Wisegrid

My website wisegrid.co scored 76/100 on Good for Bots (Good). Good for Bots measures one thing: whether a language model can read a site and cite it.

I need you to: serve markdown through content negotiation on all public HTML routes.

The check it fails is "Serves markdown when asked for it", worth 10 points. What the scanner saw: None of the 4 pages read pass. Asking the homepage for markdown still returns text/html.

The scan checked a sample of 4 pages. It does not establish which other pages have the same issues. Use the findings below to locate the responsible templates, components or configuration, and apply the fix wherever the same issue occurs. Pages in the sample with findings:
- https://wisegrid.co/: Asking the homepage for markdown still returns text/html.
- https://wisegrid.co/guides/build-a-raid-log/: Asking the page at /guides/build-a-raid-log/ for markdown still returns text/html.
- https://wisegrid.co/features: Asking the page at /features for markdown still returns text/html.
- https://wisegrid.co/pricing: Asking the page at /pricing for markdown still returns text/html.

Implement content negotiation across all public HTML routes, including page types
outside the scan's sample. Put it in the shared response handling or the handlers
for each page type, so new pages receive it too. Agents need the content of any
page they follow, including pages the report did not name.

When a request arrives with `text/markdown` in its `Accept` header, the same URL that
serves HTML to a browser should return a markdown rendering of that page's content.
Requests without that header must keep getting the HTML exactly as they do now.

The response must:

- set `Content-Type: text/markdown; charset=utf-8`;
- include `Accept` in the `Vary` header, so shared caches never serve the markdown to a
  browser or the HTML to an agent (RFC 9110 says a server SHOULD send `Vary` whenever
  the representation depends on a request header);
- contain real markdown, not HTML with a different header on it;
- drop `ETag` and `Last-Modified` for the converted response, since a conditional request
  cannot be honoured against a body generated on the fly.

Work out how to do this in whatever stack this project uses. If the site is behind
Cloudflare on a paid plan, the "Markdown for Agents" zone setting does all of the above
and is the least invasive option. Otherwise implement it in the framework: middleware
inspecting the `Accept` header, a route handler that returns the markdown source, or
whatever fits the architecture here.

Strip navigation, headers, footers and cookie banners from the markdown. The point is the
content, without the page furniture around it.

Verify HTML and Markdown responses for each public page type, including URLs
outside the reported sample. Check that each Markdown response contains that
page's content and that ordinary browser requests still receive HTML.

The whole report, as markdown, is at https://goodforbots.com/r/wisegrid.co.md?scan=cmusib792016t01o03m0dg7tw. Read it first: this prompt covers one finding, and the report has everything the scan saw.

When you are done, summarise what you changed and how to check it against a running instance. Do not try to run the Good for Bots scan yourself: it only sees what is already deployed, it is rate-limited, and re-running it is the site owner's call once the change ships.

My website wisegrid.co scored 76/100 on Good for Bots (Good). Good for Bots measures one thing: whether a language model can read a site and cite it.

I need you to: mark the content up so a parser can find it.

The check it only partly passes is "Content is marked up so a reader can find it", with 5 points of it still on the table. What the scanner saw: None of the 4 pages read pass fully; 3 partly. The page at /features is barely structured: No <main> element and nothing carrying role="main".

The scan checked a sample of 4 pages. It does not establish which other pages have the same issues. Use the findings below to locate the responsible templates, components or configuration, and apply the fix wherever the same issue occurs. Pages in the sample with findings:
- https://wisegrid.co/: The homepage is partly structured: No <main> element and nothing carrying role="main".
- https://wisegrid.co/guides/build-a-raid-log/: The page at /guides/build-a-raid-log/ is partly structured: No <main> element and nothing carrying role="main".
- https://wisegrid.co/features: The page at /features is barely structured: No <main> element and nothing carrying role="main".
- https://wisegrid.co/pricing: The page at /pricing is partly structured: No <main> element and nothing carrying role="main".

Review the site's public page templates and shared layout components. Fix missing
content roots, heading structure and landmarks wherever they occur, including
templates outside the reported sample. Check the server's HTML response from each
page type: a shared layout fix can introduce a second `<main>` on pages that
already have one.

Semantic elements help a reader of raw HTML find the page's content and distinguish
it from navigation and other surrounding material.

Three things, all from the HTML standard. Change the markup; do not change what the page
looks like.

**1. One content root.** Wrap the page's dominant content in a single `<main>`.

```html
<body>
  <header>…site header…</header>
  <main>…the article, the docs page, the product copy…</main>
  <footer>…site footer…</footer>
</body>
```

The standard allows exactly one `<main>` per document that is not marked `hidden`, and
its ancestors may only be `<html>`, `<body>`, `<div>`, an unnamed `<form>` or a custom
element, which makes a `<main>` inside `<section>` or `<article>` invalid. Put the real
content inside it: a `<main>` that holds a sliver of the page while the article sits in a
sibling `<div>` marks nothing. If a framework template makes the element impossible,
`role="main"` on the wrapper is an acceptable substitute.

