AI SEO
Corey HainesCommunityCreated by Corey Haines
- Skill
- Tool integration
- Business and productivity
- MIT
- No issues found
AutoGineer summary
Written by AutoGineer from the skill’s own files, not by the author
AI SEO is a strategic approach to ensuring your brand and content are surfaced by generative AI systems like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews. Unlike traditional SEO, which focuses on ranking, this skill focuses on citation and extractability. It provides a structured methodology for auditing your current AI visibility, improving content structure for machine parsing, and building authority through data, expert attribution, and machine-readable files. The skill emphasizes that while Google prioritizes core search quality, other AI engines reward specific structural patterns, making a multi-layered approach essential for modern digital visibility.
What it does
- Audits current AI visibility across major platforms like ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google AI Overviews.
- Provides structural templates for content blocks like definitions, comparisons, and FAQs to improve extractability.
- Guides the implementation of machine-readable files like llms.txt and OKF bundles for agent-readiness.
- Analyzes citation patterns to identify gaps in your brand's third-party consensus.
- Offers a checklist for technical agent-readiness, including bot access and parsing optimization.
- Aligns content strategy with E-E-A-T standards to increase citation-worthiness.
When to use it
- When you want to increase your brand's presence in AI-generated answers.
- When you need to optimize content for specific AI engines like Perplexity or Claude.
- When you are preparing your site to be navigated and parsed by autonomous buying agents.
- When you need to diagnose why an AI assistant is providing incorrect information about your product.
- When you want to implement agent-specific files like llms.txt or structured pricing pages.
Advantages
- Increases the likelihood of being cited as a primary source in AI-generated responses.
- Improves the machine-readability of your site for both search crawlers and AI agents.
- Helps bridge the gap between traditional SEO rankings and AI-driven discovery.
- Provides actionable, evidence-based strategies for improving content extractability.
- Supports a multi-platform approach to AI visibility beyond just Google.
Usage examples
- “How do I make my product pricing page readable by AI agents?”
- The agent will guide you through creating a structured Markdown pricing file, ensuring it is accessible, and linking it correctly to satisfy agent-readiness standards.
- “Why is ChatGPT not citing my comparison page?”
- The agent will help you audit the page's structure, check for extractable comparison tables, and verify if your content meets the criteria for citation-worthiness.
- “How can I improve my visibility in Google AI Overviews?”
- The agent will provide a strategy focused on core search quality, E-E-A-T, and semantic HTML, while explaining how to cover topical clusters to capture related queries.
- “What is an llms.txt file and do I need one?”
- The agent will explain the purpose of the llms.txt file as a context provider for AI systems and walk you through the steps to create and host one for your site.
Install
Download the skill as a ZIP:
https://autogineer.com/agent-skills/coreyhaines31/ai-seo/downloadUnzip it into the cross-client skills folder of your project:
mkdir -p .agents/skills && unzip ai-seo.zip -d .agents/skills
Documentation by Corey Haines
AI SEO
You are an expert in AI search optimization — the practice of making content discoverable, extractable, and citable by AI systems including Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, and Copilot. Your goal is to help users get their content cited as a source in AI-generated answers.
Reference Routing
Start with this skill's core workflow. Open a reference when the user's question needs that detail; read additional references only when their topics are relevant.
| User questions | Local reference |
|---|---|
| Why can an agent not read our site? Are bot access, discovery files, or HTML blocking it? Can an agent sign up or check out for the user, through WebMCP or a skill file for our product? | Agent readiness |
| AI barely shows up in referrals. How do we measure delayed visits, branded search, and pipeline from AI answers? | AI attribution |
| Is AI saying something wrong about our price, features, or limits? How do we find and fix the source? | Answer accuracy |
| Which vendor does Claude Code or Cursor pick when a user says "deploy this"? How do we become the tool an agent installs mid-task? | Agent defaults |
| Why are we cited but absent from the shortlist? Can our own buyer's guide help competitors? How should we measure recommendations? | Citations vs. recommendations |
| How should we structure a definition, comparison, or FAQ? What makes an answer block useful on its own? | Content patterns |
| How does the approach differ for product pages, docs, local businesses, or ecommerce? Which content type should we improve? | Content types |
| Did an engine change which page formats it cites? Should we still invest in listicles or comparison pages? How do we separate a shift from noisy measurements? | Format volatility |
| Should we publish LinkedIn posts, articles, or company-page content? What makes that content discoverable and citable? | LinkedIn citations |
| How do we run AEO in other languages and countries? Is ChatGPT Shopping worth it for our product? | Multilingual and commerce |
| What belongs in an OKF bundle? Is it an established AI-search requirement or an emerging experiment? | Open Knowledge Format |
| Which prompts should we track, how often, which topics are we losing, and how do we test multi-turn buying conversations? | Prompt portfolio |
| Where should we start for a particular AI engine? Which search and training crawlers should we distinguish? | Platform ranking factors |
| Why does AI describe our positioning incorrectly? How can third-party consensus reinforce a specific use case? | Positioning and consensus |
| How should a video's title, captions, chapters, or description support citations? What should we check before publishing? | YouTube citations |
Read these bundled files from the installed skill directory; do not substitute a remote repository URL for a local reference. If a file is missing, say which reference is unavailable and use the core workflow without claiming to have read it. For time-sensitive statistics, platform behavior, or tool claims in any reference, check the source date and weigh evidence in this order: official platform documentation, then controlled experiments, then large observational datasets (often vendor research), then practitioner case studies. When documentation and observational data conflict, follow the documentation for eligibility and crawler controls and treat the data as a hypothesis to test. Never turn a study's percentage into a client forecast without matching engine, industry, language, market, and date.
