Kuroma Kuroma

efficient.studio scores 37/100 for AI Readiness

Efficient Studio (efficient.studio) scores 37/100 (grade D) on AI Readiness, audited 10 Oct 2026. Its strongest area is On-Page Content (51) and its weakest is Authority Signals (25); the biggest single gap is Citation-Worthiness at 0/100 (Limited use of specific statistics). That places it below the median of the 31,056 sites Kuroma has audited.

Audited URL: https://efficient.studio

37/100
Grade
D

The most points to recover are in Crawlability & Accessibility: it scored 19/100 on a check worth 13% of the total, which takes 10.5 points off the overall score.

This audit is 15 days old. AI answers change between audits, so what AI search sees today may differ from this card.

Updated 15 days ago

Below the median of all audited sites Median 39 · Top quartile 45 · across 31,056 audited sites

Is efficient.studio ready for AI search?

Not yet: efficient.studio scores 37/100 (grade D). Start with Add FAQ Schema Markup and Increase Citation-Worthy Content.

Category scores

On-Page Content 25% of the score 51
Technical Optimization 20% of the score 42
Authority Signals 25% of the score 25
AI Readiness 30% of the score 33

Top fixes, ranked by points recovered

Ranked by each check's share of the overall score times how far it fell short, so the biggest number is the biggest win, not the lowest score.

  1. Improve Crawlability & AI Crawler Access up to +10.5 pts

    On https://efficient.studio · Technical Optimization → Crawlability & Accessibility, scored 19/100

    • Missing canonical tag
    • 16 of 29 links cannot be followed by a crawler
    • The response at efficient.studio is not a robots.txt file, so AI crawler access could not be verified.
    • Add canonical tag to prevent duplicate content issues
    • This page opens 6 distinct paths into the rest of the site; linking to more of it gives crawlers more to find
    • Replace placeholder links (href="#", javascript:) with real URLs or remove them
  2. Increase Citation-Worthy Content up to +7.5 pts

    On https://efficient.studio · AI Readiness → Citation-Worthiness, scored 0/100

    • Limited use of specific statistics
    • Conduct original research or surveys
    • Include specific statistics with sources
    • Add expert quotes and interviews
  3. Add External Citations & References up to +6.8 pts

    On https://efficient.studio · Authority Signals → External Citations & References, scored 25/100

    • Use citation language like "according to..." or "research shows..."
    • Add a references or sources section
    • Include specific statistics and data points - AI loves citing numbers
  4. Add Trust Signals up to +6.7 pts

    On https://efficient.studio · Authority Signals → Trust & Brand Signals, scored 26/100

    • No about or company page linked from this page
    • Link to an about page that says who publishes this site
    • Declare the publisher in Organization schema (name, url, logo, sameAs) so an engine can attribute the page
    • Add customer testimonials or reviews
  5. Add FAQ Schema Markup up to +5.9 pts

    On https://efficient.studio · On-Page Content → Question Coverage & FAQ Presence, scored 9/100

    • No FAQ schema markup detected
    • Few question-based headings
    • Identify the top 5-10 questions your audience asks
    • Create a dedicated FAQ section on this page
    • Add FAQPage schema markup (see code below)

All 19 scored checks

Every check the published rubric scores, with what this audit found on the page.

On-Page Content 25% of the score

  • Content Depth & Comprehensiveness Pass 77/100

    6.5% of the overall score

    Found: 1,033 words, 135 paragraphs, 22 lists, 53 images (19 with alt text)

    • 34 images missing alt text (e.g. /_next/image?url=%2FIcon.png&w=64&q=75, /_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2Fclient%2Fai-logo.png&w=1080&q=75, /_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2Fclient%2Fahm-logo.png&w=384&q=75)
  • Question Coverage & FAQ Presence Fail 9/100

    6.5% of the overall score

    No FAQ structure. 0 question headings. 0 questions detected in content

    • No FAQ schema markup detected
    • Few question-based headings
  • Structured Data Quality Needs work 45/100

    4.5% of the overall score

    No JSON-LD structured data found

  • AI Readability Score Partial 70/100

    3% of the overall score

    Average 8 words/sentence. 0 long sentences. No text formatting.

  • Heading Hierarchy Pass 94/100

    2.8% of the overall score

    H1: 1, H2: 4, H3: 5. Proper hierarchy.

  • Media Accessibility Fail 23/100

    1.8% of the overall score

    Measures whether images, video, and charts have text equivalents AI can read.

    • 32 of 51 content images have no alt text, so their content is invisible to AI search.
    • 13 images have alt text too short to describe what they show ("Astra International", "Gojek", "Astronauts").
    • 1 images have no caption, so AI can't read the takeaway of a chart or diagram without one.
    • This page has 51 images but only ~1,033 words, so your key information may be trapped in images that AI search can't read.

Technical Optimization 20% of the score

  • Schema Markup Completeness Needs work 30/100

    1% of the overall score

    0 valid schemas, has OpenGraph

  • Page Performance Indicators Pass 100/100

    2% of the overall score

    2 render-blocking resources. 619 elements for 1,033 words

  • Mobile Optimization Pass 93/100

    4% of the overall score

    Has viewport. 51 responsive images. has theme-color

  • Crawlability & Accessibility Fail 19/100

    13% of the overall score

    HTTPS enabled. Missing canonical. Indexable. AI crawler access unverified (robots.txt unreadable). 16 placeholder links

    • Missing canonical tag
    • 16 of 29 links cannot be followed by a crawler
    • The response at efficient.studio is not a robots.txt file, so AI crawler access could not be verified.

Authority Signals 25% of the score

  • E-E-A-T Signals Fail 23/100

    7% of the overall score

    Experience: 4/10. Expertise: 10/25. Authority: 0/25. Trust: 4/25

    • No author attribution found
    • No publication or update dates found
  • External Citations & References Needs work 25/100

    9% of the overall score

    4 external links, 0 citation phrases, 0 statistics. No references section.

  • Trust & Brand Signals Needs work 26/100

    9% of the overall score

    Present: Privacy Policy, Contact

    • No about or company page linked from this page

AI Readiness 30% of the score

  • Answer Box Potential Partial 53/100

    7.2% of the overall score

    16 of 21 headings open a quotable passage, 0 definitions, 0 comparison structures

    • No FAQ structure detected
  • Citation-Worthiness Fail 0/100

    7.5% of the overall score

    0 original data indicators, 0 percentages, 0 quotes.

    • Limited use of specific statistics
  • Content Freshness Needs work 30/100

    5.7% of the overall score

    References current year

    • No machine-readable date on the page, so AI cannot tell when it was written
  • Unique Value Proposition Fail 5/100

    5.1% of the overall score

    0 of 111 passages carry a figure, 0 set two figures against each other, 1 named versions or models.

    • No passage on the page carries a figure a reader could check
  • AI Discoverability Not measured 88/100

    3% of the overall score

    Score: 88/100

  • Raw HTML Availability Pass 100/100

    1.5% of the overall score

    1,033 words readable without JavaScript

This audit measures citation readiness: how easily AI engines can crawl, extract, and quote these pages. It cannot see the off-site brand footprint (mentions, reviews, third-party coverage) that gates whether AI engines retrieve a brand at all; Kuroma's visibility scans and off-site signals track that side. How the score works

Score your own site →