**2. A heading outline that holds together.** Exactly one idea per level, starting at
`<h1>`, and never skipping a level on the way down.

```html
<h1>What this page is about</h1>
  <h2>First section</h2>
    <h3>A detail</h3>
  <h2>Second section</h2>
```

`<h1>` → `<h3>` is invalid; `<h3>` → `<h2>` on the way back up is fine. Use heading
elements for headings and CSS for size: a `<div class="text-2xl">` is invisible to the
outline. If a heading is an image or an icon, give it real text and hide it visually
rather than leaving the element empty.

**3. Landmarks around the content.** At least two of these, outside `<main>`:

```html
<header>   <!-- the site header: becomes the banner landmark -->
<nav>      <!-- navigation -->
<footer>   <!-- the site footer: becomes contentinfo -->
<aside>    <!-- related content -->
<search>   <!-- a search form -->
```

Two rules that surprise people. `<header>` and `<footer>` only count as the page's banner
and contentinfo when they are children of `<body>`; inside `<article>` or `<section>` they
are that section's own header and footer and are not landmarks at all. And a `<form>` is
only a landmark when it has an accessible name, so give a search form
`aria-label="Search"`.

Do not add landmarks that describe nothing: five unlabelled `<nav>` elements are worse
than one. And do not wrap the whole body in `<main>`: that puts the header and footer
inside the content root, which removes the landmarks this asks for.

The report's content and navigation breakdown is diagnostic. It measures extracted
text in marked regions, not content quality. Keep useful navigation; do not remove
links or add filler to change a percentage. If much of the text is labelled "other",
check whether the real main content has a meaningful wrapper. The reported start of
main text follows HTML order, which can differ from the visual layout.

The whole report, as markdown, is at https://goodforbots.com/r/wisegrid.co.md?scan=cmusib792016t01o03m0dg7tw. Read it first: this prompt covers one finding, and the report has everything the scan saw.

When you are done, summarise what you changed and how to check it against a running instance. Do not try to run the Good for Bots scan yourself: it only sees what is already deployed, it is rate-limited, and re-running it is the site owner's call once the change ships.

My website wisegrid.co scored 76/100 on Good for Bots (Good). Good for Bots measures one thing: whether a language model can read a site and cite it.

I need you to: describe the links in llms.txt and open the file with a summary.

The check it only partly passes is "llms.txt is descriptive, not a bare link list", with 3.75 points of it still on the table. What the scanner saw: /llms.txt is partly descriptive: only 38% of links carry a description.

A file made of `- [Docs](/docs)` and thirty more like it tells a model that this site has
pages, which it already knew. What a model needs from an index is the thing that lets it
choose: what is behind each address, and whether fetching it is worth the tokens. That is
what a note after the link does, and it is the difference between an index and a table of
contents nobody asked for.

There is nothing normative to cite here, and saying so is the honest opening move. The
llms.txt specification makes the note after a link optional and says nothing about how
many links should carry one. This is our judgement about what makes such a file
worth retrieving, and the report says as much.

The file must:

- open with a `>` blockquote summary directly under the H1, before the first `##` heading
  and before the first link line. A summary written lower down is not read as the
  summary, by this scan or by anything skimming the file top-down;
- give each link a `:` followed by a note, on the same line as the link;
- describe what is behind the link rather than restating its name. `Pricing: pricing`
  costs a line and conveys nothing.

Before and after, on the same file:

```markdown
# Acme

## Docs

- [Quickstart](/docs/quickstart.md)
- [Concepts](/docs/concepts.md)
- [Webhooks](/docs/webhooks.md)
```

```markdown
# Acme

> Acme is a hosted billing API for subscription businesses. Everything below is written
> against the v2 API; v1 reaches end of life in March.

## Docs

- [Quickstart](/docs/quickstart.md): create an account and take a first payment in about
  ten minutes, with a runnable curl example
- [Concepts](/docs/concepts.md): customers, subscriptions, invoices and proration, and
  how the four objects relate
- [Webhooks](/docs/webhooks.md): the event list, signature verification, and the retry
  schedule
```

The second file is not longer for the sake of it. A model reading it can answer "where do
I find the retry schedule" without fetching anything, and then fetch exactly one page.

One caution. The summary has to sit above everything else. A blockquote placed after the
first heading, or after the first link, reads as a note about that section rather than
about the project, and is not counted as the file's summary.

Two things about how this is measured, both of which are limits rather than rules. The
thresholds are ours and are judgement, not measurement (a quarter of the links carrying
a note starts earning credit, three in five passes), so treat them as a floor and write a
note wherever a reader would want one. And only the presence of a note is detected, never
its quality: `: docs` counts the same as a sentence that says something. Writing `: docs`
on every link would clear the check and defeat the purpose of doing it, since the file is
for a model and not for us.

One last thing about order. A site with no `/llms.txt` at all fails this check too, and
that is deliberate: marking it inapplicable would drop it out of the denominator and
quietly reward a site for having done nothing. If both this and the llms.txt check are
outstanding, do that one first. There is nothing to describe until the file exists.

The whole report, as markdown, is at https://goodforbots.com/r/wisegrid.co.md?scan=cmusib792016t01o03m0dg7tw. Read it first: this prompt covers one finding, and the report has everything the scan saw.

When you are done, summarise what you changed and how to check it against a running instance. Do not try to run the Good for Bots scan yourself: it only sees what is already deployed, it is rate-limited, and re-running it is the site owner's call once the change ships.