The AI Readiness Index v2.0

A 100-point scoring framework across five pillars. Score each criterion Green, Amber, or Red, total the points, and you have a defensible picture of how ready your site is for the AI-native web.

The principle

Score the substrate, not the surface. A future-proof site is built on a stable, structured, verifiable layer that humans, AI agents and crawlers all share. Immersive design and per-visitor personalisation are a surface that sits on top of that layer — valuable for people, but presentation, not future-proofing. The Index scores the substrate; the surface is deliberately out of scope, with one guard (P3) to keep it from hiding the canonical layer from machines.

Points per pillar
PillarPoints
Discoverability & Structure25
Citeability & Answer Architecture15
Authority, Trust & Provenance20
Accessibility & Performance15
Agent Surface & Observability25
Total100

Self-check verifiable by eye or with free validators  ·  Needs a tool needs measurement or ongoing monitoring

Don't want to score it by hand?

Run the free automated audit — it scores the structural criteria for any URL in seconds and flags the rest for review.

Scan a site free →

The Needs a tool criteria — the measurement and monitoring you can't do by eye — are covered by the deeper scans: the automated audit's Premium report adds Core Web Vitals and domain authority, and the GEO/AEO scan crawls your site to grade answer architecture, AI-crawler access and how you're represented in AI answers. Same criteria — only the depth of automation changes.

Discoverability & Structure 25 points

Where most marketing managers are still blind: the AI-specific discovery and structure signals beyond classic SEO.

D1 Structured data & schema markup Self-check 8 pts

Organization, WebSite, Article, BreadcrumbList, FAQPage and Person schemas present and validated.

  • Green Multiple schema types, validated with no errors, rich-result eligible.
  • Amber Basic schema present but incomplete or with validation errors.
  • Red No structured data, or only CMS auto-output with no customisation.

D2 llms.txt & AI crawler directives Self-check 7 pts

llms.txt at root, AI-specific robots rules, noai/noimageai where appropriate.

  • Green Substantive llms.txt, llms-full.txt available, AI-specific robots directives.
  • Amber llms.txt present but minimal, no llms-full.txt.
  • Red No llms.txt, no AI-specific directives.

D3 Semantic HTML hygiene Self-check 5 pts

Correct heading hierarchy, landmark roles, clean predictable DOM that LLMs parse accurately.

  • Green Single H1, logical hierarchy, ARIA landmarks, no heading skips.
  • Amber Multiple H1s or heading skips, inconsistent landmarks.
  • Red No heading structure, div-soup, unparseable content order.

D4 Entity & knowledge-graph presence Needs a tool 5 pts

A recognised entity in the wider knowledge graph: consistent identifiers, sameAs links, and presence in authoritative sources (Wikidata, registries).

  • Green Defined entity with consistent sameAs across the web and presence in at least one authoritative graph (e.g. Wikidata); stable canonical entity node.
  • Amber Some sameAs links and consistent naming, but no authoritative-graph presence.
  • Red No entity strategy; inconsistent names/identifiers, invisible to the knowledge graph.

Citeability & Answer Architecture 15 points

The heart of generative engine optimisation: being not just found but quoted — accurately and with attribution. Optimised for share-of-model, not rank.

C1 Extractable answer units Self-check 6 pts

Self-contained 80–120 word answer units near the top of key pages that lift cleanly without surrounding context.

  • Green Extractable answer units on all key pages, no surrounding context needed, marked up as Q&A/FAQ where apt.
  • Amber Some pages have extractable content, inconsistent implementation.
  • Red Long-form only, no extractable answer units.

C2 Anchor-level addressability Self-check 4 pts

Stable fragment IDs and deep links so an engine can cite a specific claim, not just the page.

  • Green Persistent heading/section anchors site-wide, deep-linkable claims, stable URLs.
  • Amber Some anchors present but unstable or inconsistent.
  • Red No fragment addressability; only whole-page URLs.

C3 Canonical claims & epistemic freshness Self-check 5 pts

datePublished/dateModified, visible last-reviewed/'as of' dates, changelogs, and canonical statements of fact engines can rely on.

  • Green All content structured-dated, visible last-reviewed dates, maintained changelog, canonical fact statements.
  • Amber Some content dated, inconsistent; few canonical statements.
  • Red No visible dates, no structured date metadata, no canonical claims.

