← All toolsAnother direction / 01 Another direction / 02 Another direction / 03
The selection guideSource-backed research ↗
Schema & Structured Data / Open-source AEO/GEO crawler and extractability scanner
AEOrank
Open-source CLI and CI checks for AI crawler access and content extractability
AEO/GEO technical auditingAI crawler and extractability checksOpen-source CI remediation
Why it stands out
Open-source MIT implementation with CLI and CI workflow.
Source review: · Public-source research, not a hands-on test
↗ Best for
Engineering teams adding AI-crawler and schema checks to pull requests.
! Know before you buy
No product-specific rating sample, controlled benchmark, or hands-on third-party review found
01 / Editorial assessment
Is AEOrank for you?
The AICiteKit take
AEOrank is a credible technical shortlist candidate when the buyer's first problem is whether a site can be crawled, parsed, and presented in a form answer engines can use. Official site, documentation, and repository expose a CLI version, 12 dimensions, eight generated files, an Action, and crawler-blocking controls. Evidence supports implementation and advertised scope, not efficacy: no independent product review, controlled benchmark, or hands-on third-party test was found. Treat the score as a debugging signal and run it alongside raw HTML checks and a fixed AI-search observation panel. Choose AEOrank for code-first AEO baselines and CI gates; choose a monitoring platform when answer capture, competitor share of voice, or citation history is the core job.
A good fit if you are…
- Engineering teams adding AI-crawler and schema checks to pull requests.
- Technical SEOs managing many sites or templates.
- Agencies preferring an MIT/self-hostable scanner.
- Content teams checking llms.txt, schema, answer-first, FAQ, and citation-anchor signals.
Consider another option if…
- Teams needing scheduled prompt monitoring across answer engines.
- Buyers requiring audited score calibration or outcome studies.
- Non-technical users seeking managed implementation and client-ready reporting.
- Organizations equating crawler access with citation or traffic lift.
02 / Scope, not promises
Features & coverage
- Published dimensions
12 dimensions including llms.txt, schema.org, content structure, crawler access, answer-first, FAQ/speakable, E-E-A-T, metadata, citation anchors, sitemap, HTTPS/redirects, and freshness
Archived research · Official site, docs, and repositoryResearch excerpt · Extractability dimensions and generated files- Generated outputs
Eight generated files, including llms.txt and AI-readable remediation files
Archived research · Official site and repositoryResearch excerpt · Extractability dimensions and generated files- Delivery surfaces
aeorank-cli@0.1.1, GitHub Action, GitHub App, and experimental dashboard
Archived research · Official docs and repositoryResearch excerpt · CLI and CI checks- Independent evidence
No product-specific rating sample, controlled benchmark, or hands-on third-party review found
Archived research · Independent/context checksResearch excerpt · User feedback and evidence quality
CLI and CI checks
Run the published CLI or GitHub Action against a URL, inspect JSON and generated files, and configure crawler-block or score-threshold failures.
Extractability dimensions
Evaluate crawler policy, schema, content structure, answer-first signals, FAQ/speakable, metadata, citation anchors, sitemap, redirects, and freshness using the published ruleset.
Open-source remediation boundary
Inspect and self-host the MIT implementation, while treating the score as a diagnostic rather than an independently calibrated citation or traffic forecast.
A focused evaluation workflow
- Run the pinned CLI against representative templates.
- Review crawler, schema, content, and extractability findings.
- Save JSON and eight generated files as build artifacts.
- Gate pull requests on crawler blocks or score thresholds.
- Compare technical findings with a separate fixed AI-search observation panel.
03 / Commercial boundaries
Pricing & limits
Terms below reflect the 2026-10-27 source review, not a new live quote. Confirm currency, billing term, tax and required scope with the provider.
- Public price signal
Free MIT CLI/CI path; official site displays Pro at $29; hosted billing and entitlements require confirmation
Archived research · Official site checked 2026-10-27Research excerpt · Pricing and limits- Delivery surfaces
aeorank-cli@0.1.1, GitHub Action, GitHub App, and experimental dashboard
Archived research · Official docs and repositoryResearch excerpt · CLI and CI checks
Your buying checklist
Get these answers first.
- What billing cadence, hosted limits, and dashboard entitlements apply to Pro?
- Which Action/App permissions and version-pinning practices are required?
- How are dimensions and weights calibrated across page types and languages?
- Can the workflow export raw inputs, rule results, and version metadata?
- What separate monitoring method will measure citations and answer-engine visibility?
Pricing context & qualifications
Checked October 27, 2026: official site advertises a free MIT CLI/CI path and Pro at $29. The complete hosted billing cycle, quotas, support, and cancellation terms were not exposed in the captured evidence.
04 / The tradeoffs
Strengths & weaknesses
Reasons to shortlist
- Open-source MIT implementation with CLI and CI workflow.
- Concrete 12-dimension and eight-file contract.
- Pull-request controls for blocked crawlers and score thresholds.
- Explicitly separates extractability from citation promises.
- Useful build-versus-buy alternative to closed monitoring dashboards.
Reasons to pause
- No independent product-specific review sample, benchmark, or hands-on test found.
- Public code does not prove score calibration or citation lift.
- Does not replace prompt monitoring or citation history.
- Hosted Pro entitlements beyond the $29 signal require confirmation.
- Deployment, versioning, permissions, and remediation review remain buyer responsibilities.
No product-specific rating sample, controlled benchmark, or hands-on third-party review found
05 / Choose by the job
Alternatives to consider
Editorial fit comparisons—not performance rankings or claims that one option always wins.
06 / What we can substantiate
Reviews & evidence
No independent product-specific review sample or controlled benchmark was found; official evidence is strongest for implementation and scope.
AICiteKit assessment: public-source research, not a hands-on product test. Official materials establish stated scope; reviews are dated and may concern the broader platform. Neither establishes guaranteed citations, traffic or revenue.
Sources & original verification dates
| Source | Evidence type | Checked |
|---|---|---|
| AEOrank official site ↗ | official | |
| AEOrank documentation ↗ | official | |
| AEOrank GitHub repository ↗ | official | |
| aeorank-cli NPM listing ↗ | distribution | |
| Temso AI-visibility directory ↗ | independent |
Original review evidence & date context
Preserved from the published research. Dates, review counts and product-scope qualifications below have not been refreshed by this layout migration.
Official site, docs, and GitHub support identity, 12 dimensions, eight generated files, CLI/Action/App surfaces, and crawler/extractability boundaries. NPM supports package distribution context. Temso supplies category context only. No independent rating sample, hands-on review, controlled benchmark, citation-accuracy study, traffic lift, or revenue evidence was found.
Research notes & unresolved discrepancies
- GitHub and NPM are distribution or vendor-controlled evidence, not independent customer validation.
- Temso is retained only as independent category context.
- No citation-accuracy, repeatability, traffic, conversion, or revenue claim is supported by the checked sources.
Layout migration: October 4, 2026. The original MDX research is retained in the repository; this reorganization does not refresh its factual verification dates.