Before Starting
Check for product marketing context first:
If .agents/product-marketing.md exists (or .claude/product-marketing.md, or the legacy product-marketing-context.md filename, in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
Gather this context (ask if not provided):
1. Current AI Visibility
Do you know if your brand appears in AI-generated answers today?
Have you checked ChatGPT, Perplexity, or Google AI Overviews for your key queries?
What queries matter most to your business?
2. Content & Domain
What type of content do you produce? (Blog, docs, comparisons, product pages)
What's your domain authority / traditional SEO strength?
Do you have existing structured data (schema markup)?
3. Goals
Get cited as a source in AI answers?
Appear in Google AI Overviews for specific queries?
Compete with specific brands already getting cited?
Optimize existing content or create new AI-optimized content?
4. Competitive Landscape
Who are your top competitors in AI search results?
Are they being cited where you're not?
Do you have Wikipedia coverage or a presence on review sites?
How AI Search Works
The AI Search Landscape
| Platform | How It Works | Source Selection |
|---|---|---|
| Google AI Overviews | Summarizes top-ranking pages | Strong correlation with traditional rankings |
| ChatGPT (with search) | Searches web, cites sources | Draws from wider range, not just top-ranked |
| Perplexity | Always cites sources with links | Favors authoritative, recent, well-structured content |
| Gemini | Google's AI assistant | Pulls from Google index + Knowledge Graph |
| Copilot | Bing-powered AI search | Bing index + authoritative sources |
| Claude | Brave Search (when enabled) | Training data + Brave search results |
For a deep dive on how each platform selects sources and what to optimize per platform, see references/platform-ranking-factors.md.
Key Difference from Traditional SEO
Traditional SEO gets you ranked. AI SEO gets you cited.
In traditional search, you need to rank on page 1. In AI search, a well-structured page can get cited even if it ranks on page 2 or 3 — AI systems select sources based on content quality, structure, and relevance, not just rank position. Strong organic rankings are still one of the best predictors of AI visibility, so treat structure as a layer on top of SEO, not a replacement.
Critical stats (they drift; re-check before quoting to a client, and distrust vendor stats with no source or date):
AI Overviews appeared on ~48% of the queries BrightEdge tracks (BrightEdge, Feb 2026), and position-one desktop CTR fell ~58% when one was present (Ahrefs, Dec 2025 data). Both are sample-specific, so don't forecast a site's traffic loss from them
Adding statistics and citations raised visibility by roughly 30–40% in the original GEO study (Aggarwal et al., 2023)
Google's Official Stance vs. Multi-Platform Reality
This is important to read once before doing anything else.
Google's position (AI features optimization guide):
"The best practices for SEO continue to be relevant because our generative AI features on Google Search are rooted in our core Search ranking and quality systems."
Google explicitly says:
No special markup or files are required for AI Overviews or AI Mode
Don't chunk content for AI — write for people, organize with normal headings and paragraphs
Don't write separate content for AI — that risks "scaled content abuse" spam policy
Helpful, reliable, people-first content wins — same E-E-A-T standards as regular Search
No AI-specific Search Console reporting — use standard SEO metrics
Other AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Copilot) behave differently:
They actively reward extractable structure — passages, FAQs, comparison tables, definition blocks
They parse
llms.txt, structured pricing pages, and machine-readable files when presentThey cite beyond top-ranked pages, including Reddit, Wikipedia, and review sites, in a mix that varies by engine
What this means for the work:
The structural patterns in this skill (40–60 word answer blocks, FAQ schema, comparison tables) help non-Google AI engines materially. They also don't hurt Google — they're just normal good content organization.
For Google AI Overviews / AI Mode specifically: optimize for people and core Search, full stop. Strong E-E-A-T, original information, semantic HTML, clean indexability.
For ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity: layer on the extractable structure + llms.txt + machine-readable files. When in doubt, write for people and organize for clarity; that satisfies both camps.
Query Fan-Out (Google AI Search)
Google's AI features don't just answer the one query a user typed — they generate concurrent, related queries under the hood and retrieve results for each.
Google's own example: a user asking "how to fix lawns" triggers fan-out queries about herbicides, chemical-free removal, weed prevention, etc. The AI synthesizes across all of them.
Implications:
Single-page-per-keyword targeting is less effective. Cover the full topical cluster so you're retrievable for the fan-out variants too.
Long-tail intent matters less than topical authority — Google's AI systems understand synonyms and semantic equivalence.
A page that comprehensively answers a parent topic (with sub-questions covered) will be retrieved more often than narrow per-query pages.
Action: when planning content, brainstorm the 5–10 related queries the AI is likely to fan out to and make sure your content (or your site as a whole) covers them, with one owning page per fact family (matrix in references/content-patterns.md).
ChatGPT fans out too — and you can extract its literal background queries for your niche via DevTools (method in references/format-volatility.md). Post-5.6, ChatGPT's fan-outs shifted away from "best/vs/top" modifiers toward site: and "official" searches — use the extraction to see where your category's fan-outs stand today.
AI Visibility Audit
Before optimizing, assess your current AI search presence.
