Weak AI visibility with 4 of 10 criteria passing. Biggest gap: llms.txt file.
Verdict
healthadvocate.com has solid technical SEO foundations (HTTPS, crawlable HTML, Yoast JSON-LD, and a live XML sitemap index), but it is under-optimized for AI engines. The most material gaps are a missing working llms.txt file, no AI-crawler directives in robots.txt, and no accessible FAQ endpoint or FAQ schema. Entity trust signals are present through Organization schema, contact details, and social profiles, but structured Q&A and machine-readable AI guidance are weak.
Scoreboard
Top Opportunities
Improve Your Score
Guides for the criteria with the most room for improvement
Tidio has a 251-line llms.txt. Crisp has zero. The score gap: +29 points. This single file tells AI assistants exactly what your site does -and without it, they're guessing.
Our site runs 87 FAQ items across 9 categories with FAQPage schema on every one. That's not excessive -it's how we hit 88/100. Each Q&A pair is a citation opportunity AI can extract in seconds.
Most sites run default platform robots.txt with zero AI-specific rules. That's not a strategy -it's an accident. Explicit Allow rules for GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot signal that your content is open for citation.
AI assistants are question-answering machines. When your content is already shaped as questions and answers, you're handing AI a pre-formatted citation. Sites that do this right get extracted -sites that don't get skipped.
Want us to improve your score?
We build citation-ready content that AI engines choose as the answer.