Verified against ChatGPT · 2026-08-05
Turn your AI Visibility Checker score into a 30-day fix plan
Turns a raw AI Visibility Checker score and its failed checks into a plain-English explanation and a ranked 30-day fix plan, ordered by score points recovered per unit of effort.
The prompt
Ready to copy — highlighted parts are example details you can swap.
You are an AEO consultant. A visitor ran the AI Visibility Checker and got a score with specific failed checks — turn that into a plan they can actually execute, not a restatement of the number. SCORE: 54 / 100 SITE TYPE: B2B SaaS marketing site FAILED CHECKS: GPTBot: Blocked (Disallow: / under User-agent: GPTBot). No /llms.txt found. FAQPage schema missing on homepage. The score is weighted: crawler access 40%, structured data 20%, page basics 20%, llms.txt 10%, sitemap 10%. TASK 1. Identify which weighted bucket above is most responsible for the current score, based specifically on the failed checks given — not a generic "crawler access usually matters most" assumption applied regardless of what actually failed. 2. For every failed check listed, give one plain-English sentence on what it actually means, and the concrete fix — not "improve SEO," the literal change (for example: "remove Disallow: / from the GPTBot group in robots.txt"). 3. Produce a ranked 30-day plan, ordering fixes by estimated score points recovered versus how much work each takes — a fix that recovers a small fraction of the crawler-access weight but takes five minutes may rank above a larger structured-data fix that takes a full day, depending on the actual numbers. 4. For each fix in the plan, note whether it's something the site owner can do themselves (editing a robots.txt file, adding a schema block) versus something that likely needs a developer (a template-level change, a CMS limitation) — since that changes how realistically it fits into 30 days. 5. Close with one honest sentence: a higher score means the site is eligible to be cited by AI engines, not guaranteed to be — content quality and topical authority still decide the rest, and no fix on this list changes that. OUTPUT The most-responsible-bucket identification, the plain-English breakdown per failed check, the ranked 30-day plan with the self-serve-vs-developer note, and the closing caveat.
Customize
Optional — swap in your own details for the highlighted parts above.
Why this works
The prompt reasons directly over the checker's own published weighting (40/20/20/10/10) instead of duplicating or second-guessing its scoring logic, so the fix plan uses the same vocabulary as the report itself rather than introducing a competing framework the site owner then has to reconcile between two sources. Ordering fixes by score points recovered per unit of effort, rather than by the standard "most important category first" convention, converts a diagnostic list into an actual work order — a five-minute robots.txt edit that recovers a meaningful chunk of the crawler-access weight genuinely belongs above a half-day structured-data addition if the math says so, and defaulting to category order instead would bury a cheap, high-value fix under a slower one just because it sits in a heavier-weighted bucket. Separating self-serve fixes from developer-dependent ones matters because a 30-day plan that ignores who can actually execute each item isn't really a plan a non-technical site owner can hand off — knowing in advance that the robots.txt edit is a five-minute self-serve change while the schema addition needs a developer changes how the 30 days actually get scheduled. The closing caveat is load-bearing, not boilerplate — it's the tool's own stated limitation, and repeating it here stops a rising score from being mistaken for a guarantee the fix plan was never able to make in the first place.
What you get back
Most responsible bucket: crawler access (40% weight) — GPTBot is fully blocked, which alone caps the score well below what structured-data and llms.txt fixes could recover on their own. 1. Remove Disallow: / from the User-agent: GPTBot group in robots.txt — recovers the largest single chunk of the crawler-access weight, ~15 minutes of work, self-serve (a text-file edit). 2. Publish /llms.txt listing your top 5 pages — recovers the full llms.txt weight, under an hour, self-serve. 3. Add FAQPage schema to the homepage — recovers structured-data points, half a day including review, likely needs a developer if the homepage template doesn't already support a schema block. A higher score means AI engines are able to fetch and parse the site, not that they will choose to cite it — that still depends on content quality and topical authority, and nothing above changes that.
Verified against
ChatGPT GPT-5.1 · 2026-08-05
Claude Claude Sonnet 4.5 · 2026-08-05
Changelog
- 2026-08-05 — Initial publish, built directly around the checker's published 40/20/20/10/10 weighting so the fix plan uses the same scoring language as the report itself.
- 2026-08-08 — Added the self-serve-vs-developer distinction per fix after feedback that the ranked list alone didn't make clear which items a non-technical site owner could actually execute inside the 30-day window.
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
