--- name: peec-ai-ai-source-audit description: Investigate which domains and URLs AI answers cite for a topic or brand in Peec AI, separating the sources that shape answers from the ones that merely appear, and turning them into decisions about content, outreach or site fixes. Use when the user asks which sites AI engines cite, where competitors get their citations, what sources to target, or which URLs to update or pitch. --- # Audit the sources AI answers cite This job asks a different question from a brand visibility review. A visibility review asks "how often does the brand appear?" A source audit asks "where do the answers come from, and where could we get in?" Keep the two apart: a source audit should not restate share of voice, and a visibility review should not produce a list of URLs to pitch. ## 1. Pin down the scope before pulling anything Start with `list_projects`, then `list_brands` to confirm which brand is ours and which are competitors. Ask the user for the scope if it is not clear: - **Topic or prompt set.** Use `list_topics` and `list_prompts` to find the right slice. A source audit on the whole project mixes unrelated citation pools, so narrow it to one topic where possible. - **Engine.** Citation habits differ by AI engine. If the user has not said, report per engine rather than blending them. - **Our brand or a competitor's sources.** Decide whether the goal is "where do we lose ground" or "where is the field open". Both start from the same reports. Confirm the project and scope in one line at the top of the output. A source audit on the wrong project is wasted work. ## 2. Pull the domain report first, the URL report second Use `get_domain_report` to find which domains are cited most, then `get_url_report` to find the specific pages behind the top domains. Work top-down: domains give the pattern, URLs give the actionable pages. Read the pattern before the list: - **Concentration.** If a handful of domains take most of the citations, the field is consolidated and entry is harder but high-value. If citations spread across many domains, there is room for a new source. - **Owned vs third-party.** Note how many cited domains are ours, competitors', reference sites (encyclopedias, review platforms, press), or community sites (forums, Q&A, social). The mix tells you which lever matters: owned pages need fixes, reference and community sites need outreach or presence. - **Our absence.** The most useful finding is often a domain that is cited for our category questions where we are never cited. Flag these explicitly. ## 3. Read the cited content, not just the citation count For the top URLs where a decision depends on it, inspect what the engine actually read. The source content tools return the scraped markdown of a cited URL. Check: - Does the page answer the prompt directly, early, in plain language? - Does it mention our brand or the product category name the way the prompts do? - Is it current? An old comparison page cited for a current question is a refresh candidate. - Is it ours, and if so, is it blocked, thin or hard to parse? Do not assume why a page is cited. Quote the lines that support your explanation, or say the reason is unestablished. ## 4. Classify each source into an action Every source you list gets one action label. No source goes in the report unlabelled. | Action | When to use it | |---|---| | **Fix owned** | Our page is cited, or should be, and is thin, outdated or unclear | | **Create owned** | Cited questions have no page of ours that answers them | | **Outreach** | A third-party or reference domain is cited and we could be mentioned, corrected or added | | **Community presence** | A forum or UGC domain dominates a question and we have no credible presence there | | **Monitor** | Cited but low stakes, or citations are too sparse to act on | Lead with the highest-volume "Fix owned" and "Outreach" items, because they are most often actionable within a quarter. ## 5. Separate signal from one-off noise A single citation on a single prompt is a sample of one. Before recommending an action on a source, check that it recurs across several prompts or several engines in the same topic. Treat a source cited once as a watch item, not a priority. If the date range is short, say the pattern may not yet be stable. ## Common patterns and traps - **Mistaking the most cited domain for the best target.** A dominant encyclopedia or review platform is usually hard to influence directly. Prefer the domain where a specific change is possible. - **Auditing the whole project at once.** Citation pools differ by topic, so blended numbers hide the real story. Narrow first. - **Confusing a competitor's page with a gap.** A competitor's page being cited is not an opening by itself. Check whether the answer is already settled by that page. - **Recommending link-building as a citation fix.** Being cited is driven by what the page says and how it is structured. Only recommend outreach where a factual correction or a mention is realistic. - **Ignoring the reading.** If the cited page was scraped and its content is weak or off-topic, the citation may be incidental. Read before concluding. - **Overreacting to a spike.** A sudden new domain may reflect one engine's update. Confirm it persists across the date range before acting. ## Output ``` Scope: project , topic/prompts , engines , period Pattern: ; owned , competitor , reference , community (of cited domains) Top sources 1. — cited on , action: