AEO AND GEO SKILL
seo-aeo-geo
A five-layer AEO and GEO framework, extractable structure, citation worthiness, schema depth, AI-readable access, real-world entity signals, with a rule that a stated gap beats an estimated number.
by RampStackrampstackco/claude-skillsMIT licencecommit a67dd34upstream 2026-09-07read by us 11 September 2026
RampStack’s skills share a house style: a framework with numbered layers, a workflow, failure patterns, a default output file, and one paragraph titled "If required data is unavailable" that says a stated gap is a complete answer. This one applies that style to AI search.
The five layers compound. Structure makes a passage extractable; citation worthiness makes it worth quoting; schema makes it machine-readable; access lets crawlers reach it; entity signals make the brand something an AI can cross-reference. The workflow is audit, list ten to twenty priority queries, test, find gaps, fix layer by layer, re-test quarterly.
It is shorter than ai-seo and less sourced than seo-geo. Its value is the order of operations and the honesty rule.
When to use it
The phrases that trigger it
From the skill’s own description: say any of these and an agent that has it installed will load it.
- AEO
- GEO
- AI search
- AI overview
- generative search
- LLM optimization
- llms.txt
- AI citation
- answer engine
What’s inside
The playbook, section by section
Layer 1, extractable structure
Direct answers in one to three sentences at the top of each section, question headers, atomic facts, tables, inline definitions, numbered steps.
Layer 2, citation worthiness
Original data, specific numbers, named experts with Person schema, visible and schema dates, methodology disclosure, outbound citations.
Layer 3, structured data depth
Required and recommended properties both filled, Person with sameAs, Organization on the homepage, BreadcrumbList site-wide.
Layer 4, AI-readable access
llms.txt, an explicit robots.txt decision per AI crawler, semantic HTML, no client-only rendering for critical content.
Layer 5, entity signals
Wikipedia only with genuine notability, Wikidata, consistent NAP, mentions across authoritative sources, review signals.
Seven failure patterns
Including manufactured FAQ schema, single-product optimisation, and treating llms.txt as a magic bullet.
Reference files: llms-txt-guide.md extraction-friendly-patterns.md
See it in action
One real run, cropped
We installed the skill folder, gave it the request below, and kept what it returned. Nothing was edited; the excerpt is the first 1,470 of 12,937 characters. The full output is in our repository as research/skills/runs/seo-aeo-geo.md.
Score https://addition-labs.com on your 5-layer framework. Fetch the homepage, https://addition-labs.com/robots.txt and https://addition-labs.com/llms.txt. Priority queries: 'ecommerce seo agency', 'aeo agency', 'what is answer engine optimization'. We cannot query the AI products live from here; state that gap as your rule requires.
aeo-geo-strategy.md: addition-labs.com
Scope of this audit: the homepage (/), /robots.txt and /llms.txt, fetched 2026-09-11 with curl. Every URL listed in llms.txt was HEAD-checked for status. One Wikidata search and one Wikipedia lookup were run for the entity layer. Nothing else on the site was read, so scores describe what these three surfaces show, not the whole site.
1. Current AI visibility audit
Gap, stated per the data-availability rule. The workflow's step 3 requires querying the major AI products (ChatGPT search, Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude) with each priority query and recording which sources they cite. That cannot be done from this environment. So:
- Needed: live citations for
ecommerce seo agency,aeo agency,what is answer engine optimizationfrom each AI product. - Obtained: none. No AI product was queried.
- Affected: this section, the "is the site cited" column of the priority-query table in section 3, and the competitor gap analysis (step 4). Those are left empty rather than estimated. Everything else in this document rests on the fetched files and is unaffected.
What can be said without the live test: the site has a dedicated page for each of the three queries (see section 3), all three return HTTP 200, and all three are listed in llms.txt. Whether any AI product cites them is unknown.
2. Five-layer scorecard
Scores are 0 to 10 and are judged on the fetched surfaces only.
Cropped here. The rest continues in the same register.
What it could not do in this run
workflow step 3 (live queries to ChatGPT/AI Overviews/Perplexity/Gemini/Claude) and step 4's competitor gap analysis; stated as a gap in OUTPUT.md per the skill's data-availability rule. Also not run: Schema.org Validator / Rich Results Test, and any page beyond the three fetched surfaces, so layers 1 to 3 are scored on the homepage only. Queries 4 to 16 are proposals from existing pages, not measured demand.
Method behind it
Where we would differ, and why
Our AI visibility audit guide is the measured version of this skill’s step three: how to test the priority queries across engines with sample sizes, and what counts as a citation versus a mention. Use the skill for the five layers and the guide for the test.
