CiteFuel
Summary
You blocked PerplexityBot six months ago with a wildcard Disallow and have no idea — because nothing in your SEO stack checks AI crawler policy tokens. CiteFuel runs a 26-check audit against your live robots.txt, llms.txt, schema markup, and Core Web Vitals, then hands you reviewable fix files for the gaps it finds.
Paste a URL, and in roughly 90 seconds the audit engine tests 14 documented AI crawler and policy tokens — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, and others — scores passage-level citability using an LLM, validates Organization and WebSite JSON-LD for absolute URL references, and checks whether an llms.txt exists and aligns with your sitemap. Gaps come back tiered: P0 for a live crawler block, P1 for a material configuration miss, P2 for a quick fix. The deliverable is a set of reviewable drafts — llms.txt, a robots.txt policy block, suggested passage rewrites, schema JSON-LD — that you validate against the live site before shipping. The vendor states explicitly that no artifact guarantees citation or ranking. The audit covers one URL per run; teams managing dozens of domains or monitoring drift over time hit the limits of a one-shot tool fast.
Bottom line: Run this before a GEO sprint to find out which AI crawlers you are actually blocking and why your passages score a 5.6 — but if you need continuous monitoring across a large property, a single-URL audit becomes manual overhead at scale.
Pricing Plans
- Free Tier
- Sample of first 3 llms.txt entries and 1 rewritten citable passage
Free Instant Audit
26-signal crawl, AI crawler access report, sample llms.txt entries, one rewritten passage
- No signup or card
- Results in ~90 seconds
Starter Audit
Full 26-check audit with priority scoring and complete optional drafts
- Complete llms.txt draft
- robots.txt AI rules block
- Up to 5 passage rewrites
- JSON-LD patch file
View full pricing on citefuel.com →
Pricing may have changed since last verified. Check the official site for current plans.
Community Performance Report Card
No community ratings yet. Be the first to rate this tool!
Community Benchmarks Community
Sign in to submit a benchmarkNo community benchmarks yet. Be the first to share a real-world data point.
Pros
Sign in to edit- Tests 14 documented AI crawler and policy tokens against your live robots.txt in a single run, so a silent wildcard block that has been excluding GPTBot or ClaudeBot surfaces immediately rather than after months of missing citations.
- Generates reviewable llms.txt, robots.txt policy block, passage rewrites, and JSON-LD schema as concrete drafts, which means developers start with an editable artifact instead of a blank file and a spec to interpret.
- Passage citability scoring with an LLM flags which specific content blocks score below threshold and returns rewrite suggestions, so content teams know which paragraphs to fix rather than guessing why AI answers skip the page.
- Severity tiers (P0 critical block, P1 material gap, P2 quick fix) prioritize the report output, which means an SEO lead can triage a 26-check result in minutes instead of treating every finding as equal weight.
- 100% public methodology backed by a 10,000-domain configuration study, so the scoring is auditable and you can challenge a flag before acting on the generated fix — rather than trusting a score you cannot interrogate.
Cons
Sign in to edit- The audit covers one URL per run with no API and no batch mode described anywhere in the documentation; teams managing a site with dozens of subdomains or separate properties must run each URL manually, which makes this a sprint-start check rather than an ongoing monitoring layer.
- There is no scheduled re-run or change-detection mechanism — if your robots.txt is edited after the audit, nothing alerts you that a previously passing check now fails; teams that need continuous drift monitoring across a property move to a dedicated technical SEO monitoring platform that supports recurring crawls.
- The generated fix files require factual and implementation review before deployment, which the vendor states explicitly; a team that ships the llms.txt draft without verifying every URL against the live sitemap can publish stale or incorrect entries — the tool reduces drafting time but does not eliminate the verification step.
Community Reviews
Sign in to write a reviewNo reviews yet. Be the first to share your experience.
About
- Platforms
- Web
- API Available
- No
- Self-Hosted
- No
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-15T10:30:27.536Z
Best For
Who it's for
- SEO and GEO teams managing AI visibility
- Developers needing llms.txt and schema fixes
- Site owners wanting evidence-based crawler permission reports
What it does well
- Audit website AI crawlability and technical readiness
- Generate reviewable llms.txt and robots.txt policy suggestions
- Score passage citability and obtain rewrite recommendations
- Validate JSON-LD Organization and WebSite schema for AI readability
Discussion Community
Sign in to commentNo discussion yet. Sign in to start the conversation.
Compare CiteFuel
Spotted incorrect or missing data? Join our community of contributors.
Sign Up to ContributeCommunity Notes & Tips Community
Sign in to contributeBe the first to contribute. General notes, observations, gotchas, and tips from people who use this tool day-to-day.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is CiteFuel free?
- CiteFuel has a permanent free tier alongside paid upgrades. You can keep using a baseline version indefinitely without paying.
- Is CiteFuel open source?
- No — CiteFuel is a closed-source tool. Source code is not publicly available.
- What platforms does CiteFuel support?
- CiteFuel is available on: Web.
Hours Saved & ROI Stories Community
Sign in to contributeBe the first to contribute. Concrete time/cost savings, with context. e.g. "Cut my code review backlog from 4h to 45m per week."
Curated lists that include this category
Most robots.txt audits stop at Googlebot. CiteFuel exists because the population of AI answer-engine crawlers — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, PerplexityBot, and eleven others tracked in the audit — each carry their own policy tokens, and a wildcard Disallow blocks them silently. The audit workflow is a single URL in: CiteFuel crawls the live robots.txt, checks each of 14 AI-specific tokens, validates an optional llms.txt against your sitemap, scores passage citability using an LLM, tests Core Web Vitals, and samples live AI answer engines. Output is a scored report (0–100, five categories, 26 checks) plus reviewable implementation artifacts — llms.txt draft, robots.txt AI policy block, passage rewrites, and applicable JSON-LD schema — ready to inspect and ship after factual verification.
The differentiating element is the published methodology. The vendor has made all 26 checks and their severity tiers public, and supports them with a June 2026 configuration study across 10,000 Tranco-ranked domains — a reproducible, point-in-time inventory of llms.txt adoption and crawler policy signals across reachable homepages. That means the scoring is not a black box: you can read exactly which signal triggered a P0 flag before deciding whether to act on the generated fix file.
The tool fits SEO and GEO teams doing a pre-launch or sprint-start audit, developers who need a concrete llms.txt draft to edit rather than write from scratch, and site owners who have never confirmed whether their robots.txt is blocking AI crawlers. Where it breaks: there is no API, no self-hosted option, and no described mechanism for scheduled re-runs or multi-domain batch processing. Teams that need drift monitoring across a large property, or want to integrate audit results into a CI pipeline, are outside what a one-shot URL audit can cover — and those teams look elsewhere.
No signup or card is required for the free audit tier; the vendor states results arrive in approximately 90 seconds. The paid tier unlocks additional capabilities not available in the free run. Every generated artifact — URL lists in llms.txt, JSON-LD properties, robots.txt policy choices — carries an explicit vendor instruction to validate against the live site before deploying.