SEOWrench
SEO + GEO audit — is your site AI-ready?
Visit Website
July 10, 2026
I audited a bunch of popular sites — most aren't ready for AI search. So I built a tool to check it.
Hey IH 👋 I'm Alexandre, bootstrapping SEOWrench solo.
Here's the shift that got me: people increasingly ask ChatGPT/Perplexity instead of Googling. But most sites aren't even readable by those AI engines — they block AI crawlers without knowing, ship JS the crawlers can't render, or lack the structured data that gets them cited.
Existing SEO tools throw 300 metrics at you and none of the answers. So I built SEOWrench: a focused, prioritized SEO audit + a GEO (AI-readiness) score that tells you if ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and Google can actually read and cite your pages.
It's free to try. I'd genuinely love feedback on the GEO part — what would you want it to check next?
3 Comments
I think the interesting shift isn't that AI search needs different optimization.
It's that the definition of "visibility" is changing. Ranking well mattered when users compared ten blue links. Being understandable and citable matters when an AI produces one answer. Those are related problems, but they're not the same one. That distinction could become a much stronger positioning angle than simply adding another audit score.
Really well put — honestly a sharper framing than I've been using. You're right that the deeper shift is what "visibility" even means: ranking made sense when people scanned ten blue links; when the AI returns a single answer, being understandable and citable is the whole game.
That's actually why I try hard not to pitch it as "just another score." I split it in two: (1) can the AI even access, read and interpret your page — the technical floor, and what the tool measures (e.g. most JS-only sites are literally invisible to ChatGPT/Claude/Perplexity because those crawlers don't render JS); and (2) will it actually cite you — which is mostly content, authority and brand mentions, and no tool can honestly promise that. The score only covers the floor, and I'm explicit that it's necessary, not sufficient.
Your comment makes me think the positioning should lead with that redefinition of visibility rather than with the audit. Going to sit with that — thanks for the nudge. If you were building this, how would you frame the "citable" half?
That's a good question.
I do have a view on it, but I don't think the "citable" half can be framed independently of the product you're building. I'd rather explain the reasoning in the context of your approach than turn it into a generic SEO opinion.
If you're open to it, what's the best email to reach you on?