Skip to content
metryn

Sample report

getmetryn.com

AI Search Readiness Score: 100/100 · Ready for AI Search

This is a scan of getmetryn.com, our own site, run on 2026-10-14 with the same scanner customers use (scanner version 1e28d50). It scored 100/100. The 14 findings below are all informational and cost no points.

Earlier self-scans found two real bugs on our homepage, a duplicated title suffix and a title and description that were missing from the head on most requests. We fixed the site, which took the score from 74 to 97, and we did not change a rule to get there. The scan on this page is a later one. How scoring works.

This sample is a scan of the site as it was on 2026-10-14. It was run with the current scanner code against the live site, and the production deployment may still run an earlier build of the scanner, so a scan you run today can differ in wording or in the checks it includes.

Want your own site instead? Run a free scan.

Summary by area

All 4 areas passed the checks we ran.

  • Crawler accessOK

    robots.txt does not block the AI crawlers we checked.

  • IndexabilityOK

    No noindex directive or canonical conflict was found.

  • Content & entityOK

    Title, heading and description are present and consistent.

  • Technical signalsOK

    Sitemap and structured data were found and look valid.

Each area is rated from the points it lost in the score. This does not measure rankings, traffic or AI citations.

Search Discoverability

Pass

Metryn found no declared technical signal on this page (robots.txt rule, noindex directive, canonical or sitemap problem) that would prevent major search crawlers from discovering it. This reflects what the site declares; it is not a test of real crawler access.

Googlebot access
Partial
Bingbot access
Partial
Page indexable
Yes
Canonical
Valid
Sitemap
Present
Scanned URL in sitemap
Yes

“Partial” means the scanned URL itself is fully accessible — only other paths on the site are restricted.

Indexing status not verified. Metryn does not have access to this site's Google Search Console or Bing Webmaster Tools, so this scan cannot confirm whether this URL is currently indexed by Google or Bing.

No priority actions

Nothing found in this scan affects your AI Search Readiness score.

What the scanner read

These are the facts extracted from the raw HTML the scanner received, without running JavaScript. A crawler that does not run JavaScript sees roughly this. Only the first 500 characters of visible text are kept, and the snapshot is deleted 90 days after the scan.

Final URL
https://getmetryn.com/
Title
None found
Meta description
None found
First H1
None found
Canonical
None found
Language
None found
JSON-LD types
None found
Visible text
1,394 characters
Present in raw HTML
Yes. Substantial text is present in the raw HTML.
First 500 characters
None found

The fixture for this sample recorded only the content size and raw-HTML presence from its findings. Fields shown as None found were not captured in the fixture; that does not mean the site lacks them. A report you buy shows every field.

Findings

No issues were found. Informational notes, if any, are listed below.

Notes that don’t change your score (5)

Informational observations. None of these cost points.

RecommendationLIKELY

10 crawlers have partial access

What we found
/ is allowed for each crawler listed, but the same robots.txt group disallows other paths on this site. This does not affect the score: the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths is a normal practice. Affected: OAI-SearchBot, GPTBot, ChatGPT-User, ClaudeBot, Claude-User, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, Googlebot, bingbot. OAI-SearchBot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. GPTBot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. ChatGPT-User: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. OpenAI states robots.txt may not reliably apply to ChatGPT-User — it fetches pages in direct response to a user request, not as a background crawl. ClaudeBot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. Claude-User: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. Claude-SearchBot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. PerplexityBot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. Google-Extended: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. Googlebot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem. bingbot: : the scanned page itself is accessible, and restricting unrelated paths (API routes, account areas, capability URLs) is a normal, often desirable practice — not an AI Search Readiness problem.
How to fix it
Evidence and how to verify
Evidence
User-agent: *
Allow: /
RecommendationCONFIRMED

