I built Canopy Guard, a free website audit tool that scores domains across SEO, AEO, GEO, and security. I published the full scoring methodology openly and I want developers to challenge it.
Here is what I want you to do:
Scan your site at thecanopyguard.com
Look at the scores
Tell me where the numbers feel wrong
The scoring is based on weighted signals. Some examples:
SEO: crawlability is weighted at 0.10 because it's a gate check. Meta description gets 0.05 for presence plus up to 0.05 for ideal length (120-160 chars). Word count is gradient scored: under 200 words = thin content penalty, 1500+ = full credit.
AEO: FAQ schema presence is 0.10 but FAQ item count is scored separately up to 0.12. Five or more FAQ items gets full credit. One item gets 0.04. The theory is that a single question-answer pair is not meaningful coverage.
GEO: chunking efficiency is 0.25. It factors in heading count, paragraph count, lists, tables, and overall content length. The idea is that well-structured pages produce cleaner retrieval chunks for RAG systems. Is this a valid signal?
Security: CSP carries the highest individual header weight at 0.08 because it has the broadest protective scope. X-Content-Type-Options carries 0.04. Is this weighting defensible?
I also added HSTS max-age as a fallback for HTTPS redirect detection after discovering that Railway's egress can't always test HTTP redirects. If HSTS max-age is 1 year+, the site is enforcing HTTPS regardless.
Full methodology documented at the site. Every weight is visible.
thecanopyguard.com
Roast the scoring. I want it to be bulletproof before a bigger launch.
Top comments (0)