Measured but not scored

These signals are kept apart from the dimensions because, next to them, a low figure would read as a bad grade for something the score never counts.

8.7%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=104
Coverage
100.0%

Not a Lighthouse audit: it is read from the robots.txt of the sampled sites, and counts the ones whose file names any of the AI crawlers we track. It measures having an explicit policy, whichever way it goes, and it does not count towards the score.

Sites with an AI crawler policy: 2 months, no significant change= −3.1 pp
90.9%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=104
Coverage
100.0%

The same llms-txt audit as the figure below, read differently: this one counts the pages that serve something at /llms.txt, valid or not. The distance between the two figures is large, and it is the interesting part: of the pages that serve something, 40.2% serve a file that parses. We believe a good share of the rest are soft 404s, that is, a server answering 200 with an HTML error page, although we cannot check it because we do not fetch those files. So the figure to cite is the valid one below, and this one is best read as an upper bound. Pages whose audit errored are excluded from both, and the coverage says how many that was.

Sites serving an llms.txt: 2 months, no significant change= −3.6 pp

Every other figure this month

8.7%
Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sites with an AI crawler policy

Sample
n=104
Coverage
100.0%
98.8%
Agents that can reach the site

Agents that can reach the site

Sample
n=104
Coverage
100.0%
90.9%
Sites serving an llms.txt

Sites serving an llms.txt

Sample
n=104
Coverage
100.0%
83.8%
Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sites with a valid llms.txt

Sample
n=104
Coverage
100.0%

How this was measured