TrustGrowth

Verifying claims against the user's own Search Console data instead of third-party estimates is the right direction — it removes the black-box problem most SEO audits have, where you get a score with no way to check the reasoning. The public, dated proof page is a genuinely useful artifact for agencies and anyone selling a site: including weak signals makes it more credible, not less, because buyers can see what's being hedged. Two questions: for the five-stage AI visibility measurement, how do you verify whether Claude, GPT and Gemini actually 'name' a site — sampled prompts with known answers, and how is that kept reproducible as models change? And for Groundcrew: do the open-source skills map to specific fix recipes per finding, or are they general remediation guidance? If each audit finding shipped with an agent-executable fix, the loop from audit to PR would be genuinely compelling.

Does it run sample prompts against AI tools to check if my product is mentioned?

The 'show the evidence behind the score' framing is what separates this from every SEO tool that hands you a number and a generic checklist. Verifying against the site's own Search Console instead of third-party estimates is exactly the right call — estimates are where SEO tools usually lose credibility. Two questions: (1) the public proof page includes weak signals too, which is refreshingly honest — do clients actually approve publishing those, or does that need convincing? (2) for the five-stage AI visibility measurement, how do you handle answer variance over time — is the score a point-in-time snapshot or a rolling window? The open-source Groundcrew playbook is also a smart move: every coding agent that uses it becomes a distribution channel.

The public proof page is a smart trust primitive for agencies. The hard part is keeping it current when a client site changes; a visible last-verified timestamp plus a diff of what changed since the previous run would make it far more defensible in a sales conversation.

Hi Fazier, I'm Ravi, the maker of TrustGrowth. I built it because most SEO tools gave me a report I could not check. A number, a list of issues, and no way to see where any of it came from. TrustGrowth works from your own Google Search Console data (read-only). It runs a scheduled audit across technical health, performance, content, E-E-A-T and AI visibility, and shows the evidence behind every point of the score. We hold ourselves to the same rule. In August we changed our scoring model, and our own site dropped from 73 to 32. We published that, because a score that only flatters you is not worth much. A few things I'd love you to try: 1. The free plan: one site, full audit, and a public proof page you can share. 2. The free AI crawler check: it shows which AI bots your robots.txt or CDN blocks, no account needed. 3. Groundcrew: our open-source playbook, so your own coding agent can fix what the audit finds. I'm here all day. Tell me what is confusing, what is missing, or where the score looks wrong for your site. I read every comment.

Showing the evidence behind an SEO score, not just a number and a list of issues. The public proof page is a strong tool for agencies that need to show clients what's improved over time. How do you help users distinguish between an actual improvement or decline in SEO performance and a change caused by the scoring?