[ZSX:HX]Localized GEO Detection Protocol v1.0

This protocol is a manually/AI-executable GEO detection checklist that does not rely on any external tools. It is applicable for detecting the "AI citation friendliness" of a single article, outputting a structured detection report, and providing actionable optimization recommendations.

Principle	Description
Locally Executable
All detection items can be completed without calling external APIs, manually verifiable
Modular Configuration
11 detection modules can be dynamically toggled on/off as needed
Quantifiable Scoring
Each module outputs a score of 0-100, generating a comprehensive GEO score
Actionable Optimization
Each low-scoring item is accompanied by specific optimization guidance
Aligned with Existing Frameworks
Integrates design thinking from the 13-module writing template, engagement depth lens, and metaphor-quote formula

This protocol is designed based on the following core GEO principles:

Principle	Data Source
Content with high trustworthiness is 3.7 times more likely to be cited by AI
—
Adding FAQ Schema increases AI citation rate by approximately 47%
—
The same information cross-verified across multiple trusted sources reduces single-point pollution risk	—
Core GEO metrics: Visibility, Source Citation Rate, Information Correction Rate, Expression Richness, Information Balance, Priority Recommendation Rate
—
Four core metrics: Semantic Embedding Depth, Authority Accumulation, Generative Contribution, Transformation Drive
—
E-E-A-T (Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, Trustworthiness) is the gold standard for content quality in the AI era	—

Detection Goal: Confirm whether AI crawlers can normally access the article content

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
T1	Is the article URL publicly accessible?	Open the article link in an incognito/private browser window	High
T2	Is the article content readable as plain text (not images/PDF)?	Check if the page is HTML text	High
T3	Does the article have a clear <title> tag?
Check the browser tab title	Medium
T4	Does the article have a <meta description> ?
View page source or browser description	Medium
T5	Does robots.txt allow major AI crawlers (GPTBot/ClaudeBot/Bytespider/etc.)?	Check the /robots.txt file
High

Scoring Criteria: 20 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article uses structured markup understandable by AI

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
S1	Is JSON-LD structured data used?	Look for <script type="application/ld+json"> in page source
High
S2	Does it contain Article Schema markup?
Look for @type: "Article" in JSON-LD
High
S3	Does it contain FAQPage Schema markup (if applicable)?
Look for @type: "FAQPage" in JSON-LD
Medium
S4	Does it contain Author Schema markup?
Look for author information in JSON-LD	Medium
S5	Does the Schema contain entity relationship markup like sameAs ?
Look for sameAs , knowsAbout , etc. in JSON-LD
Low

Scoring Criteria: 20 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Theoretical Basis: Adding FAQ Schema can increase AI citation rate by approximately 47%. Schema markup helps AI understand the type and relationships of content.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article structure facilitates AI information extraction

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
C1	Is there a clear H1 heading?	Check if the main title uses # or H1
High
C2	Are there hierarchical H2/H3 subheadings?	Check if the article has 2-3 levels of heading structure	High
C3	Is there an abstract/introduction (within 200 words)?	Check if there is a summary paragraph at the beginning	High
C4	Are lists/tables used to organize information?	Check for <ul> , <ol> , or <table> in the article
Medium
C5	Does each H2 section have at least 300 words of supporting content?	Estimate word count per section	Medium
C6	Is there a 40-60 word section summary?	Check if each section ends with a summary paragraph	Low

Scoring Criteria: C1-C3 = 20 points each, C4-C6 = 13.3 points each, maximum 100 points.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article's core concepts are clearly recognized by AI

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
E1	Are core concepts clearly defined in the text?	Check if key terms are explained at first appearance	High
E2	Are core concepts used consistently throughout?	Check if the same concept uses consistent terminology	High
E3	Does it contain specific data, cases, or verifiable claims?	Check for numbers, cases, citations	High
E4	Are entity relationships clearly stated (e.g., "A is a superset of B")?	Check if logical relationships between concepts are clear	Medium
E5	Is there a structured question-answer pair format?	Check if the article covers questions readers might ask	Medium

Scoring Criteria: 20 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article has signals that make it trustworthy to AI

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
A1	Is there a clear author byline?	Check if the article has the author's name or pen name	High
A2	Is there an author bio or background description?	Check if there is an author introduction	Medium
A3	Are authoritative sources cited (academic papers/official docs, etc.)?	Check references for authoritative sources	High
A4	Are data points accompanied by verifiable source links?	Check if data includes source URLs	High
A5	Are publication and update dates clearly marked?	Check if dates are displayed on the article	Medium
A6	Is there a link to an "About/Contact" page?	Check if there is a link to author/institution introduction	Low

Scoring Criteria: A1-A5 = 16.7 points each, A6 = 16.5 points, maximum 100 points.