- Note 1
- Layer 4 lists Google-Extended among the crawlers to allow "if visibility matters". Google-Extended controls Gemini training and grounding, not Google Search or AI Overviews; allowing it does not change visibility in Google’s surfaces.
- Note 2
- The skill treats FAQPage schema as a citation lever. Google stopped showing FAQ rich results for all sites in May 2026; the block still helps entity clarity, which is a weaker claim than the skill makes.
SKILL.md
The upstream file, as we read it
Copyright RampStack, MIT licence, commit a67dd34 of rampstackco/claude-skills. Reproduced here under that licence so you can read what the agent will read; the folder’s reference files are in the repository.
Open SKILL.md (1,314 words)
---
name: seo-aeo-geo
description: "Optimize content and site structure for AI-driven search experiences including AI overviews, large language model citations, generative answer engines, and AI assistants. Use this skill whenever the user wants to optimize for AI search, get cited by language models, appear in AI overviews, build llms.txt, structure content for AI extraction, or future-proof their SEO for the shift from blue links to AI answers. Triggers on AEO, GEO, AI search, AI SEO, AI overview, generative search, LLM optimization, llms.txt, AI citation, ChatGPT search, Perplexity, Gemini, Claude search, AI assistant optimization, answer engine. Also triggers when the user expresses concern about AI eating their organic traffic or wants to understand how to remain visible as search shifts."
category: seo-foundation
catalog_summary: "AI search optimization, llms.txt, extraction-friendly content"
display_order: 7
---
# AEO and GEO
Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) and Generative Engine Optimization (GEO). Make content discoverable, extractable, and citable by AI search experiences.
This skill encodes principles. AI search products evolve fast. The principles age slower than the products.
---
## When to use
- Optimizing content for AI overviews and generative answer engines
- Building or updating llms.txt
- Structuring content so AI assistants can extract and cite it correctly
- Future-proofing a site as search shifts from blue links to AI answers
- Auditing whether existing content is AI-friendly
- Adding signals that help AI assistants identify the site as a trustworthy source
## When NOT to use
- Traditional on-page or technical SEO (use `seo-onpage` or `seo-technical`)
- Keyword research (use `seo-keyword`)
- Off-page authority and link building (use `seo-offpage`)
This skill stacks on top of those. Strong AEO/GEO requires strong fundamental SEO underneath.
---
## Required inputs
- The site or page to optimize
- The topic area or query types AI should cite the site for
- Access to inspect rendered HTML and structured data
---
## The framework: 5 layers
AI search visibility comes from five stacked layers. Each layer compounds.
### 1. Extractable content structure
AI systems extract facts and pull citations from content. Make extraction easy.
- **Direct answers.** Open major sections with a definitive 1 to 3 sentence answer to the question that section addresses. AI extracts the first answer it sees.
- **Question-headers.** Use H2s and H3s phrased as questions when natural. Mirrors how people prompt AI.
- **Atomic facts.** When stating a fact, state it once, clearly, with the supporting context next to it. AI struggles when claims are spread across paragraphs.
- **Tables and lists.** AI parses these reliably. Use them for comparisons, specs, steps, and data.
- **Definitions early.** When introducing a concept, define it inline. Do not assume the reader (or AI) saw a definition three pages ago.
- **Numbered steps.** For procedural content, number every step. Avoid prose disguised as instructions.
### 2. Citation worthiness
AI cites sources it considers authoritative. Earn that consideration.
- **Original data.** Surveys, studies, proprietary research, internal benchmarks. AI prefers primary sources over restatements.
- **Specific numbers.** "Roughly 40 percent" beats "many." Specific stats with sources beat round-number generalizations.
- **Named experts.** Author bios with credentials, links to professional profiles, schema-marked-up Person entities.
- **Date stamps.** Publication date AND last-updated date, both visible AND in schema. AI heavily weights recency for time-sensitive queries.
- **Methodology disclosure.** When stating a finding, briefly note how it was reached. AI rewards transparency.
- **Citations of other sources.** Linking to authoritative sources you used builds reciprocal credibility.
### 3. Structured data depth
Schema is how you speak machine-readable language. AI assistants parse it heavily.
- **Schema.org types** appropriate to content (Article, FAQPage, HowTo, Recipe, Product, Organization, Person, LocalBusiness, etc.)
- **Required AND recommended properties** filled in (most sites only fill required, leaving signal on the table)
- **Person schema** for authors, with `sameAs` links to verifiable profiles
- **Organization schema** on the homepage with logo, contact, social links
- **FAQPage schema** for content with genuine question-answer pairs
- **HowTo schema** for procedural content
- **BreadcrumbList schema** site-wide
- Validates in Schema.org Validator AND Rich Results Test (some properties differ)
### 4. AI-readable accessibility
Beyond traditional SEO, AI tools need access patterns of their own.