Authority, Trust & Provenance 20 points

AI engines prioritise verifiable, credible sources. As the web fills with AI slop, provable origin becomes the moat.

A1 Verified author identity Self-check 8 pts

Machine-readable author schema with credentials, qualifications and verifiable experience.

  • Green Full Person schema with credentials, LinkedIn, memberships; all content attributed to a canonical profile.
  • Amber Author pages present but not machine-readable, inconsistent attribution.
  • Red No author attribution, anonymous content.

A2 E-E-A-T signals Self-check 6 pts

Case studies with outcomes, dated testimonials, current privacy policy, external citations.

  • Green Measurable case-study outcomes, recent testimonials, current policy, citations present.
  • Amber Some trust signals present but dated or incomplete.
  • Red No case studies or testimonials, outdated or missing privacy policy.

A3 Content provenance & authenticity Needs a tool 6 pts

Clear human authorship, disclosure of AI-assisted content, and — increasingly — cryptographic provenance (C2PA content credentials, signed content) proving origin.

  • Green Authorship clear and disclosed; cryptographic content credentials (C2PA) or signed provenance on key assets.
  • Amber Authorship clear and AI use disclosed, but no cryptographic provenance.
  • Red Undisclosed AI-generated content, no expert voice, no provenance.

Accessibility & Performance 15 points

The shared substrate humans and machines both depend on — now a legal floor, not a differentiator. The immersive, personalised human surface sits on top of this and is intentionally not scored.

P1 Core Web Vitals Self-check 6 pts

LCP, INP and CLS in green; fast TTFB; mobile-first rendering. Verifiable free via PageSpeed Insights / CrUX.

  • Green All three CWV green, TTFB under 200ms, mobile score 90+.
  • Amber One or two CWV amber, acceptable mobile performance.
  • Red One or more CWV red, significant performance issues.

P2 WCAG 2.2 AA & EAA compliance Self-check 6 pts

Contrast, alt text, keyboard nav, screen-reader support. Since the European Accessibility Act (in force 28 June 2025) this is a legal obligation for many commercial sites, not best practice.

  • Green Full AA conformance verified, no critical failures, EAA obligations met.
  • Amber Mostly compliant, some non-critical failures.
  • Red Multiple critical failures; legal exposure under the EAA.

P3 Ground-truth-layer stability Self-check 3 pts

A canonical, server-rendered content layer identical for every human, agent and crawler — personalisation and immersive UI sit on top without hiding or altering it.

  • Green Core content server-rendered and identical for all; personalisation is additive only; nothing critical locked in JS-only/WebGL.
  • Amber Some content client-rendered or personalised in ways agents may miss.
  • Red Content exists only per-personalised or inside canvas/WebGL; no stable canonical surface.

Agent Surface & Observability 25 points

The frontier and the fastest-rising weight: sites agents can use, that defend themselves in the agentic web, and that watch how they are represented.

AS1 Agent-usable surface (API / MCP / AX) Needs a tool 10 pts

A documented, callable surface — public API and/or MCP endpoint — so an agent can invoke functionality, not just read about it. Designed for Agent Experience: typed inputs, deterministic, idempotent, capabilities declared.

  • Green Documented API + MCP-compatible endpoint, published examples, idempotent actions an agent can invoke.
  • Amber API planned or partial, no MCP compatibility, human-oriented only.
  • Red No callable surface; tools are human-only.

AS2 Agentic defensibility Needs a tool 7 pts

Rate limiting, scraper detection, noai directives, prompt-injection hygiene, and GDPR / EU AI Act-compliant handling of any data flowing through AI features.

  • Green Rate limiting, active scraper detection, injection-hardened content, documented GDPR/AI-Act compliance for AI features.
  • Amber Basic rate limiting only, no formal data-protection assessment of AI features.
  • Red No rate limiting, no scraper controls, no governance of AI data flows.

AS3 AI-representation observability Needs a tool 8 pts

Monitoring how AI assistants actually describe you — accuracy, citations, hallucinations — plus AI-referral analytics. You can't manage what you don't measure.

  • Green Routine prompt-testing across major assistants, AI-referral tracking, and a process to correct misrepresentation.
  • Amber Occasional ad-hoc checks, no systematic monitoring.
  • Red No visibility into how AI represents the brand.