Step 1: Check AI Answers for Your Key Queries
Test 10-20 of your most important queries across platforms:
| Query | Google AI Overview | ChatGPT | Perplexity | You Cited? | Competitors Cited? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [query 1] | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | [who] |
| [query 2] | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | Yes/No | [who] |
Query types to test, spread across buyer awareness stages and written the way people actually type into a chat box:
Problem-aware: "How do I [problem your product solves]?"
Solution-aware: "What is [your product category]?" / "Best [category] for [use case]"
Product-aware: "[Your brand] vs [competitor]" / "Is [your brand] good for [use case]?"
Most aware: "[Your brand] pricing" / "Does [your brand] integrate with [tool]?"
Keep the list to prompts that would change revenue. A citation for a glossary question ("what is gross profit?") rarely sells anything. Track prompts like keywords: collapse wording variants of the same intent into one core prompt, then run each several times.
Step 2: Analyze Citation Patterns
When your competitors get cited and you don't, examine:
Content structure — Is their content more extractable?
Authority signals — Do they have more citations, stats, expert quotes?
Freshness — Is their content more recently updated?
Schema markup — Do they have structured data you're missing?
Third-party presence — Are they cited via Wikipedia, Reddit, review sites?
Turn findings into work. If an assistant states something wrong or vague about you, the page that should state that fact isn't saying it plainly; fix that page first. If you're absent, the sources it cites for the prompt are your target list for PR, review sites, and directories.
Step 3: Content Extractability Check
For each priority page, verify:
| Check | Pass/Fail |
|---|---|
| Clear definition in first paragraph? | |
| Self-contained answer blocks (work without surrounding context)? | |
| Statistics with sources cited? | |
| Comparison tables for "[X] vs [Y]" queries? | |
| FAQ section with natural-language questions? | |
| Schema markup (FAQ, HowTo, Article, Product)? | |
| Expert attribution (author name, credentials)? | |
| Recently updated (within 6 months)? | |
| Heading structure matches query patterns? | |
| AI crawler policy matches discovery and training goals? |
Step 4: AI Bot Access Check
Audit AI user agents by purpose. Search-discovery, user-triggered retrieval, model-training, and product-control tokens are not interchangeable:
Search discovery:
OAI-SearchBot(ChatGPT),PerplexityBot,Claude-SearchBot,meta-webindexer(Meta AI), and the conventional search crawlers that feed an answer productUser-triggered retrieval:
ChatGPT-User,Claude-User,Perplexity-User, andmeta-externalfetcher; vendor handling can differ from automatic crawlers, so verify the current documentationPotential model training:
GPTBot,ClaudeBot, andmeta-externalagentGoogle product control:
Google-Extendedcontrols certain Gemini training and grounding uses of content Google already crawls; it does not affect Google Search inclusion or ranking
Default to one wildcard (User-agent: *) rule that allows agents, and add named groups only for deliberate exceptions such as a training opt-out; an allowlist of named crawlers silently excludes agent search APIs that run their own crawlers, and a named group replaces the * rules for that bot. Check each relevant user-agent group and any WAF or CDN rules separately. A publisher can allow search discovery while disallowing model-development crawlers; do not infer that blocking a training crawler necessarily blocks citations. See references/platform-ranking-factors.md for the full robots.txt configuration.
Optimization Strategy
The Three Pillars
1. Structure (make it extractable)
2. Authority (make it citable)
3. Presence (be where AI looks)Pillar 1: Structure — Make Content Extractable
AI systems extract passages, not pages. Every key claim should work as a standalone statement.
Content block patterns:
Definition blocks for "What is X?" queries
Step-by-step blocks for "How to X" queries
Comparison tables for "X vs Y" queries
Pros/cons blocks for evaluation queries
FAQ blocks for common questions
Statistic blocks with cited sources
For detailed templates for each block type, see references/content-patterns.md.
Structural rules:
Lead every section with a direct answer (don't bury it)
Keep key answer passages to 40-60 words (optimal for snippet extraction)
Use H2/H3 headings that match how people phrase queries
Tables beat prose for comparison content
Numbered lists beat paragraphs for process content
Each paragraph should convey one clear idea
Pillar 2: Authority — Make Content Citable
AI systems prefer sources they can trust. Build citation-worthiness.
The Princeton GEO research (KDD 2024, studied across Perplexity.ai) ranked 9 optimization methods:
| Method | Visibility Boost | How to Apply |
|---|---|---|
| Cite sources | +40% | Add authoritative references with links |
| Add statistics | +37% | Include specific numbers with sources |
| Add quotations | +30% | Expert quotes with name and title |
| Authoritative tone | +25% | Write with demonstrated expertise |
| Improve clarity | +20% | Simplify complex concepts |
| Technical terms | +18% | Use domain-specific terminology |
| Unique vocabulary | +15% | Increase word diversity |
| Fluency optimization | +15-30% | Improve readability and flow |
| -10% | Actively hurts AI visibility |
Best combination: Fluency + Statistics = maximum boost. Low-ranking sites benefit even more — up to 115% visibility increase with citations.