- **llms.txt at the site root.** A markdown file at `/llms.txt` describing the site's content, key URLs, and what topics the site covers. See [`references/llms-txt-guide.md`](references/llms-txt-guide.md).
- **llms-full.txt** (optional) - a complete content dump for AI training and context, if the site permits it.
- **robots.txt allowing AI crawlers.** Decide explicitly which AI crawlers to allow (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, PerplexityBot, etc.) or disallow. Do not block by default if visibility matters.
- **Clean HTML semantics.** Semantic tags (`article`, `section`, `nav`, `main`) help AI parse structure.
- **Avoid client-side-only rendering for critical content.** Many AI crawlers render less reliably than Googlebot.
### 5. Real-world entity signals
AI builds knowledge graphs and prefers entities with multiple consistent signals.
- **Wikipedia entry** if the brand or person qualifies for notability (do not force this; it requires genuine notability)
- **Wikidata entry** for the entity, with consistent properties
- **Consistent NAP** (Name, Address, Phone) across all citations
- **Brand mentions across multiple authoritative sources.** AI cross-references entity claims across the open web.
- **Social profile schema** linking owned profiles via `sameAs` properties
- **Reviews and reputation signals.** Aggregate ratings on Google Business, Trustpilot, industry-specific review sites where applicable
---
## Workflow
1. **Audit current state.** Run the 5-layer framework against the existing site. Score each.
2. **Identify the priority queries.** What questions should AI cite this site for? List 10 to 20.
3. **Test current AI visibility.** Query each of the major AI products (those relevant to the audience) with the priority questions. Note which sources they cite, or state the gap per the data-availability rule.
4. **Identify gaps.** Is the site cited? On which queries? Why does it lose to the cited sources?
5. **Layer-by-layer plan.**
- Fix extractable structure on top 20 priority pages
- Add citation-worthy signals (original data, expert authorship, methodology)
- Deepen schema implementation
- Build/update llms.txt
- Strengthen entity signals
6. **Implement and re-test.** AI products update frequently. Re-test priority queries quarterly.
---
## Failure patterns
- **Treating AEO/GEO as separate from SEO.** Strong fundamental SEO is a prerequisite. AI cites pages, not magic.
- **Stuffing FAQ schema on pages that have no genuine FAQs.** Search engines and AI alike penalize manufactured FAQ blocks.
- **Hiding key content behind heavy JavaScript.** AI crawlers render less reliably. Server-render or pre-render critical content.
- **Optimizing for one AI product only.** Different products use different ranking and citation logic. Optimize for the principles, not for one product's quirks.
- **Ignoring entity strength.** Content alone, with no real-world entity signals, will not get cited reliably for branded or expertise-related queries.
- **Treating llms.txt as a magic bullet.** It helps, but it is one of many signals.
- **Static optimization.** AI products evolve faster than search algorithms historically did. Re-audit at least quarterly.
---
## Output format
Default output is a markdown plan at `aeo-geo-strategy.md`. Structure:
1. Current AI visibility audit (which queries cite the site, which do not)
2. 5-layer scorecard
3. Priority queries (the 10 to 20 the site should be cited for)
4. Layer-by-layer remediation plan
5. Implementation roadmap
6. Re-test schedule (quarterly)
---
## If required data is unavailable
This skill's output depends on data, measurements, or tool results it cannot generate on its own. When a required input, tool, or data source is unavailable or unverifiable, the sanctioned output is the deliverable with the gap stated: what was needed, what was actually obtained or verified, and which parts of the output are affected. Fabricating, estimating, or interpolating a required number to complete the deliverable is never sanctioned. A stated gap is a complete answer.
---
## Reference files
- [`references/llms-txt-guide.md`](references/llms-txt-guide.md) - How to write a useful llms.txt, with examples.
- [`references/extraction-friendly-patterns.md`](references/extraction-friendly-patterns.md) - Content patterns that AI extracts cleanly, with before/after examples.
Questions
Questions people ask before installing
Can it test my AI visibility?
Only if your agent can query the AI products. Without that, the skill’s own rule applies: it states the gap and delivers the rest of the plan. It will not estimate a citation rate.
How does it install without npx?
RampStack ships as a Claude Code plugin marketplace or as a folder you copy into `~/.claude/skills/`; the README also documents zipping a skill folder for Claude.ai.
Is the quarterly re-test realistic?
For a store with a small content set, yes: ten to twenty queries, three to five runs each, once a quarter is an afternoon.