AISight analyzes AI crawler access, semantic structure, citation readiness and evidence quality, then generates an executive report with prioritized findings and copy-paste technical fixes for any public website.
Fin Startups get Fin free for a year + 93% off Intercom
Promoted
Maker
📌
Hi Product Hunt!
I'm Dimitris, the creator of AISight.
Over the past few months I've been researching a simple question:
Can AI answer engines actually discover, understand and cite a website correctly?
Traditional SEO tools don't answer that question. They focus on search engines, while AI systems evaluate websites differently.
AISight analyzes AI crawler access, semantic structure, citation readiness and evidence quality, then generates an executive report with prioritized findings and copy-paste technical fixes.
Current beta highlights:
• No login required
• Scan any public website
• Executive PDF report
• Actionable copy-paste recommendations
• Around 30-second analysis
AISight is still in Public Beta and I'm actively improving it based on real user feedback.
I'd really appreciate it if you could try it with your own website and let me know:
• Which findings were the most useful?
• Which recommendations were unclear?
• What would make the report more valuable for your organization?
Thank you for taking the time to test it and share your feedback!
Report
Does the executive report get generated on demand or do you run scheduled crawls, and how often does the underlying data refresh so the citation readiness scores actually reflect current site changes?
Report
Maker
@hseyinrhrd Great question. The report is generated on demand from a fresh scan of the submitted public URL, so the scores reflect the site state observed at scan time. AISight does not currently run scheduled recurring crawls in the public beta. The next step is to make comparison over time more useful, so teams can see how visibility and citation readiness change after site updates. Thanks for raising this — it’s exactly the kind of question that helps shape the roadmap.
Report
How does AISight actually detect the AI crawlers in practice, does it rely on server log access or just passive DNS sniffing, and does that work for sites behind a CDN?
Report
Maker
@farukwyv5 Great question. AISight doesn’t use server log access or passive DNS sniffing. It evaluates the submitted public URL from the outside, testing the signals and access conditions that affect whether AI crawlers can discover and interpret the site.
So yes, it can evaluate sites behind a CDN, but the result reflects what is publicly observable from outside the infrastructure rather than private origin or server-log data. That distinction is important, and I’ll make it clearer in the product.
Report
love the UI!
Also the fact that it gave my website a 100/100 score pretty much across the board made me happy NGL
It did surface some fixes around trust headers which was a quick fix. Thanks
Report
Maker
@ankit_a hanks Ankit — this is exactly the kind of outcome I hoped AISight would produce: not just another score, but something specific enough to act on immediately. Great to hear the trust header finding led to a quick fix. Really appreciate you testing it and sharing the result.
Report
Ran my site through it and the citation readiness breakdown was surprisingly specific, pointing out schema gaps I didn't know existed. The copy-paste fixes saved me from digging through docs.
Report
Maker
@erol332722 Thanks, Erol — really appreciate you testing the actual report. That’s exactly the outcome I was aiming for: not just identifying a gap, but reducing the distance between “there’s a problem” and “here’s what I can actually do about it.” Great to hear the copy-paste fixes were useful.
Report
The schema fix suggestions were actually paste-ready and made sense, which surprised me after seeing so many SEO tools that just yell about missing tags. Clean executive report too, no fluff.
Report
Maker
@kezibannkbe Thanks, Keziban — that’s exactly what we wanted to achieve: not just flagging problems, but making the next step immediately actionable. Really appreciate you taking the time to look at the actual output.
Does the executive report get generated on demand or do you run scheduled crawls, and how often does the underlying data refresh so the citation readiness scores actually reflect current site changes?
@hseyinrhrd Great question. The report is generated on demand from a fresh scan of the submitted public URL, so the scores reflect the site state observed at scan time. AISight does not currently run scheduled recurring crawls in the public beta. The next step is to make comparison over time more useful, so teams can see how visibility and citation readiness change after site updates. Thanks for raising this — it’s exactly the kind of question that helps shape the roadmap.
How does AISight actually detect the AI crawlers in practice, does it rely on server log access or just passive DNS sniffing, and does that work for sites behind a CDN?
@farukwyv5 Great question. AISight doesn’t use server log access or passive DNS sniffing. It evaluates the submitted public URL from the outside, testing the signals and access conditions that affect whether AI crawlers can discover and interpret the site.
So yes, it can evaluate sites behind a CDN, but the result reflects what is publicly observable from outside the infrastructure rather than private origin or server-log data. That distinction is important, and I’ll make it clearer in the product.
love the UI!
Also the fact that it gave my website a 100/100 score pretty much across the board made me happy NGL
It did surface some fixes around trust headers which was a quick fix. Thanks
@ankit_a hanks Ankit — this is exactly the kind of outcome I hoped AISight would produce: not just another score, but something specific enough to act on immediately. Great to hear the trust header finding led to a quick fix. Really appreciate you testing it and sharing the result.
Ran my site through it and the citation readiness breakdown was surprisingly specific, pointing out schema gaps I didn't know existed. The copy-paste fixes saved me from digging through docs.
@erol332722 Thanks, Erol — really appreciate you testing the actual report. That’s exactly the outcome I was aiming for: not just identifying a gap, but reducing the distance between “there’s a problem” and “here’s what I can actually do about it.” Great to hear the copy-paste fixes were useful.
The schema fix suggestions were actually paste-ready and made sense, which surprised me after seeing so many SEO tools that just yell about missing tags. Clean executive report too, no fluff.
@kezibannkbe Thanks, Keziban — that’s exactly what we wanted to achieve: not just flagging problems, but making the next step immediately actionable. Really appreciate you taking the time to look at the actual output.