seo-geo skill

AI Search / GEO Optimization (May 2026)

Primary Source: Google's AI Optimization Guide

Google's official position, published under Search Central docs:

"From Google Search's perspective, optimizing for generative AI search is

optimizing for the search experience, and thus still SEO."

Read references/google-ai-optimization-guide.md for the full synthesis, myth-busting list (llms.txt, chunking, AI-rephrasing, mention-farming, all rejected by Google as ineffective), and the Who/How/Why test for content quality.

Audits should frame GEO findings as SEO fundamentals applied to AI-search surfaces, not as a separate optimization discipline. When community recommendations contradict Google's primary source, defer to Google and note the contradiction in the report.

Key Statistics

Third-party figures below were not re-verified on 2026-09-23. Quote them only with their source and date, or leave them out.

Critical Insight: Brand Mentions > Backlinks

Brand mentions correlate 3x more strongly with AI visibility than backlinks. (Ahrefs December 2025 study of 75,000 brands)

Only 11% of domains are cited by both ChatGPT and Google AI Overviews for the same query, so platform-specific optimization is essential.

GEO Analysis Criteria (Updated)

1. Citability Score (25%)

Self-contained answer blocks are easy for AI systems to quote. Third-party studies suggest roughly 130-170 words; this is a readability heuristic, not a Google requirement (Google's AI optimization guide says you do not need to chunk content for AI). And ~44% of AI citations come from the first 30% of a page (SE Ranking study), front-load your most citable, self-contained answer rather than burying it below the fold.

Strong signals:

• Clear, quotable sentences with specific facts/statistics
• Self-contained answer blocks (can be extracted without context)
• Direct answer in first 40-60 words of section
• Claims attributed with specific sources
• Definitions following "X is..." or "X refers to..." patterns
• Unique data points not found elsewhere

Weak signals:

• Vague, general statements
• Opinion without evidence
• Buried conclusions
• No specific data points

2. Structural Readability (20%)

92% of AI Overview citations come from top-10 ranking pages, but 47% come from pages ranking below position 5, demonstrating different selection logic.

Strong signals:

• Clean H1->H2->H3 heading hierarchy
• Question-based headings (matches query patterns)
• Short paragraphs (2-4 sentences)
• Tables for comparative data
• Ordered/unordered lists for step-by-step or multi-item content
• FAQ sections with clear Q&A format

Weak signals:

• Wall of text with no structure
• Inconsistent heading hierarchy
• No lists or tables
• Information buried in paragraphs

3. Multi-Modal Content (15%)

Multi-modal content can support selection in AI answers (third-party claims only; no primary source gives a figure).

Check for:

• Text + relevant images
• Video content (embedded or linked)
• Infographics and charts
• Interactive elements (calculators, tools)
• Structured data supporting media

4. Authority & Brand Signals (20%)

Strong signals:

• Author byline with credentials
• Publication date and last-updated date
• Recency, content under 3 months old is ~3x more likely to be cited in AI answers; pages left stale 6+ months lose citation eligibility (SE Ranking, 1.3M-citation study). A scheduled refresh program is one of the highest-leverage GEO plays.
• Citations to primary sources (studies, official docs, data)
• Organization credentials and affiliations
• Expert quotes with attribution
• Entity presence in Wikipedia, Wikidata
• Mentions on Reddit, YouTube, LinkedIn

Weak signals:

• Anonymous authorship
• No dates
• No sources cited
• No brand presence across platforms

5. Technical Accessibility (20%)

Many AI crawlers fetch raw HTML without running JavaScript (for example GPTBot and PerplexityBot in public tests), while Googlebot renders JavaScript and feeds AI Overviews and AI Mode. Server-side rendering keeps content visible to all of them.

Check for:

• Server-side rendering (SSR) vs client-only content
• AI crawler access in robots.txt
• llms.txt presence (reported for completeness; it carries no weight in this score, see references/llmstxt-evidence.md)
• RSL 1.0 licensing terms

AI Crawler Detection

Check robots.txt for these AI crawlers:

Sources: OpenAI crawlers, Google crawlers overview, Anthropic crawler support article, Apple Applebot-Extended support article. Anthropic's current crawler support article documents only ClaudeBot, Claude-User, and Claude-SearchBot; it does not list anthropic-ai, so the previously-unverified anthropic-ai row has been removed rather than kept as a guess.

Recommendation: Allow OAI-SearchBot, Claude-SearchBot, and PerplexityBot for AI search visibility. GPTBot, ClaudeBot, CCBot, and Applebot-Extended are training-only signals -- allow or block them on licensing preference, not on search-visibility grounds.

Check the right bot for the claim you are making

Two pairs are routinely conflated. Each claim below may only be supported by its own bot's robots.txt status -- check them separately and report them separately.

It does not affect inclusion in ordinary Google Search, or in AI Overviews and AI Mode, both of which are served from the Googlebot index.** Never score Google-Extended as a "Google Search readiness" signal, and never cite a blocked Google-Extended as evidence that a site is missing from Google Search.

• **Google-Extended governs Gemini and Vertex AI training and grounding use only.

GPTBot is OpenAI's separate training crawler.** Checking GPTBot access tells you nothing about whether ChatGPT Search can cite the page. A site that blocks GPTBot and allows OAI-SearchBot is fully citable in ChatGPT Search.

• **OAI-SearchBot is the crawler that determines ChatGPT Search citability.

search features. ClaudeBot is Anthropic's separate training crawler** (per Anthropic's crawler support article). Checking ClaudeBot access tells you nothing about Claude search citability, and vice versa; report each separately.

• **Claude-SearchBot is the crawler that determines citability in Claude's own

fetches pages itself.** Per Apple's support article, disallowing Applebot-Extended opts a site out of Apple Intelligence / generative-model training use, but the page remains discoverable through Siri, Spotlight, and Safari as long as Applebot itself is allowed. Never cite a blocked Applebot-Extended as evidence a site is missing from Apple's search surfaces.

• **Applebot-Extended is a training-data opt-out signal, not a crawler that

Do not use these names interchangeably in report prose. When reporting crawler access, name the specific user-agent that was checked and the specific capability it governs.

Google's user-triggered fetchers generally ignore robots.txt rules (Google-Agent, Google-GeminiNotebook, Google Messages); OpenAI says robots.txt "may not apply" to ChatGPT-User, while Anthropic's Claude-User honors it. robots.txt cannot block them, use server-side access controls. Google's canonical crawling/robots reference moved to developers.google.com/crawling (migrated 2025-11-20); IP-range files now live at /crawling/ipranges/ and googlebot.json was renamed common-crawlers.json. Emerging: Web Bot Auth (RFC 9421) lets bots authenticate via a Signature-Agent header + key directory (used by Google-Agent); reverse-DNS verification remains the fallback.

llms.txt Standard

Read references/llmstxt-evidence.md for the primary-source evidence (Mueller, Illyes, SE Ranking 300k-domain study, OtterlyAI server-log audit) on why /llms.txt is not currently a citation lever for major AI search systems. claude-seo reports presence but assigns no citation-ranking weight.

Google now states this explicitly. Google's AI optimization guide, introduced

2026-05-15 and clarified 2026-06-15, says llms.txt and other AI-text files are

not needed for Google Search and do not help or hurt visibility or rankings.

They may still serve non-Google systems. Never recommend llms.txt as a Google