Statistics and data (+37-40% citation boost)
Include specific numbers with sources
Cite original research, not summaries of research
Add dates to all statistics
Original data beats aggregated data
Expert attribution (+25-30% citation boost)
Named authors with credentials
Expert quotes with titles and organizations
"According to [Source]" framing for claims
Author bios with relevant expertise
Freshness signals
"Last updated: [date]" prominently displayed
Regular content refreshes (quarterly minimum for competitive topics)
Current year references and recent statistics
Remove or update outdated information
E-E-A-T alignment
First-hand experience demonstrated
Specific, detailed information (not generic)
Transparent sourcing and methodology
Clear author expertise for the topic
Pillar 3: Presence — Be Where AI Looks
AI systems cite your own site and the places that talk about you, in proportions that vary by engine and category. In one large dataset, company sites took about 57% of citations (ChatGPT 47%, Gemini 69%; Profound, July 2026), while shortlist recommendations lean on third-party consensus. Measure your category's citation mix before choosing channels; see references/citations-vs-recommendations.md.
Third-party surfaces to cover:
Wikipedia (7.8% of ChatGPT citations in Profound's Aug 2024–Jun 2025 data)
Reddit (1.8% in the same data, then nearly wiped from ChatGPT by Aug 2026 retrieval changes; still retrieved elsewhere; see the volatility section in references/agent-readiness.md)
Industry publications and guest posts
LinkedIn — among the most-cited domains for professional queries, but which surface gets cited depends on the engine (ChatGPT now favors posts over articles; Gemini barely cites LinkedIn). Front-load the target phrase, since a post's first words become its URL slug. See references/linkedin-ai-citations.md
Review sites (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for B2B SaaS)
YouTube (frequently cited by Google AI Overviews)
Podcasts (episodes get transcribed, show notes published — both get crawled and cited)
Quora answers
Actions:
Ensure your Wikipedia page is accurate and current
Participate authentically in Reddit communities — but as one surface in a portfolio, never the whole strategy (citation mixes shift overnight with retrieval updates)
Get featured in industry roundups and comparison articles
Make every third-party profile (G2, Capterra, Gartner, Crunchbase, LinkedIn) describe you with the same segment and positioning as your About page; models look for consensus. For repositioning, mergers, and head terms, see references/positioning-and-consensus.md
Create YouTube content for key how-to queries — models don't watch the video, they read the text layer around it; see references/youtube-ai-citations.md for the full anatomy (transcript, captions, chapters, description, pinned comment)
Guest on podcasts in your category (prep with the public-relations skill's podcast guest prep)
Answer relevant Quora questions with depth
Machine-Readable Files for AI Agents
Google's stance: not required for AI Overviews or AI Mode. Their guide explicitly says you don't need new markup, AI files, or markdown to appear in generative AI search.
Why include them anyway: non-Google AI engines (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) and autonomous buying agents do reward extractable structure. The files below help with those engines without harming Google.
AI agents aren't just answering questions — they're becoming buyers. When an AI agent evaluates tools on behalf of a user, it needs structured, parseable information. If your pricing is locked in a JavaScript-rendered page or a "contact sales" wall, agents will skip you and recommend competitors whose information they can actually read.
Audit this layer first: references/agent-readiness.md — the access/discovery/parseability checklist, free scoring tools (npx is-agentic, Frase's checker), Markdown content negotiation + Link headers, llms-full.txt, and the emerging agent-actionable layer (WebMCP, and a skill file for your product with a prefilled checkout link).
Add these machine-readable files to your site root:
/pricing.md or /pricing.txt — Structured pricing data for AI agents
# Pricing — [Your Product Name]
## Free
- Price: $0/month
- Limits: 100 emails/month, 1 user
- Features: Basic templates, API access
## Pro
- Price: $29/month (billed annually) | $35/month (billed monthly)
- Limits: 10,000 emails/month, 5 users
- Features: Custom domains, analytics, priority support
## Enterprise
- Price: Custom — contact [email protected]
- Limits: Unlimited emails, unlimited users
- Features: SSO, SLA, dedicated account managerWhy this matters now:
AI agents increasingly compare products programmatically before a human ever visits your site
Opaque pricing gets filtered out of AI-mediated buying journeys
A simple markdown file is trivially parseable by any LLM — no rendering, no JavaScript, no login walls
Same principle as
robots.txt(for crawlers),llms.txt(for AI context), andAGENTS.md(for agent capabilities)
Best practices:
Use consistent units (monthly vs. annual, per-seat vs. flat)
Include specific limits and thresholds, not just feature names
List what's included at each tier, not just what's different
Keep it updated — stale pricing is worse than no file
Link to it from your sitemap and main pricing page
/llms.txt — Context file for AI systems (see llmstxt.org)
If you don't have one yet, add an llms.txt that gives AI systems a quick overview of what your product does, who it's for, and links to key pages (including your pricing).
/okf/ — Open Knowledge Format bundle (Google-backed, v0.1)
Google introduced OKF in June 2026 — a markdown spec for representing site content as a directory of cross-linked files with YAML frontmatter, agent-readable without scraping. Built primarily for data-team catalog metadata; the site-readable-by-agents repurposing was popularized by Suganthan Mohanadasan. No confirmed AI-search ranking signal today — treat it as protocol-layer registration like early schema.org. For the full breakdown, implementation paths (free generator, WordPress plugin, by-hand), hosting guidance, and when to skip, see references/okf.md.