Theoretical Basis: Content with high trustworthiness is 3.7 times more likely to be cited by AI.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article is easy for AI to cite

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
R1	Is there a quotable "golden line" or core judgment statement?	Check for sentences that can be cited independently	High
R2	Is the core argument summarized within the first 40-60 words?	Check if there is a conclusive statement at the beginning	High
R3	Are there "citable statistics" available?	Check for hard data with sources	High
R4	Does the article title contain technical keywords?	Check if the title has searchable technical terms	Medium
R5	Is there a clear question-answer structure?	Check if the article answers a clear question	Medium

Scoring Criteria: 20 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether information in the article is consistent across sources

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
X1	Is the core concept self-consistent within the article?	Check if the same concept is expressed consistently across sections	High
X2	Are data points consistent within the article?	Check for contradictions in data	High
X3	Are core viewpoints consistent with the author's other articles?	Compare with the author's other articles	Medium
X4	Do cited sources corroborate each other?	Check if multiple sources point to the same conclusion	Medium

Scoring Criteria: 25 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Theoretical Basis: Cross-source consistency is one of the core dimensions of GEO effectiveness measurement from an RAG perspective.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article has mechanisms to trigger reader interaction

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
D1	Does the title contain engagement-triggering words (you/how/invite/seek/together)?	Manual check of the title	High
D2	Does the opening contain counterintuitive judgments or cognitive conflict?	Check first 300 words for "counterintuitive" statements	High
D3	Is there a specific, answerable engagement question at the end?	Check the end for open-ended questions	High
D4	Is there a collaboration invitation or participation entry point?	Check for "invite readers to participate" content	Medium
D5	Does the article contain "reflexive design" (demonstrating what it advocates)?	Check if the article demonstrates the method it teaches	Medium
D6	Is there a "reward-style" question that encourages readers to verify?	Check for phrasing like "If you've also noticed... feel free to share"	Low

Scoring Criteria: D1-D3 = 20 points each, D4-D6 = 13.3 points each, maximum 100 points.

Theoretical Basis: Based on historical data analysis of 28 articles — titles with engagement-triggering words have an average engagement depth of 5.42, compared to 3.72 without, a 31.4% increase.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article meets the requirements of standards such as T/CAPT 026—2026

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
G1	Is the content authentic and traceable?	Check for fabricated data or unverifiable claims	High
G2	Are facts and opinions clearly distinguished?	Check if personal opinions are presented as facts	High
G3	Are sources clearly cited?	Check if data/citations have sources	High
G4	Does it involve prohibited behaviors such as "corpus poisoning" or "answer hegemony"?	Check for intent to manipulate AI output	High
G5	Is full-chain traceability supported?	Check for modification records or version notes	Medium

Scoring Criteria: G1-G4 = 20 points each, G5 = 20 points, maximum 100 points.

Theoretical Basis: T/CAPT 026—2026 "Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) — Trustworthy Information Dissemination and Information Ecology Governance Specification" requires content to be authentic, traceable, fully chain-operable, and delivered with white-box transparency.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article adopts content formats preferred by AI

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
F1	Does it have the "one-sentence answer + table + FAQ" structure?	Check if the article contains all three elements	High
F2	Is there a 40-60 word conclusion placed at the beginning of each section?	Check if each section starts with a summary sentence	Medium
F3	Are visual elements like Mermaid diagrams used?	Check for flowcharts/architecture diagrams	Medium
F4	Is there multimodal content (text + images + tables)?	Check if content formats are diverse	Medium
F5	Does it contain an llms.txt entry (if applicable)?	Check if the site root has llms.txt
Low

Scoring Criteria: 20 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Detection Goal: Confirm whether the article has "communication units" that can be remembered and cited by AI

Item ID	Check Item	Method	Weight
M1	Is there an independently quotable golden line (counterintuitive/shareable)?	Check for sentences like "The article with the lowest readership had the highest engagement depth"	High
M2	Is there a central metaphor running through the entire article?	Check if there is a concrete metaphor anchoring the whole article	High
M3	Is there a reusable formula for generating golden lines?	Check if the "construction method" of the golden line is made explicit	Medium
M4	Is there a memorable one-sentence conclusion?	Check the end for a "one-sentence wrap-up"	High
M5	Does it have a complete "source metaphor + metaphor chain" structure?	Check if multiple sub-metaphors are derived from a "source metaphor"	Medium

Scoring Criteria: 20 points per item, maximum 100 points.

