robots txt AI crawler checker
Robots and AI Crawler Checker
Paste robots.txt and page head markup to find full-site crawler blocks, noindex directives, missing canonical tags, and sitemap discovery gaps.
Direct answer
A robots and AI crawler checker reviews whether public SaaS pages are discoverable by search and answer engines. It flags full-site blocks for major crawlers, noindex directives, missing canonical tags, and sitemap signals that can reduce retrieval clarity.
Why crawler access matters
AI answer systems can only cite or summarize public information they can retrieve through search indexes, partner indexes, or live web access. A blocked product page may still be useful to users, but it is a weak citation candidate.
What to paste into the checker
Paste the relevant robots.txt content and the head markup from the page you want discovered. The tool checks for full-site Disallow rules, noindex, canonical links, and sitemap discovery signals.
What this tool cannot do
This static checker does not crawl your site from a server. It is designed for fast local review without sending your page source to a third-party API.
Example input and output
A marketing team wants to know whether a public product page is technically eligible to be discovered and cited.
- Sample input
- Page URL: https://acmeflow.example; robots.txt allows all crawlers and lists a sitemap; page head includes a canonical URL and index,follow robots tag.
- Generated output
- The checker flags no full-site block, no noindex directive, a present canonical URL, and sitemap discovery. It also reports whether major search and AI crawler user agents appear to be blocked by the pasted rules.
- Review note
- A passing crawler check is not proof of indexing or citation. It only removes a technical blocker. The page still needs useful visible content and external proof before answer engines have a reason to cite it.
Interactive tool
Generate your crawler checker output
Generated output
Output review workflow
Use the generated output as a review draft, not as final website copy. First check whether the inputs describe one real public SaaS page. Then compare the output with visible page facts, public source URLs, and the decision you need to make. If the tool output changes a page, save a report before publishing so the next reviewer can see the original recommendation.
- Review the generated text, JSON-LD, prompt set, score, or brief against the source page.
- Mark every unsupported claim as revise, source, or remove.
- Copy or save the Markdown report before editing the live page.
- Retest with the same input after the page has been updated or recrawled.
Evidence handoff
Keep the evidence that makes the tool result reviewable: the page URL, generated output, source URLs, reviewer notes, rejected claims, and retest date. For schema, keep the field-to-page-copy map. For snippets, keep the source section and proof links. For crawler checks, keep the robots.txt and page head snippets. For AI visibility work, keep the exact prompts and cited URLs.
Publishing boundary
Do not publish generated output directly. CiteKit tools are designed to help SaaS teams create drafts, reports, and checklists for human review. Generated suggestions can contain incomplete context, missing sources, outdated competitor assumptions, or claims that are not visible on the public page. Publish only after a reviewer confirms accuracy, source support, and user value.
Field notes for reviewers
- Review robots.txt after migrations, CMS changes, staging-to-production releases, and security plugin updates. Accidental full-site blocks are easy to miss.
- Check page-level meta robots separately from robots.txt. A page can be crawlable by robots.txt but still noindexed by HTML markup.
- Confirm the canonical URL points to the final public page. Canonical ambiguity can make external systems cite a less useful version of the page.
- Use sitemap presence as a discovery signal, not as proof of indexing. A sitemap can list pages that are still blocked, redirected, or thin.
Limitations
- This static checker reviews pasted text. It does not fetch your server, follow redirects, or verify HTTP headers.
- AI crawler policies differ by company and can change. Treat crawler access as a business decision, not a universal recommendation.
- Allowing a crawler removes one technical blocker but does not make weak or duplicate content worth citing.
FAQ
Does allowing AI crawlers guarantee citations?
No. It only removes one technical blocker. Content quality, authority, and relevance still matter.
Should every AI crawler be allowed?
That is a business decision. Public marketing pages usually need discovery, while private app pages should stay blocked.
Why does canonical matter for GEO?
Canonical tags reduce duplicate URL ambiguity and help systems choose the intended source page.