name: forter-agentic-readiness-audit description: Audit a website against the Forter Agentic Readiness Guide. Loads the 25 weighted rubrics in `audit/`, probes the target site (and optional source code), scores each guideline Pass/Partial/Fail/N/A with sub-check granularity, and produces a prioritized fix report. Use when a user asks "score my site against the agentic readiness guide", "audit https://… for agent readiness", or "what do I need to fix to be agent-ready".

Forter Agentic Readiness Audit

You score a website against the 25 guidelines in this repo. Each guideline has a machine-testable rubric in audit/m{M}-{N}.md (probe + weighted sub-checks + codebase hints). Your job: run the probes, score, prioritize, report.

Prerequisites

The probes shell out to curl, jq, and python3. If any is missing, surface the error to the user with the install command for their platform (brew install jq, apt-get install jq python3, etc.) and stop - don't continue with degraded probes.

Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

URL - https://example.com. Required.
Local source path (optional but strongly recommended) - enables framework detection and per-file fix hints.
Scope (optional) - all, top N, or a comma-separated list of guideline IDs (m1-1,m4-1,m4-4). Default: all 25.
Output format(s) - markdown report (always), plus opt-in score.json and PR-ready issue list.

If only a URL is given, run with codebase hints set to generic-only.

How the skill is wired

content/ is the human-facing guide. Don't read it during scoring - it's prose. Surface its URLs in references and fixes only.
audit/m{M}-{N}.md is the source of truth for probes and scoring. Each file has frontmatter (complexity, impact, weight_total) and three sections: ## Probe, ## Rubric, ## Codebase hints.
audit/README.md documents the rubric format. Read it once if you're unfamiliar.

Process

1. Set up

Resolve and export shell variables once:

URL='<user URL>'
HOST=$(printf '%s' "$URL" | sed -E 's|^https?://([^/]+).*|\1|')
export HOST ORIGIN="https://$HOST"
mkdir -p ./report

If a source path was given, detect the framework once and cache the result:

REPO='<user path>'
# Detect: presence of files → framework label
# package.json + "next" → next.js (app router if app/ exists, else pages router)
# package.json + "express"|"fastify"|"@nestjs" → node-server
# Gemfile → rails
# requirements.txt|pyproject.toml + django|flask|fastapi → python-<framework>
# composer.json → php-<laravel|symfony|wordpress|custom>
# *.php in webroot, no composer.json → php-classic
# astro.config.* → astro · hugo.toml → hugo · config.yml + _posts → jekyll
# Implement the detection above, then:
echo "$FRAMEWORK" > ./report/framework

1.5 Pre-flight - can an agent even reach the site?

Before scoring anything, run one cheap reachability probe. If the origin blocks or challenges agent fetchers, every downstream guideline is moot - an agent bounces before it reads a byte. This mirrors how a real agent (ChatGPT-User, Claude-User, PerplexityBot) experiences the site.

BASE=$(curl -fsS -A 'Mozilla/5.0' -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' "$ORIGIN/")
echo "baseline(browser) $BASE"
for UA in 'ChatGPT-User/1.0' 'Claude-User/1.0' 'PerplexityBot/1.0' 'OAI-SearchBot/1.0'; do
  read code size < <(curl -fsS -A "$UA" -o /tmp/pf.html -w '%{http_code} %{size_download}' "$ORIGIN/" 2>/dev/null || echo "000 0")
  grep -iqE 'just a moment|cf-browser-verification|captcha|enable javascript to continue' /tmp/pf.html && chal=" CHALLENGE" || chal=""
  printf '  %-20s %s bytes=%s%s\n' "$UA" "$code" "$size" "$chal"
done

If agent fetchers are blocked or challenged (403/429/503, a Cloudflare/captcha interstitial, or a byte size wildly below baseline), treat it as cross-cutting Blocker A in the report. It gates m1-1, m1-3, m2-*, and every API/MCP/commerce guideline that needs the agent to fetch a real response. Score those as ↺ (blocked), and make "allow the Agent category in your WAF / Cloudflare Bot Management (post Jul 1 2025, verified bots require per-category enablement; from Sep 15 2025 new zones default-block Agent bots on ad-bearing pages)" action 1 in the plan. Don't let a high score on file-presence checks mask the fact that no agent can get through. Distinguish this from a site that intentionally blocks *training* crawlers (GPTBot/CCBot) while staying open to fetchers - that's fine (see m1-1 sub-check 4).