No Markdown alternate declared

What we found
No <link rel="alternate" type="text/markdown"> tag was found. This is an emerging, non-standardized convention — its absence does not indicate anything about search rankings or AI citation likelihood.
Why it matters
Some AI agents and developer tools look for a declared Markdown alternate to fetch a lighter-weight representation of a page. This is an emerging, non-standardized convention — its absence does not indicate anything about search rankings, AI citation likelihood, or how any specific agent behaves.
How to fix it
Add <link rel="alternate" type="text/markdown" href="..."> pointing at a Markdown representation of this page.
Evidence and how to verify
What we tested
We looked for a <link rel="alternate" type="text/markdown"> tag in the page's HTML.
Evidence
No matching <link> element in the HTML head.
How to verify the fix
View the page source and confirm the <link> tag is present with the correct href.
RecommendationCONFIRMED

Accept: text/markdown negotiation not detected

What we found
Requesting this URL with Accept: text/markdown did not return a text/markdown response. This is an emerging, non-standardized practice — its absence does not indicate anything about search rankings or AI citation likelihood.
Why it matters
Content negotiation lets the same URL serve either representation depending on what the client asks for. This is an emerging, non-standardized practice — its absence does not indicate anything about search rankings or AI citation likelihood, only that this specific mechanism isn't implemented.
How to fix it
Implement Accept-header content negotiation: serve text/markdown when it is the client's clearly highest-ranked acceptable type (respecting q-values, not a substring check), and always send Vary: Accept.
Evidence and how to verify
What we tested
We requested this exact URL a second time with an Accept: text/markdown header and checked whether the response's Content-Type changed to text/markdown.
Evidence
Accept: text/markdown -> HTTP 200, Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8, Vary: Accept present.
How to verify the fix
Send a request with 'Accept: text/markdown' and confirm the response Content-Type is text/markdown with a Vary: Accept header.
RecommendationLIKELY

Primary content appears present in the raw HTML

What we found
1394 characters of visible text are already present in the raw HTML — substantial content does not depend on client-side rendering. This is a heuristic estimate from the raw HTML only — Metryn does not execute JavaScript and this is never a claim that any specific AI system cannot access this content.
Why it matters
Content that only appears after JavaScript runs cannot be read by an HTTP-only fetch. This does not measure or predict how any specific AI crawler or agent behaves — some execute JavaScript, some do not — and it is not a claim that any particular system cannot access this content.
How to fix it
Where feasible, ensure primary content is present in the initial HTML response (server-side rendering, static generation, or progressive enhancement) rather than requiring client-side JavaScript to render it.
Evidence and how to verify
What we tested
We estimated, from the raw HTML response alone, whether this page's primary content appears to depend on client-side JavaScript execution. Metryn does not execute JavaScript — this is a heuristic based on visible text volume, recognized SPA root containers, and external script references, never a measurement of a real Rendered DOM.
Evidence
Status: LOW · visible text: 1394 chars · root container: not found · JS bundle reference: yes.
How to verify the fix
Fetch the page with a plain HTTP client (no JavaScript execution) and check whether the primary content is present in the response body.
RecommendationCONFIRMED

/llms.txt is present

What we found
llms.txt is a voluntary, non-standardized convention with no confirmed adoption commitment from major AI search or crawling systems as of this check. Reported for completeness only — this does not indicate anything about ranking or citation likelihood, and its absence is never scored as a defect.
Why it matters
llms.txt is a voluntary, non-standardized convention with no confirmed adoption commitment from major AI search or crawling systems as of this check. Reported for completeness only — this does not indicate anything about ranking or citation likelihood, and its absence is never scored as a defect.
How to fix it
Optionally publish a plain-text /llms.txt listing links to key pages — an experimental, interoperability-only artifact, not a requirement.
Evidence and how to verify
What we tested
We checked for a /llms.txt file at the site's root (and noted whether /llms-full.txt exists). A response that is an HTML page rather than plain text or Markdown does not count as present.
Evidence
GET https://getmetryn.com/llms.txt -> HTTP 200. GET https://getmetryn.com/llms-full.txt -> HTTP 404. (/llms-full.txt is informational only.)
How to verify the fix
Fetch /llms.txt directly and confirm whether it returns content.

What comes after this report? (example)

Weekly monitoring does not exist yet. In a report you buy, you can join a waiting list; we email you once if it opens within 90 days; after that the address is deleted.

This report is based on public technical signals observed at scan time (2026-10-14). Heuristics are labeled as such. Scores are deterministic estimates of technical readiness — not predictions of traffic, rankings, or AI citations.