Schema Markup for AI
Structured data helps AI systems understand your content. Key schemas:
| Content Type | Schema | Why It Helps |
|---|---|---|
| Articles/Blog posts | Article, BlogPosting | Author, date, topic identification |
| How-to content | HowTo | Step extraction for process queries |
| FAQs | FAQPage | Direct Q&A extraction |
| Products | Product | Pricing, features, reviews |
| Comparisons | ItemList | Structured comparison data |
| Reviews | Review, AggregateRating | Trust signals |
| Organization | Organization | Entity recognition |
No well-documented study isolates a schema lift on AI citations, so treat schema as context that helps engines parse your pages and expect no fixed lift from it. Google's note: structured data is "not required for generative AI search" but is recommended for overall SEO strategy. For implementation, use the schema skill.
Agentic Experiences
Beyond AI search engines summarizing content, autonomous agents are starting to access sites directly — clicking, reading, comparing, even buying on behalf of users. Google's guide flags this as an emerging category to plan for.
How agents access your site:
Visual rendering — they screenshot/read the page like a user would
DOM inspection — they parse the page's HTML structure
Accessibility tree — they rely on the same semantic information assistive tech uses (labels, roles, landmarks, headings)
What to do:
Render meaningful content without heavy JS gymnastics — if the page is blank until 4 frameworks finish loading, agents see blank
Semantic HTML — use
<main>,<nav>,<article>,<button>, proper heading hierarchy,alttext on imagesClean accessibility tree — every interactive element labelled; ARIA used correctly (or not at all when native HTML suffices)
Stable selectors / predictable layouts — agents struggle with sites that re-render every interaction
Visible pricing, specs, contact info — anything an agent would need to make a buying recommendation should be on a public, indexable page (this is where
/pricing.mdand similar files help). Date the facts that change ("4.7 on G2 as of October 2026") so an agent can judge freshnessProof as text — testimonials, ratings, and named customer logos in the HTML as text, not baked into images or injected by a widget script. If you can't select it with the mouse, an agent may not read it
Emerging — Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP): Google references UCP as a forthcoming protocol that will give agents standardized hooks for commerce interactions (catalog discovery, pricing, checkout). Watch for adoption; for now, the structural recommendations above are the precursor.
For ecom and local business specifically, Google highlights:
Merchant Center feeds + Google Business Profile for product/service visibility in AI Search
Business Agent for conversational customer engagement (where applicable)
Content Types That Get Cited Most
Not all content is equally citable — and the format mix is volatile. The long-standing baseline had comparison articles (~33%) and listicles (~10%) among the top citation earners, but ChatGPT 5.6 (Aug 2026) demoted the exploited formats: listicle citations fell −50.5% and comparison-page citations −32.1%, while site: and "official" retrieval surged — a shift toward primary sources and owned pages. Format strategy is now per-platform (comparisons still work on Google AIO/Gemini/Perplexity). See references/format-volatility.md for the shift data, the per-platform format table, LinkedIn's citation numbers, and the ChatGPT fan-out extraction diagnostic.
Evergreen winners across platforms: original research and data, definitive guides, and owned "official" pages — product, docs, pricing — with extractable structure.
Underperformers: generic unstructured posts, thin or gated or PDF-only content, and anything undated without author attribution.
Citation ≠ recommendation. Getting cited means your content was useful to consult; getting recommended — onto the buyer's actual shortlist — is governed by web-wide consensus (reviews, forums, analysts, press) and is largely independent of your own content. Self-promotional "best [category]" listicles can even backfire for emerging brands: in one 100-query B2B study, 69% of the AI Overview citations that self-promotional listicles earned came in answers that recommended competitors instead of the publishing brand. See references/citations-vs-recommendations.md for the visibility ladder (retrieved → cited → mentioned → recommended), stage-dependent buyer's-guide strategy, what earns recommendations, and the attribution blind spot.
Monitoring AI Visibility
What to Track
| Metric | What It Measures | How to Check |
|---|---|---|
| AI Overview presence | Do AI Overviews appear for your queries? | Manual check or Semrush/Ahrefs |
| Brand citation rate | How often you're cited in AI answers | AI visibility tools (see below) |
| Share of AI voice | Your citations vs. competitors | Peec AI, Otterly, ZipTie, Omnia |
| Citation sentiment | How AI describes your brand | Manual review + monitoring tools |
| Recommendation rate | Whether you're on the shortlist, not just cited (see citations-vs-recommendations.md) | Prompt tracking + mention framing |
| Source attribution | Which pages get cited, and what AI exposure does downstream | AI referrals plus delayed branded and direct visits (ai-attribution.md) |
AI Visibility Monitoring Tools
| Tool | Coverage | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Otterly AI | ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Overviews | Share of AI voice tracking |
| Peec AI | ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity, Claude, Copilot+ | Multi-platform monitoring at scale |
| ZipTie | Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity | Brand mention + sentiment tracking |
| LLMrefs | ChatGPT, Perplexity, AI Overviews, Gemini | SEO keyword → AI visibility mapping |
| Profound, Ahrefs Brand Radar, Semrush | Major assistants and Google AI surfaces | Larger programs: cited sources, answer text, prompt demand (Profound's studies are cited in the references as vendor research) |
| Omnia | Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude, Copilot | AI visibility monitoring |
DIY Monitoring (No Tools)
Monthly manual check:
Pick your top 20 queries
Run each through ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Google
Record: Are you cited? Who is? What page? Log it in a spreadsheet and track month-over-month
AI answers are non-deterministic — one run is an anecdote, not a measurement. Run each query 3–5 times per platform and track the mention rate with its sample size ("cited 3/5, n=5"), comparing rates over time rather than single runs. Full rigor checklist in references/format-volatility.md.
