agentleFS
impactbrusselsimpactbrussels/AINativeOS/skills/share-of-model-audit/SKILL.md

share-of-model-audit

Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a founder needs to know how often the AI engines name them versus rivals for the questions buyers actually ask, when they say "measure my Share of Model", "do ChatGPT and Perplexity cite us", "are we losing to a competitor in the answer box", "did the GEO work move the number", "set my baseline", or "track this monthly". Also when a buyer keeps arriving pre-decided in favour of a rival. Produces a Share-of-Model scoreboard (you vs named competitors, per query, per engine), a citation-share number with a baseline, and the content gaps it exposes. Run after geo-content; feeds capture-learning and the weekly Share-of-Model loop.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Write 20 to 50 queries a real buyer types, not the ones that flatter you.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Run every query through at least three engines.

    line 30

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Share-of-Model Audit

Buyers now ask an AI engine before they ask you, and the engine names three companies as proof. If it does not name you, the considered-buying journey starts with your competitor's case study, not yours, and you never see the loss. Share of Model is the percentage of those answers that cite you versus rivals. It is the new top of funnel, and a single reading lies. This skill turns it into a tracked number with a baseline, so you can tell whether your narrative is landing or a competitor is being cited in the rooms you cannot see.

The method

Fixed query set, several engines, a scoring sheet, a tracked trend. Full framework: references/audit-protocol.md, drawn from handbook Chapter 10 and Chapter 12.

Step 1: Design the buyer query set

Write 20 to 50 queries a real buyer types, not the ones that flatter you. Lock the set so months are comparable. Mix the three intents.

IntentExample shapeWhat it tests
Category"best tool for [job]"Do you appear in the top-of-funnel shortlist?
Comparison"[competitor] alternatives", "[X] vs [Y]"Do you survive the head-to-head?
Problem-led"how do I [solve PROBLEM]"Do you own the job, not just the category?

Step 2: Run a fixed engine panel

Run every query through at least three engines; one engine is not a reading. Use a clean session each time so prior chat does not seed the answer.

EngineWhy include
ChatGPTLargest buyer reach
ClaudeDifferent citation behaviour
PerplexitySource-first, names citations explicitly

Step 3: Score each answer

For every query and engine, record one row. Count citation, not vibes.

FieldValues
Cited me?yes / no
Named first?yes / no
Competitors citedlist of names
Outcomeme / rival / neither

Step 4: Compute the share and the gaps

Citation share = answers naming you divided by total answers. First-mention share = answers naming you first divided by total. Write both down as the baseline. Then rank the queries where you are most absent but most should appear: that is the content backlog for geo-content.

Step 5: Set the cadence

Re-score the same locked set monthly. Treat a flat line as confirmed flat, not as fine. A rising share means your content is becoming the reference; a falling one means a rival is being cited where you cannot watch.

Output

  • A Share-of-Model scoreboard: you vs named competitors, per query, per engine, with citation share and first-mention share.
  • A dated baseline and the one competitor beating you most, with a one-line hypothesis why.
  • The content gaps: the queries where you are absent but should lead.
  • Next: feed the gaps to geo-content, then capture-learning to record what the number proved.

Constraints

  • Name the failure mode: cherry-picked queries on one engine with no baseline. A set you tuned to flatter yourself, run once in your favourite engine, measures nothing. Lock the set, run the panel, keep the series.
  • Apply research-before-asserting: a single snapshot is not a trend, and any figure you quote must survive a re-run. Watch the series, not the reading.
  • Stay theme-agnostic; the founder supplies the domain and the real competitor names. Never invent a competitor or a figure.

Dictionary

Share of Model · GEO (Generative Engine Optimization)

Copy-paste version

For non-coders: paste into Claude.ai, ChatGPT, and Perplexity, once each, and compare. Tag: chat.

Act as my AI-native go-to-market analyst. Product: [ONE_LINER]. For: [ICP]. Domain: [DOMAIN].
Real competitors: [2-4 NAMES].

1. Write 20 buyer queries my [ICP] actually types when deciding: a mix of category ("best tool
   for [job]"), comparison ("[competitor] alternatives", "[X] vs [Y]"), and problem-led ("how do I
   [solve PROBLEM]"). Do not tune them to flatter me.
2. Answer each query the way a buyer reads it. For each, record: was I cited (yes/no), was I named
   first (yes/no), which competitors were cited, and who won the answer (me / rival / neither).
3. Build the scoreboard as a table: query, me cited, named first, competitors, winner.
4. Compute two numbers plainly: my citation share (answers naming me / total) and my first-mention
   share. This is my baseline; tell me to write it down with today's date.
5. Name the one competitor cited most and give a one-line hypothesis why. Then list the three
   queries where I am most absent but most should appear: that is my content backlog.

This is ONE engine's view. Tell me to re-run the identical set in ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity
and compare, and to re-run the same set every month. Do not pad my number; if I am rarely cited,
say so. OUTPUT: the scoreboard, the two share numbers, the top gap, then ONE next action.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.