Technical AEO that helps your site explain itself clearly

Start with the site signal that needs attention

Technical AEO brings together several checks. Each one answers a different question about your site. We help you start with the pages that matter. Then we choose the checks that fit what you can see and change.

For a first pass, we group the work into 3 areas. This keeps the review grounded in live pages, not a list of technical additions. If you already have a wider AI search visibility plan, we can use it to pick the most relevant URLs. A GEO audit can also help you decide which pages deserve attention first.

These checks can sit together, but they are not interchangeable. We note which URLs we reviewed. We also record what kind of change each finding calls for. That gives your content and development owners a shared place to begin.

Give the review a small, useful starting point

A short list of priority pages gives us a clearer place to begin than a site-wide guess. We use those URLs to understand what each page should communicate. Then we identify which technical checks are relevant.

Picture a two-person game studio deciding which channel to start with. It has a launch page, a docs page, and questions from players. We would map those pages first. Then we would check their structure, access and rendering before recommending a file or markup change.

That kind of first pass keeps the work close to the studio’s real decision. It also makes room for the people who know the site best. One person can explain the content. Another can confirm how the pages are built. We record issues against individual URLs, making the next action easier to discuss.

For example, say a support page has useful answers, but some text appears only after scripts run. We would compare the page a visitor sees with the output we can inspect. Then we would note the difference for your developer. If you have a specific platform in mind, our Perplexity optimization or ChatGPT visibility work can connect technical checks with that broader goal.

How do llms.txt and schema.org fit different jobs?

Schema.org describes information and relationships on pages. llms.txt is plain text that can point to selected resources. We review each for a clear purpose. We do not treat either as a required add-on.

Schema should reflect the page

We check whether the graph describes information a visitor can verify. We also check whether names and URLs stay consistent. Connected entities should make sense across related pages. A useful graph is one your team can keep aligned when page content changes. Our schema markup service focuses on the connection between visible content and structured descriptions.

Treat llms.txt as an optional guide

A file is worth considering when it gives people a useful path to selected material. We check that its links exist and point to suitable pages. We also ask whether someone can keep the links current. It is not a replacement for navigation, a sitemap or access controls. Our llms.txt and AI crawler setup and llms.txt guide cover the related planning in more detail.

Suppose a small publisher has a handful of core explainers and a larger archive. We would compare the proposed list with the live pages. Then we would ask who will update it when a link changes. That makes the decision practical. Keep a file only if it has a job and someone to look after it.

Move from priority URLs to checked changes

We move through the work in a few visible steps. Your team can see what is being checked and why. A simple URL sheet gives everyone the same reference.

1. Choose priority pages. Share up to 5 URLs. Tell us what each one needs to support.
2. Confirm access and owners. We agree which templates to inspect. We also identify who can answer content and development questions.
3. Review the page signals. We check schema and llms.txt where it fits. We also inspect access controls and rendered output on the agreed pages.
4. Sort findings by next action. We tie each note to a URL. Then we identify whether content, development or both need to act.
5. Check the agreed work. We record the changes made. We also note the verification completed on the pages we can access.

Brand Community brings the technical reviewer together with your content and development owners. Recommendations do not arrive as a detached list of fixes. We also use 2 review points. The first confirms the pages and expected behavior. The second walks through findings and completed checks. If implementation is included, tell us which CMS or code repository is available. Please also name who can approve access.

Keep the technical work clear and within reach

A useful technical review tells your team what we observed. It also shows what to change and how to check the result. We can share URL-level notes, schema findings, and an llms.txt recommendation or reviewed draft. You also receive a record of agreed implementation checks. The exact work follows the pages and access confirmed at the start.

We look for details we can observe. We check whether a page responds as expected. We check whether a redirect leads somewhere useful. We also check whether important content appears in the rendered output. We note each check and its result instead of guessing about unseen platform behavior. For your side, prepare priority URLs and the intended public or private status of those pages. Please also name a contact who can answer site questions.

AI platforms decide whether to retrieve a page, how to interpret it, and whether to cite it. Schema, llms.txt and our access checks cannot set those choices. We commit to the agreed review, implementation and verification notes, not to a platform response.

If you are ready to begin, send us your priority URLs. Tell us which systems you want the review to support. We’ll confirm the pages, access and next actions with you before the technical work starts.

How it works

1. Share priority pagesSend the URLs you care about and describe what each page should help people find.
2. Confirm pages and accessWe agree which templates to check, who can answer questions, and whether implementation access is available.
3. Review the page signalsWe inspect schema, llms.txt where useful, crawler access and rendered output on the agreed URLs.
4. Sort the findingsYou get URL-level notes with a clear owner for each content or development action.
5. Check the agreed changesWe record the work completed and the checks made on the pages available to us.