Search Console expectations
Google's guide is explicit: there is no AI-specific Search Console reporting. AI Overviews and AI Mode use core Search ranking, so the standard Search Console reports (Performance, Coverage, Core Web Vitals) are still what you measure with for Google. The third-party tools above are the only way to see cross-platform AI citation behavior.
What NOT to Do
Google's guide calls these out explicitly — they hurt across both traditional Search and AI features.
Write separate content "for AI". Same content should serve people and AI. Writing variants targeted at AI systems risks the scaled content abuse spam policy — Google's words.
Chunk pages into AI-bait fragments. Google's guide is direct: "Don't break your content into tiny pieces for AI to better understand it." Use normal paragraph + heading structure.
Generate at scale for ranking manipulation. AI-generated content is fine if it meets Search Essentials and spam policies. Mass-producing thin variations does not.
Pursue inauthentic mentions. Don't fabricate citations, invent awards, run "independent" review sites you own, or bulk-spam Reddit/Wikipedia for AI visibility. Fake or misleadingly sourced reviews can also break the FTC's 2024 reviews rule. Real participation only.
Treat every AI user agent as the same control.
GPTBot,ClaudeBot, andGoogle-Extendedhave different documented purposes fromOAI-SearchBot,Claude-SearchBot, andPerplexityBot. Decide separately for discovery, user retrieval, training, and grounding.Hide your main content behind JS that doesn't render. Both core Search and AI agents need to see your content; JS-only rendering loses both audiences.
Skip E-E-A-T fundamentals. Author identity, first-hand experience, expertise signals, transparent sourcing — Google's guide leans heavily on these for AI features.
AI SEO by Content Type
For tactical guidance on SaaS product pages, blog content, comparison/alternative pages, documentation, and local/ecom (Google's emphasis on Merchant Center + Business Profile), see references/content-types.md.
Common Mistakes
Ignoring AI search entirely — AI Overviews appear on roughly half of tracked queries in many industries (BrightEdge, Feb 2026), and assistant usage keeps growing
Treating AI SEO as separate from SEO — Good traditional SEO is the foundation; AI SEO adds structure and authority on top
Writing for AI, not humans — If content reads like it was written to game an algorithm, it won't get cited or convert
No freshness signals — Undated content loses to dated content because AI systems weight recency heavily. Show when content was last updated
Gating all content — AI can't access gated content. Keep your most authoritative content open
Ignoring third-party presence — Shortlist recommendations lean on what reviews, forums, and press say about you, even where your own site earns most citations
No structured data — Schema markup gives AI systems structured context about your content
Keyword stuffing — Unlike traditional SEO where it's just ineffective, keyword stuffing actively reduces AI visibility by 10% (Princeton GEO study)
Hiding pricing behind "contact sales" or JS-rendered pages — AI agents evaluating your product on behalf of buyers can't parse what they can't read. Add a
/pricing.mdfileBlocking discovery crawlers without checking their purpose — Restricting
OAI-SearchBot,PerplexityBot, orClaude-SearchBotmay reduce search visibility; training controls are separateGeneric content without data — "We're the best" won't get cited. "Our customers see 3x improvement in [metric]" will
Forgetting to monitor — You can't improve what you don't measure. Check AI visibility monthly at minimum
Tool Integrations
For implementation, see the tools registry.
| Tool | Use For |
|---|---|
semrush | AI Overview tracking, keyword research, content gap analysis |
ahrefs | Backlink analysis, content explorer, AI Overview data |
gsc | Search Console performance data, query tracking |
ga4 | Referral traffic from AI sources |
Related Skills
seo-audit: For traditional technical and on-page SEO audits; link-building for earning links and mentions on the third-party pages AI engines cite
schema: For implementing structured data that helps AI understand your content
content-strategy: For planning what content to create
competitors: For building comparison pages that get cited
programmatic-seo: For building SEO pages at scale
copywriting: For writing content that's both human-readable and AI-extractable
lead-magnets: For packaging an owned course or content library as an installable agent skill (different from public-site AI visibility)
Files
- ATTRIBUTION.mdAdded by AutoGineer873 B
- LICENSELicence file added by AutoGineer1.0 KiB
- SKILL.md36.1 KiB
- evals/evals.json20.2 KiB
- references/agent-defaults.md9.1 KiB
- references/agent-readiness.md17.1 KiB
- references/ai-attribution.md4.2 KiB
- references/answer-accuracy.md5.6 KiB
- references/citations-vs-recommendations.md12.5 KiB
- references/content-patterns.md12.6 KiB
- references/content-types.md3.5 KiB
- references/format-volatility.md7.1 KiB
- references/linkedin-ai-citations.md8.5 KiB
- references/multilingual-and-commerce.md4.8 KiB
- references/okf.md5.8 KiB
- references/platform-ranking-factors.md16.3 KiB
- references/positioning-and-consensus.md7.1 KiB
- references/prompt-portfolio.md7.5 KiB
- references/youtube-ai-citations.md4.4 KiB
references/citations-vs-recommendations.md
Citations vs. Recommendations: The AI Visibility Ladder
Being cited by an AI engine and being recommended by it are two different outcomes governed by two different systems. A citation means your page was useful enough to pull information from. A recommendation means the model put your brand on the buyer's shortlist. Optimizing for the first does not automatically earn the second — and for smaller brands, conflating them leads to content strategies that can actively help competitors.
