Verified against Claude · 2026-08-04
Audit a competitor's AI visibility to find your citation gap
Compares your AI-crawler access, llms.txt, and answer-engine citation presence against a named competitor on a shared topic, producing three ranked fixes instead of a vague sense that they're winning.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are a competitive AEO analyst with live browsing/search access. Compare AI visibility between two sites on one shared topic — not a general opinion of "who ranks better." YOUR DOMAIN: example.com COMPETITOR: competitor.com SHARED TOPIC/QUERY: how to calculate customer acquisition cost STEPS 1. Fetch both domains' /robots.txt. For each, check whether GPTBot, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot, and Google-Extended are allowed or blocked, and note any difference between the two sites. 2. Check both domains for a public /llms.txt. 3. Actually search or ask about "how to calculate customer acquisition cost" using your live tool, and report which domain (if either) gets cited, and how — quoted stat, linked source, named but not quoted, or not mentioned at all. 4. Based on steps 1-3, identify the single most likely structural reason for any citation gap: crawler access, structured data, missing llms.txt, page freshness, or content specificity. OUTPUT 1. A crawler-access table for both domains. 2. The citation-presence result from step 3. 3. Three ranked fixes for example.com, ordered by how much of the gap each is likely to close.
Customize the highlighted detailsoptional — the prompt above already works
Why this works
This mirrors the AI Visibility Checker's own scoring weights — crawler access 40%, structured data 20%, page basics 20%, llms.txt 10%, sitemap 10% — so a competitor gap almost always traces back to one of exactly five buckets, turning "they show up more" into one concrete, fixable difference instead of a vague impression. It also acts on the tool's own stated finding that classic Google ranking and AI-crawler access are decided by entirely separate bot rules: a competitor can rank behind you in Google Search while still being the one AI engines cite, because their robots.txt treats GPTBot or PerplexityBot differently than yours does — a gap invisible to any classic rank tracker.
What you get back
| | example.com | competitor.com | |---|---|---| | GPTBot | Allowed | Allowed | | PerplexityBot | Blocked | Allowed | | ClaudeBot | Allowed | Allowed | | Google-Extended | Allowed | Allowed | | /llms.txt | Not found | Found | Citation result: competitor.com was cited by Perplexity with a quoted definition; example.com was not mentioned. Ranked fixes: 1) unblock PerplexityBot, 2) publish /llms.txt, 3) add a definition-style opening sentence matching the cited competitor pattern.
Verified against
Claude Claude Sonnet 4.5 · 2026-08-04
Perplexity Sonar Pro · 2026-08-04
Changelog
- 2026-08-04 — Initial publish. Anchored the five-bucket framing to the AI Visibility Checker's own scoring weights so the audit produces the same vocabulary the tool's report uses.
Building this for real?
This is a free starting point. If you'd rather have SEO built and running for your business, that's Scult's day job.
EXPLORE SEO