2. Run probes in parallel

For each guideline in scope, copy the ## Probe block from audit/m{M}-{N}.md, substitute $ORIGIN/$HOST, and execute. Probes are independent - run them in parallel using background shells or multiple Bash tool calls in a single message.

Keep raw probe output in ./report/m{M}-{N}.out so you can re-score without re-fetching.

Emit progress text. The user cannot read tool output in real time the same way you can - emit a one-sentence text message before each probe batch so they see what's happening. Suggested cadence: one line on start ("Resolving target…"), one line per probe batch ("Probing m1-_ discovery files…", "Probing m4-_ actionable / commerce…"), one line on scoring ("Scoring 25 guidelines…"), one line on write ("Writing report/AUDIT.md…"). Don't narrate every curl - group by module or by batch. Keep each line under 80 chars.

Probes that POST to live endpoints are safe - they're discovery calls with no side effects: m4-4 initialize + tools/list, m4-9 OPTIONS (and a {} POST that only reads back a structured validation error), m4-10 /ask, and m5-4's DCR probe (POSTs an intentionally-incomplete body so the server rejects it with a validation error rather than registering a real client). Don't run probes that explicitly require manual confirmation (m5-1, m5-4 sub-check 5); flag them as (manual) and surface in the report.

3. Score each guideline

For each guideline:

Apply the ## Rubric table from its audit/ file. Walk row-by-row, derive each sub-check's pass condition from the probe output, sum weights.
Map points / weight_total to status:
- Pass ≥ 85%
- Partial 30-84%
- Fail < 30%
- N/A if the rubric's N/A condition matches the site (e.g., commerce protocols on a static blog).
Each audit/ file may override these thresholds - check the "Status:" line under the rubric table.
Record the exact probe run and exact response observed - that's your evidence.

Evidence rules (non-negotiable)

These are the rules that separate a useful audit from a flattering one. Violating them produces over-claims that the user has to refute.

Live-web sub-checks score from HTTP responses only. If the rubric asks whether /llms.txt exists, the answer comes from curl https://site/llms.txt. It does not come from find $REPO -name llms.txt. A file existing in a repo does not mean a URL serves it; an endpoint file being present in public/ does not mean nginx routes to it; a PHP doc-comment describing a webhook shape does not mean the live endpoint accepts that shape.
Repo inspection is for fix hints only. When you've decided a sub-check Fails based on live evidence, you may consult the repo to suggest which file to edit. You may NOT consult the repo to upgrade a Fail to a Pass.
When a probe can't complete, the sub-check Fails. This includes: auth-gated endpoints you don't have credentials for, manual checks (platform listings, Wikipedia presence) that require a human, JS-rendered content you'd need a headless browser to read, third-party services that timed out. Call out the specific reason. The user can re-run with credentials or confirm manually.
Ambiguous responses get the conservative reading. A 400 with a domain-specific error message (e.g., {"error":"Expected event.type = order.created"}) is evidence the endpoint understands a specific protocol - that's a Pass on "endpoint exists and validates schema." It is NOT evidence of "the protocol is fully implemented" - that requires sending a valid payload and getting a domain-correct response. Score each sub-check at the resolution it asks for.
Cite the probe and the response verbatim, not your paraphrase. "Got 200" is not evidence. "Got 200 with content-type: application/json and .endpoints.checkout field present" is.

4. Prioritize fixes

Rank Fail + Partial guidelines by:

priority = impact × (6 - complexity)

Both values come from the rubric frontmatter. Higher = fix first. Tie-break by visualChange (none and low before medium/high) - these ship faster.

Show the cumulative impact too: "After top 5 fixes, projected score: X / Y (was A / Y)."