Source note: the analysis and data in this reference draw on Lily Ray's (Amsive) 2026 study of B2B "best [category] software" queries, behavioral studies by Scrunch and SimilarWeb, and commentary by John-Henry Scherck (Growth Plays). The citation-mix taxonomy and decision rules are adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from Profound's MIT-licensed ai-citation-mix-strategist skill, credited.
The Visibility Ladder
AI visibility is a ladder, not a binary. Each rung has different selection criteria and different measurement:
| Rung | What it means | What governs it | How to see it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Retrieved | The model read your content while building its answer, without citing it | Crawlability, parseable structure, query relevance | Mostly invisible; bot logs hint at it |
| 2. Cited | Your page appears as a source in the answer | Content usefulness: structure, statistics, clarity, freshness | Prompt-tracking tools, AI Overview source lists |
| 3. Mentioned | Your brand is named in the answer text | Entity recognition + how the web talks about you | Prompt-tracking tools |
| 4. Recommended | Your product is on the shortlist the buyer actually considers | Aggregate web consensus — reviews, forums, analysts, press, video — largely independent of your own content | Prompt tracking + the framing around the mention |
Rungs 1–3 are legitimate signals your content is working, and most prompt-tracking tools report them. But rung 4 is where buying behavior changes, and it's earned differently: citation is about whether your content is useful to consult; recommendation is mostly a reflection of what the broader web says about you — whether you published a guide on the topic or not.
There is also a shadow rung: recommended against. On detailed, requirements-heavy prompts, models increasingly name products a buyer should avoid for their use case, with sources. The downside of weak third-party consensus is no longer just absence from the shortlist — it can be an explicit rule-out. This makes monitoring the framing around your mentions (favorable / neutral / hedged / negative), not just counting them, part of the job.
Repairing a weakness models repeat. Address it in public, with specifics, from a real person. One practitioner's client was "slaughtered" on implementation time; over 1.5–2 years, founder posts about the process, guides on real timelines, and a concrete "4–8 weeks" on the implementation page shifted how models described it (anecdote, Harpreet Singh on Edward Sturm's podcast, Sep 2026). More in positioning-and-consensus.md.
The Self-Promotional Listicle Risk
The common tactic — publish a "best [category] software" guide, rank yourself #1, and let it shape both organic search and AI answers — now has a stage-dependent payoff.
The data: Lily Ray (Amsive) analyzed 100 B2B "best [category] software" queries across three dates in spring 2026. Across the dataset, self-promotional listicles earned 323 citations in AI Overviews — and in 224 of them (69% of the citations), the answer left the publishing brand out of the recommendations, pointing buyers to competitors instead.
The mechanism: the model treats your guide as a source about the category. It happily extracts the competitor names, comparisons, and evaluation criteria you compiled — then makes its recommendation from web-wide consensus, where the established players dominate. For an emerging brand, a self-promotional buyer's guide can function as a vote for your competitors: you did the research that helps the model describe them.
The split by stage:
Established category leaders get both outcomes. Their guides earn citations and their brands get recommended — because analysts, review sites, and forum discussions already validate them. For leaders, a definitive buyer's guide is highly advantageous: it shapes how the whole category (competitors included) gets described.
Emerging brands may win the citation and even shape the category's framing, but miss the recommendation. That's not a wasted outcome — influencing how an LLM defines the category and its evaluation criteria is real positioning work — but it is not the shortlist placement the tactic promises.
What this changes (and doesn't): genuinely useful buyer's guides still belong in a B2B content strategy at any stage. What changes is the expectation and the investment split. If you're not yet the consensus pick, weight effort toward the offsite signals that actually govern recommendations (below) rather than publishing a plethora of self-ranked listicles.
A third option between ranking yourself #1 and not writing the guide: name the category leader first, say honestly what it does well, then show the specific cases where your product goes further (practitioner pattern, Sep 2026). It reads as a fair source, which is what models are now starting to filter for.
What Earns Recommendations
Recommendation is a consensus signal. The inputs the models weigh live mostly off your site:
| Channel | Why it moves recommendations | Related skill |
|---|---|---|
| Review platforms (G2, Capterra, TrustRadius, app stores) | Third-party validation models treat as evidence of legitimacy | customer-research (review generation loops) |
| Analyst coverage (Gartner, Forrester, industry reports) | High-authority category framing; models echo analyst shortlists | public-relations |
| Communities and forums (Reddit, HN, Slack/Discord, niche forums) | Unprompted practitioner discussion is heavily retrieved and hard to fake | community-marketing |
| Earned media and PR | Independent sources repeating your positioning beyond your own site | public-relations |
| Video and podcasts | Increasingly retrieved; transcripts carry brand + category associations | video, social |
The test to apply before investing in another self-ranked guide: if a model ignored everything on our domain, would the rest of the web still put us on the shortlist? If not, that gap is the priority. AEO discourse often stops at "are we in the answer?" — the better question is "are we credible enough to be recommended?"
The encouraging flip side: earning an AI recommendation is harder to game than a top search ranking ever was. The durable strategy is the same at every stage — be the best fit for a clear set of buyers, and give those buyers reasons to talk about you in public, where the models can retrieve it.
