BROWSER-LOCAL FILE DIAGNOSTICS

Find policy and formatting issues in the files you publish.

Paste one file for deterministic checks and evidence behind each finding. Selected mirror rules are adapted from our production verifier. Nothing is fetched or uploaded.

Run a check How it works

Rules 42 deterministic checks
Processing Local and offline
Inputs robots.txt, llms.txt, Markdown, HTML
Verdict Evidence, not a ranking promise

READABILITY

ROBOTS.TXT · PASTED 69/100 · patchy

Local analysis · nothing fetched

THE DIRECT ANSWER

The checker inspects one pasted file for crawler-policy hints, content and identity issues, or the selected optional format. It does not fetch links, test live access or establish indexing and citations. Markdown, llms.txt and JSON-LD are optional integrations, not Google AI-search prerequisites.

CHECK THE FILE YOU ACTUALLY SERVE

Agent readability bench

Paste the complete file, not an excerpt. Curl the URL and paste the response body, so you are checking what a fetcher receives rather than what your CMS shows you.

Nothing leaves this tab

Agent readability benchStatic · deterministic · browser-local

File contents

Waiting for input

File type

Shortcut: Ctrl or Command + Enter. Maximum input: 400,000 characters.

Findings

Not checked

Paste a complete file to see the score, the rules that failed, and the evidence line for each one.

Evidence and exports

The score covers selected checks on this input. Optional-format suggestions and intentional training restrictions do not reduce it. Live access, indexing and citations remain unknown.

Analysis stays in this browser tabNo URL is ever requestedNo upload and no persistenceCore v0.2.0

THREE MOVES

Check what a fetcher receives, not what your CMS previews.

Check the published response body to catch differences from your CMS preview.

01
Fetch the real file
Curl your robots.txt, llms.txt, Markdown mirror, or page URL and copy the response body. A preview inside your CMS is rendered by your CMS, not served to a crawler.
02
Paste and check locally
The checker works out which of the four file types you pasted, runs only the rules that apply to it, and prints the line that triggered each finding.
03
Fix the criticals first
Export the report and inspect the evidence. Confirm the scope and whether a policy is intentional before changing it.

READ THE EVIDENCE, NOT A MAGIC SCORE

Three results worth understanding

The interesting cases are the files that look careful and are not.

Looks deliberate, blocks everything

User-agent: GPTBot
Disallow: /
User-agent: *
Disallow: /

AR103 critical

GPTBot is a training preference. The wildcard restricts compliant crawlers with no matching specific group; it does not establish what every assistant can cite.

Training blocked on purpose

User-agent: CCBot
Disallow: /
Sitemap: https://example.com/sitemap.xml

AR104 low, score 100

The same shape without the wildcard. Opting out of training is a licensing decision, so it is reported and it does not sink the grade.

llms.txt with relative links- [Fractional CTO](/services/fractional-cto-austria/): leadershipAR204 · portability suggestion

Relative links work when the consumer retains the source URL. Absolute URLs help when that context is lost. This portability suggestion does not reduce the score.

WHY WE CAN CLAIM THIS

Mirror checks backed by our production verifier.

Selected mirror checks are adapted from our production verifier. The browser tool does not run the full build or compare the file with its live source.

Ported, not invented

Selected mirror checks are adapted from scripts/verify_machine_markdown.mjs in this site’s repository. Our build verifies deployed-page parity as well; this browser tool checks the pasted file.

Retrieval and training are different questions

Training, search and user-initiated retrieval have different controls. GPTBot and ClaudeBot are training crawlers; search restrictions are assessed separately.

Evidence over score

Every finding prints the line that triggered it and the fix. A number you cannot audit is a sales instrument, not a diagnostic.

No fetching, by design

The checker never requests a URL. Your staging hosts and internal paths stay out of everyone's logs, including ours.

HONEST LIMITS

What a static check cannot tell you

It reads one pasted file. It does not crawl your site, follow links, or compare pages against each other.
A clean result only describes the selected checks. Live access, indexing, Google AI inclusion, links and citations are not verified.
robots.txt is a request. Well-behaved fetchers honour it and others ignore it, so a permissive file is not a guarantee either.
Findings marked heuristic are inferred from the shape of the file rather than proven. Confirm those by hand.
Crawler names change. The agent lists are accurate as of the core version shown and will need updating over time.

Questions about the readability checker

Is this the same thing as an SEO audit?

This is a static file diagnostic. It checks selected policy and formatting rules on pasted content. A full SEO audit also needs deployed responses, indexing evidence, useful content and search data.

Why does it not just fetch my URL?

Because a browser cannot fetch an arbitrary site without a proxy, and running one would mean your URLs, staging hosts, and internal paths pass through our infrastructure. Every tool we publish keeps the input in your tab, so pasting is the honest version of this tool rather than the limited one.

Should I block GPTBot?

GPTBot and ClaudeBot concern training. OAI-SearchBot and Claude-SearchBot concern search. User-initiated fetchers have separate behaviour. The checker reports intentional training restrictions without a score penalty; no pasted policy proves citation outcomes.

Do I need an llms.txt file?

Only if a consumer benefits from it. Google does not require llms.txt for AI search. Relative links can work against the file’s source URL; absolute links help portability. If you publish it, validate content and destinations.

What does the score actually mean?

The score is a versioned diagnostic for the selected file, weighted by finding severity. Optional-format suggestions and training restrictions have zero weight. It does not measure search eligibility, live access, rankings or citations.

Can you fix the findings for us?

Yes, that is the service behind the tool. The checker is deliberately complete on its own, so you can run it, read the evidence, and hand the report to whoever you like, including your current team.

SUPPORT AND SECURITY

Report a wrong rule

A rule that fires on correct output is a bug and we want to hear about it. Open an issue with the input that triggered it. If you find something with security impact, report it privately instead.

Open an issue Report privately

FREE · OPEN SOURCE · NOTHING LEAVES YOUR TAB

Run it on your robots.txt first.

Start with a file you publish. Review the evidence, fix the relevant issue and check actual deployed behaviour separately.

Return to the checker View the source