Agent Experiences

AXO Scoring System

Quantitative 0-100 scoring methodology to measure and improve your content's agent-optimization level.

Scoring Breakdown (0-100 Points)

These weights changed in August 2026. Agent Accessibility was previously missing from the rubric entirely despite being on the audit checklist, so it was added at 15 points and Structure, Clarity and Completeness were reduced to make room. Saying so seemed better than renumbering quietly.

20

Structure

Heading hierarchy, semantic markup, and whether the document survives conversion to text.

15

Clarity

Whether a sentence still means something once it is lifted out of the page.

15

Completeness

Whether the page answers the whole question, including the follow-ups.

20

Trust

Named authors, real credentials, resolvable sources, honest dates.

15

Technical

Structured data, metadata, and delivery.

15

Agent accessibility

Whether an agent can reach the content at all. Everything else is conditional on this.

25Structure & Organization

Excellent (20-25 pts)
  • • Perfect H1-H6 hierarchy
  • • Semantic HTML throughout
  • • Logical content flow
  • • Clear section divisions
  • • Consistent formatting
Good (10-19 pts)
  • • Mostly proper headings
  • • Some semantic elements
  • • Generally logical flow
  • • Minor structure issues
Needs Work (0-9 pts)
  • • Poor heading hierarchy
  • • Minimal semantic markup
  • • Confusing organization
  • • Inconsistent formatting

20Content Clarity & Quality

Excellent (16-20 pts)
  • • Concise, direct language
  • • Specific facts and data
  • • Clear definitions
  • • No marketing fluff
  • • Easy to scan
Good (8-15 pts)
  • • Generally clear writing
  • • Some specific details
  • • Mostly factual content
  • • Minor clarity issues
Needs Work (0-7 pts)
  • • Vague or unclear language
  • • Lacks specific details
  • • Heavy marketing language
  • • Difficult to extract facts

20Information Completeness

Excellent (16-20 pts)
  • • Covers the whole question
  • • Relevant examples
  • • Proper context provided
  • • Addresses common questions
  • • Links to related topics
Good (8-15 pts)
  • • Covers main points
  • • Some examples included
  • • Basic context provided
  • • Minor gaps in coverage
Needs Work (0-7 pts)
  • • Incomplete information
  • • Lacks examples
  • • Missing context
  • • Leaves questions unanswered

20Trust Signals & Authority

Excellent (16-20 pts)
  • • Clear author credentials
  • • Recent publication dates
  • • Proper source citations
  • • Contact information
  • • Update timestamps
Good (8-15 pts)
  • • Author name present
  • • Publication date shown
  • • Some source references
  • • Basic contact info
Needs Work (0-7 pts)
  • • No clear authorship
  • • Missing or old dates
  • • No source citations
  • • Anonymous content

15Technical Implementation

Excellent (12-15 pts)
  • • Complete JSON-LD schema
  • • Valid HTML markup
  • • Proper meta tags
  • • Fast loading (<3s)
  • • Mobile responsive
Good (6-11 pts)
  • • Basic schema markup
  • • Mostly valid HTML
  • • Some meta tags
  • • Acceptable performance
Needs Work (0-5 pts)
  • • No structured data
  • • Invalid HTML
  • • Missing meta tags
  • • Poor performance

Score Interpretation

85-100
Excellent

Well optimized. Re-run this in a quarter rather than changing anything.

70-84
Good

Solid foundation with specific gaps worth closing.

50-69
Fair

Several areas need attention. Work in weight order.

0-49
Poor

Significant work needed across multiple areas. Start with accessibility and structure.

Use this rubric

Print this page to score a single page offline, or work through the full audit checklist for a site-wide pass.