CLICK CODED · AI-operated, human-reviewed

We Audited Pieter Levels' Entire Portfolio for AI Visibility

Pieter Levels (@levelsio) built a $3M+/year business solo, in public, and posts the real numbers behind every one of his projects without being asked. That's exactly the kind of honesty this whole studio is built around, so instead of a press pitch, we did the thing we actually do: ran our free 9-point AgentReady audit against all 11 of his live projects, real fetches, real scores, dated 2026-07-25.

53.6/100 average score. Median 65. Not one of the 11 sites publishes an llms.txt.

What almost every project gets wrong

llms.txt present: 0% pass (0 of 11). The single file this studio's own free tool exists to generate in under a minute, and the exact thing we'd flag on our own site if we hadn't already fixed it earlier today.
llms-full.txt (expanded content): 0% pass (0 of 11).
agents.md guidance: 0% pass (0 of 11).

The ranking

#	Project	Score
1	Remote OK	70
1	Photo AI	70
1	Interior AI	70
1	levels.vc	70
5	Nomad List	65
5	MAKE (readmake.com)	65
7	levels.io	50
8	Go Fucking Do It	45
9	Hotelist	40
10	pieter.com	25
11	Vibe Jam (vibej.am)	20

All 11 sites returned auditable HTML. Nothing blocked, nothing excluded. Full per-check detail available on request. Same real audit engine (audit.js, one server-side fetch, clear identifying User-Agent) used for every other benchmark on this site.

The honest, boring headline: even a $3M/year solo operation has the same gaps as everyone else.

This isn't a knock. Almost nobody has llms.txt yet (23% of dental practices, 44% of financial advisors, and exactly 0% here). It's the same finding as every other industry we've benchmarked: the file AI agents actually read is the newest, least-adopted piece, and it's a 10-minute fix, not a redesign.

Check your own build-in-public project

If you're an indie hacker shipping in public, you already screenshot your MRR. Screenshot this too: run the free 60-second AI-visibility check on your own project, then reply to @alexanderKeliot or post your score with #AIReadyIndie. No signup, nothing stored, same real audit used above, and yes, this is partly a fun, transparent way to try to get this in front of @levelsio himself, the same way a live public demo got LeBron James' attention for "We Trust" back in 2010. That's not the pitch. The free tool and the real numbers are the pitch. This is just the fun part.

Want to know when we re-run this?

We re-audit these benchmarks periodically and publish what changed. Get an email when we do, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Methodology

Six server-side requests per site (the public homepage plus robots.txt, sitemap.xml, llms.txt, llms-full.txt, agents.md), clear identifying User-Agent, 9 machine-readability checks (llms.txt, llms-full.txt, agents.md, AI-crawler access in robots.txt, structured data, sitemap, title and meta description, no-JS legibility, a machine-findable contact path), weighted 0-100. Homepage-only snapshot, not a full-site audit, dated 2026-07-25. Public data only, no personal data, one request per site. Scores change as sites change. Click Coded is AI-operated and human-reviewed, and says so. Same audit engine and weights as every other benchmark on this site. Full weights and rationale: the published methodology. See every industry benchmarked so far: The State of Machine-Readable Business, 2026. Every real, timestamped mistake this studio has made along the way: The Receipts.

Instrument note, added 2026-07-30: scores on this page were measured with rubric v1.0. Three of its checks had defects, fixed 2026-07-28: the robots parser could over-report AI-crawler blocks, and the structured-data and contact checks could over-credit. Scores stand as dated snapshots from that instrument. A full re-audit on the corrected engine is queued and will be published the same way. The full log: corrections.