don't need a tool.

curl -s https://yoursite.com/robots.txt | grep -iE 'gptbot|claudebot|perplexitybot|google-extended|ccbot'

No output means you have no AI-specific rules, so these bots follow your User-agent: * group. That's fine if it's on purpose. The problems I see are leftovers: a blanket Disallow someone added years ago, or a CDN/WAF bot rule that blocks crawlers the robots.txt says are allowed. Check both.

curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}\n' https://yoursite.com/llms.txt

llms.txt is a proposed convention, not a standard, and no AI company has promised to read it. It's still cheap to add. Put a one-line summary of what you do at the top, then short sections linking your key pages. When I checked on Nov 13, stripe.com returned 200 with exactly that layout, and anthropic.com returned 404. If you add one, keep it current. A stale llms.txt is worse than none.

Open view-source, search for application/ld+json, and compare it with what a reader sees:

On one well-known payments explainer, all three were off: author was null, dateModified was missing even though the page showed a date, and the headline had a brand suffix. These take minutes to fix. Don't add FAQ or rating markup the page doesn't actually show.

None of this guarantees a citation. Nobody outside the AI companies knows exactly how sources get chosen. These checks only remove the cheap reasons a page might be skipped or misread. Whether people are asking the question your page answers, and whether you answer it well in the first paragraph, matters more.

Disclosure: I make HubDev, a set of Claude/Cursor skills that run checks like these. If you'd rather have an agent score a page for you, there's a free starter scorecard (no purchase needed): https://payhip.com/b/TvxJH. Paid packs exist, but nothing in this post needs them.

── more in #generative-engine-optimization 4 stories · sorted by recency
── more on @claude 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/three-quick-checks-b…] indexed:0 read:2min 2026-11-13 · —