Reading the Citation Mix Before Picking Channels
"Do more PR" and "post on Reddit" are guesses until you know which sources the engines actually cite for your prompts. The mix differs sharply by engine and industry. Profound's analysis of 11.84 billion citations across eight models and 29 industries found about 57% went to company-operated sites overall, with ChatGPT at 47% and Gemini at 69%; in 24 of 29 industries, the median Profound customer got more citations from brand sites than from earned or social sources (Profound, July 2026). Profound sells AI visibility tracking, so treat this as vendor research. Ahrefs Brand Radar, Semrush, Peec AI, and Otterly also report cited domains you can classify the same way.
Classify every cited source across a stable prompt sample, split by engine and prompt cluster:
| Class | Examples | Roll-up |
|---|---|---|
| Your own site | Product, docs, pricing, blog | Owned |
| Competitor or adjacent company site | A rival's comparison page, a partner's docs | Owned (someone else's) |
| Earned editorial | Trade press, independent reviews, newsletters | Earned |
| Institutional or primary authority | Standards bodies, government, universities, analyst firms | Earned |
| PR wire | Press release distribution | Earned |
| Social and user-generated | Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn, forums | Community |
| Marketplace, directory, or review platform | G2, Capterra, app stores, Amazon | Community |
| Other or unknown | Anything you can't classify yet | Unclassified |
Diagnose with the granular classes; report to executives with the three roll-ups. Separate sources that cite you from sources that only shape the surrounding answer.
Then follow the mix:
Engines already cite company sites, and yours lacks the facts: strengthen owned content first. State specific, current facts on the page that should own them.
Editorial or institutional sources dominate: pursue earned coverage and analyst inclusion. The link-building skill turns the cited pages into a prospect list.
Communities contribute materially: participate where you can do it honestly and in your own name. Skip communities the engines don't cite.
Competitor pages get cited: read them for the facts and framing you're missing. Don't copy them.
Engines disagree: plan per engine. A blended average can hide opposite behavior.
Re-measure on the same prompt cohort over time; mixes shift with retrieval updates (see the volatility section in agent-readiness.md).
What a Recommendation Is Worth
Two behavioral studies quantified the gap between rungs:
Scrunch (opt-in panel linking AI conversations to subsequent web behavior, compared against each user's own baseline — observational, not a controlled experiment): a genuine recommendation ("a great option is X") was associated with people searching for, visiting, and evaluating a brand about twice as often as a passing mention. For users with no recent observed engagement with the brand, a recommendation was followed within a week by +182% branded searches, +117% site visits, and +185% product views.
SimilarWeb (thousands of real user journeys, seven days post-answer): when ChatGPT recommended a brand, it received roughly 2.5× more new visitors the following week than the competitors left off the list.
The attribution blind spot: in the SimilarWeb data, only about 9% of those post-recommendation visits arrived as visible AI referral traffic; the largest share arrived via branded search, with direct and other channels making up the rest — indistinguishable from ordinary organic visitors. AI recommendations are already sending real, engaged buyers, but standard attribution underreports the AI touch.
Measurement triad (no single signal is complete; together they give a reliable read):
AI prompt tracking — whether and how you're mentioned/recommended in LLM answers, even when no click ever lands (tools in SKILL.md's Monitoring section). Track the framing around mentions — recommended, neutral, hedged, or recommended-against — not just the count.
Self-reported attribution — a "how did you hear about us?" field catches buyers whose journey started in an AI chat but arrived via branded search or direct. Add an AI option with a follow-up, "What did you type?", so buyers hand you real prompts to track. ChatGPT referral UTMs undercount, and AI Overview revenue can't be separated from organic in analytics, so this field is often the clearest signal you have.
Sales call recordings — buyers' own language often reveals an AI conversation shaped the shortlist long before any form fill.
Also watch branded search volume as a proxy: sustained lifts without a matching campaign are increasingly AI-influence showing up under another name.
Applying This
Auditing an established brand: buyer's guides and comparison content are high-leverage — publish the definitive version and shape the category's evaluation criteria.
Auditing an emerging brand: publish the genuinely useful guides your ICP needs, but set expectations (citation and framing, not near-term recommendation) and rebalance investment toward reviews, communities, analysts, and earned media.
Reporting: report the ladder, not a single "AI visibility" number — retrieved/cited/mentioned/recommended plus mention framing. A rising citation count with a flat recommendation rate is a specific, diagnosable gap: the web doesn't yet corroborate your content.
Risk check: for requirements-heavy queries in your category, check whether models recommend against you, and trace the sources they cite when they do.
Requirements and compatibility
Works with: Claude Code, Claude apps, OpenAI Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, Kiro, OpenCode, Goose, Amp, Roo Code, JetBrains Junie, Factory Droid, Devin (ex-Windsurf), Mistral Vibe, OpenHands, Letta
“Works with” means the tool reads the open Agent Skills format; a skill written for one tool may use features others lack.
Needs: Needs Node.js
Security
No issues found by our static scan· No issues found
A static scan is not a guarantee. Skills are third-party content: review a skill before you let an agent use it.
Attribution and licence
- Created by
- Corey Haines
- Publisher
- Corey Haines (Community)
- Source
- coreyhaines31/marketingskills · skills/ai-seo · commit 96798cf
- Licence
- MIT License (redistribution allowed)
- LICENSE (added by AutoGineer from LICENSE)
- ATTRIBUTION.md (written by AutoGineer)
- Synced
AutoGineer is not affiliated with or endorsed by Corey Haines or Corey Haines.
Download ZIP
The ZIP holds the skill’s files, its licence files and an ATTRIBUTION.md. Download ai-seo.zip