Theoretical Basis: Based on the "Metaphor & Quote Formula" module design from the published article "Skill Doesn't Need to Be Skill-ified." Sentences that can be remembered and shared are the core material for AI citation.

Step	Action	Notes
1	Open the full page of the article to be detected	Ensure the page is fully loaded
2	Open the page source code (Ctrl+U or right-click "View Page Source")	Used for structured data detection
3	Prepare a detection record form	Can use Excel or pen and paper

It is recommended to detect modules in the following order, recording scores after each module:

Total Estimated Time: Approximately 80-90 minutes per article.

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    GEO DETECTION REPORT                         │
│                    Article Title: [Title]                       │
│                    Detection Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]                 │
│                    Detected By: [Name]                          │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  I. Comprehensive GEO Score: [X]/100                           │
│                                                                 │
│  II. Module Score Breakdown                                     │
│      Module 1  Technical Crawlability: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating] │
│      Module 2  Structured Data Markup: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating] │
│      Module 3  Content Structure: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating] │
│      Module 4  Semantic Clarity: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]  │
│      Module 5  Trustworthiness: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]   │
│      Module 6  Citation Readiness: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]│
│      Module 7  Cross-Source Consistency: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]│
│      Module 8  Engagement Depth: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]  │
│      Module 9  GEO Compliance: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]    │
│      Module 10 AI-Friendly Format: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]│
│      Module 11 Metaphor & Quote Readiness: [X]/100  ████████░░ [Rating]│
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  III. Low-Score Diagnostics & Optimization Recommendations      │
│       [Item ID]: [Current Status] → [Recommended Action]       │
│       [Item ID]: [Current Status] → [Recommended Action]       │
│       ...                                                      │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  IV. Optimization Priority Ranking                              │
│       🔴 High Priority (highest impact, implement immediately)  │
│       🟡 Medium Priority (implement in near term)              │
│       🟢 Low Priority (can optimize opportunistically)         │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  V. Expected Post-Optimization Results                          │
│      Expected AI Citation Rate Increase: [X]%                  │
│      Expected Engagement Depth Increase: [X]%                  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Score Range	Grade	Status Description
90-100	A	Excellent — very high AI citation friendliness, maintain current standards
70-89	B	Good — minor optimization opportunities, targeted improvements recommended
50-69	C	Average — clear gaps present, systematic optimization recommended
30-49	D	Below Average — multiple dimensions require improvement
0-29	E	Poor — article structure should be re-evaluated

This protocol supports on-demand module selection. Recommended configurations for different scenarios are as follows:

Scenario	Recommended Modules	Notes
Quick Screening
Modules 1, 3, 5, 6	15 minutes for basic assessment
Deep Optimization
All 11 modules	90 minutes full assessment
Technical Articles
Modules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10	Focus on structure and trustworthiness
Operational/Method Articles
Modules 3, 6, 8, 11	Focus on engagement and citation readiness
GEO Compliance Audit
Modules 1, 5, 9	Focus on compliance
Pre-Publication Check
Modules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8	Final check before publishing

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
T1	Article requires login to view	Set article to "Public" in CSDN settings
T2	Content is in image/PDF format	Ensure body text is HTML text format
T3	No <title> or unclear title
Set article title in CSDN editor
T4	No <meta description>
Fill in article summary in CSDN editor
T5	robots.txt blocks AI crawlers	Modify robots.txt at site root, add: Allow: GPTBot , Allow: ClaudeBot

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
S1-S5	Missing JSON-LD structured data	Add <script type="application/ld+json"> to the page, including Article , Author , FAQPage Schemas

JSON-LD Template Example:

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "Article",
  "headline": "Article Title",
  "description": "Article Summary",
  "author": {
    "@type": "Person",
    "name": "Author Name"
  },
  "datePublished": "2026-08-22",
  "dateModified": "2026-08-22"
}

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
C1	No clear H1 heading	Ensure the article has a clear # title
C2	No H2/H3 hierarchy	Use ## and ### for sub-sections
C3	No summary or summary too long	Add a 150-200 word summary at the beginning
C4	No lists/tables	Insert <ul> /<ol> or tables where appropriate
C5	Section content insufficient	Add at least 300 words under each H2
C6	No section summary	Add 1-2 summary sentences at the end of each section

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
E1	Core concept not defined	Provide a clear definition at first appearance
E2	Terminology inconsistent	Unify terminology throughout the article
E3	Missing specific data/cases	Add verifiable data or cases
E4	Entity relationships unclear	Use clear phrasing like "A is the parent of B..." or "A consists of B..."
E5	No question-answer structure	Embed FAQ or question-driven sections in the article

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
A1	No author byline	Add author name at the beginning or end of the article
A2	No author bio	Add 2-3 sentences of author introduction at the end
A3	No authoritative citations	Cite authoritative sources such as academic papers, official documentation
A4	Data without source links	Add a verifiable URL for each data point
A5	No publication date	Mark publication and update dates at the beginning or end of the article
A6	No "About/Contact" link	Add an "About the Author" or contact link in the author bio section

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
R1	No "golden line"	Distill core judgment statements and place them prominently
R2	No core conclusion in the opening	Summarize the core argument within the first 40-60 words
R3	No citable statistics	Supplement with hard data and sources
R4	Title lacks technical keywords	Add searchable technical terms to the title
R5	No question-answer structure	Embed clear Q&A format in the article

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
X1	Same concept expressed inconsistently	Unify terminology throughout the article
X2	Data contradictions	Check and unify all data points
X3	Contradicts the author's other articles	Check consistency across series articles
X4	Cited sources contradict each other	Verify cited sources and ensure they corroborate

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
D1	Title lacks engagement-triggering words	Add "you/how/invite/seek/together" to the title
D2	Opening lacks cognitive conflict	Add counterintuitive statements within the first 300 words
D3	End lacks engagement question	Add a specific, answerable question at the end
D4	No collaboration invitation	Add "invite readers to participate" content at the end
D5	No reflexive design	Have the article demonstrate the method it advocates
D6	No reward-style question	Set questions like "If you've also noticed... feel free to share"

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
G1	Content cannot be traced	Ensure all claims are verifiable
G2	Facts and opinions are confused	Clearly distinguish "facts" from "my opinions"
G3	No source citations	Add sources for all citations
G4	Involves manipulation of AI output	Avoid prohibited behaviors such as "corpus poisoning"
G5	No modification records	Add version number and modification date at the end

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
F1	Missing "one-sentence answer + table + FAQ" structure	Add these three elements to the article
F2	No conclusion at section beginnings	Add a 40-60 word conclusion at the start of each H2/H3
F3	No charts	Add Mermaid flowcharts or architecture diagrams
F4	Content format is too uniform	Add images, tables, and other diverse formats
F5	No llms.txt	Create llms.txt at the site root

Item	Issue When Score is Low	Recommended Action
M1	No independently quotable golden line	Distill a counterintuitive core judgment statement
M2	No central metaphor	Choose a concrete metaphor to run through the entire article
M3	No golden line formula	Make the construction method of the golden line explicit
M4	No one-sentence conclusion	Add a shareable concluding sentence at the end
M5	No source metaphor chain	Derive multiple sub-metaphors from a "source metaphor"

Article Status	Detection Frequency	Notes
Before publishing new articles	Required for each article	Ensure basic GEO detection is completed before publishing
Already published articles	Once per quarter	Monitor AI citation rate changes and assess optimization needs
Engagement depth decline	Immediate detection	Check all dimensions when article "activity" declines
Series articles	Each article	Ensure consistency across series articles

Version	Date	Updates
v1.0	2026-08-22	Initial version, includes 11 detection modules

source & further reading

dev.to — original article CVE-2026-45018: Chainlit MCP stdio unauthenticated RCE (and sibling CVE-2026-45019) How to Build Node.js Failure Metrics Dashboards and Email Alerts for SaaS Why Tencent EdgeOne Makers is a Game-Changer for Young Developers