A few weeks ago I wrote about GEO-optimizing my own website. That post was me, running the experiment on my own bio. This one is about the tool I built after, so other people could run the same kind of check on their own URL.
It lives at georeport.erikamiguel.com. You paste a site, it grades how well AI systems know that site, and hands you a report with recommendations.
From Scary Black Terminal to Cream Paper
The first version looked like a hacking movie. Black background, mono type, big blinking cursor. I liked it because it felt serious. But every time I showed it to someone, they squinted. A grading tool is already a little judgmental. The UI shouldn’t pile on.
I took the long way around. I tried a few iterations that were too polite, then a few that were too loud. The one I landed on is cream with warm neutrals and a single accent color. It reads like paper, not a warning label. The grade still shows up big, because that’s the point, but the rest of the page gives it room to breathe.
The thing I didn’t expect to learn from the redesign is that the feel of a tool changes what people do with it. A scary tool makes people defensive. A calmer one makes them curious.
What It Grades
Six categories, weighted by how much I think they matter right now:
- Discoverability (30%). Do LLMs mention you when someone asks a generic question in your category? “Best accounting software”, “good DevOps consultants in New York.”
- Recognition (20%). If someone names you directly, do LLMs describe you correctly?
- Accuracy (20%). When LLMs answer specific questions about you, are the facts right?
- Coverage (10%). Do they know more than your homepage? Pricing, docs, product pages.
- Citation (10%). Do they link back to your domain when they summarize you?
- SEO (10%). Ten deterministic signals, including llms.txt, robots.txt, sitemap, canonical, JSON-LD, OpenGraph, alt text, HTTPS, viewport, and meta description.
The accuracy check is the one I’m proudest of. The score actually means something, instead of being a heuristic that pattern-matches on whether your site looks SEO-ish.
Live Probes, Then a Report
Every probe streams in live. You watch each model answer in real time, see the category scores fill in, and land on an overall score with a letter grade. The free grade gives you the overall result and a preview of the top recommendations.
The paid version generates the full report as a hosted page you can share and a PDF you can download. When I started, I thought “it also makes a PDF” was a nice-to-have. Now I think it’s the thing. A report you can hand to a client or a stakeholder is very different from a link they have to log into.
Not Here to Differentiate
There are plenty of GEO tools out there, and some of them are very good. I’m not trying to win a feature race. Mine exists to add to the space, not replace anything in it.
It also adds to my business. I run a consulting practice focused on cloud, DevOps, and web work, and a tool that hands someone a concrete, specific list of things wrong with how AI systems see their site turns a cold audit into a warm conversation. The report is the hook. The changes are the engagement. That part is real, and I’m not going to pretend it isn’t why I built this particular thing at this particular time.
Try It
Grade a URL at georeport.erikamiguel.com. The first one is free. If your site grades worse than you expected, that’s useful. If it grades better than you expected, also useful. Either way you walk away with a list of what to change.
If you run one, I’m curious what surprised you.
Comments