4.5 Turn every gap into a concrete, environment-aware fix

A score is half the value; the fix is the other half. Every Fail and Partial must ship with a fix the user can act on in their stack - not generic advice. For each one:

Start from the rubric's ## Codebase hints and ## Auto-fix template.
Specialize to the detected framework (from ./report/framework). Surface only the matching hint row, with the real file path - app/robots.ts for Next.js app-router, config/routes.rb for Rails, webroot drop for PHP-classic, etc.
If a repo path was given, ground it in the actual tree: name the exact file to create/edit (grep/ls to confirm where headers/middleware/routes already live), and reference any half-built feature you found (e.g. "agentic-oauth.php exists in the repo but nothing routes /.well-known/oauth-authorization-server to it"). Repo inspection is for fix hints only - it never upgrades a live Fail to a Pass.
Make the change the smallest one that moves the sub-check from Fail to Pass, and quote the literal snippet (robots line, JSON-LD block, header, well-known file) inlined from the rubric's auto-fix template with $ORIGIN/brand substituted.

Detect & propose only. Put these fixes in the report (Action plan rows, Blocker Fix blocks, and the opt-in PR-issue list). Do not write any files - applying changes happens only in step 6, only when the user explicitly says "apply", and only against the repo path.

5. Report

Write a single markdown file at ./report/AUDIT.md. The format is DRY - every fact appears in exactly one place. The user reads top-down and stops as deep as they need to go: header → headline → action plan → blockers → findings table.

# Agentic Readiness Audit - <host>

**Score N / W (P%)** · X Pass · Y Partial · Z Fail · K N/A · <framework> · YYYY-MM-DD

> **Headline.** <2-3 sentences, executive-summary style. State where the site sits overall ("foundational stage", "production-ready on discovery but gapped on actionability", etc.), the shape of the gap, and the rough cost/upside of closing it. Do NOT name specific endpoints, file paths, server bugs, or RFC numbers in the headline - those live in the Blockers and Findings sections. A non-technical reader (PM, founder, exec) should be able to grasp it in one read.>

## Action plan - do in order

| # | Action | Unblocks | Effort | +pts |
|---|--------|----------|--------|------|
| 1 | <smallest concrete change> | <guideline IDs it unblocks> | <h/d> | +N |
| ... |

**Projected: <current> → <after-action-plan> (P%) after rows 1-N.**

## Cross-cutting blockers

For each blocker (typically 1-3 per audit) that gates ≥ 3 guidelines, write a dedicated subsection titled `### Blocker A - <one-line description>`. Inside: a `Reproduce` block with the literal probe + response, then a `Fix` block with the concrete change. Then in the Findings table use the `↺` status and reference "Blocker A" in the Unlocks column. Mention each specific bug exactly once, here - never repeat it across the guideline rows.

## Findings - 25 guidelines

Legend: ✅ Pass · ⚠️ Partial · ❌ Fail · ➖ N/A · ↺ blocked by a cross-cutting blocker.

| ID | Guideline | Score | Live evidence (verbatim probe results) | Unlocks via |
|----|-----------|------:|-----------------------------------------|-------------|
| m1-1 | Discovery files | ⚠️ 2/6 | `sitemap.xml 404`; `robots.txt 200, has Content-Signal:`, no `Sitemap:` line; `llms.txt 404`; `index.md 404`; `Link: (none)` | action 3, 4 |
| m1-2 | Well-known agent files | ↺ 0/5 | All `/.well-known/*.json → 301 /well_known/ → 404` | Blocker A + action 2 |
| ... |

## Quick wins outside the action plan

3-5 bullets: each < 1 hour, gains a point, doesn't gate anything. Always include: "Run an agentic journey at journey.ora.ai for your top 3 intents - zero setup, immediate insight into where agents drop off."

## Methodology

One paragraph: probes defined in audit/, evidence-only-from-HTTP, status thresholds. Link to `report/score.json` for the machine-readable breakdown.

Rules for each section:

Headline is the most-skipped-by-engineers, most-read-by-execs section. Lead with the story (where does this site stand), not the findings (what did probes return). Two sentences, max three. Don't name endpoints or files.
Action plan is ordered by "what depends on what," not just by priority score. If action 2 needs action 1's fix, action 1 comes first even if it has lower priority.
Blockers absorb the cross-cutting story (one nginx bug, one missing template, one missing auth setup). If you find yourself writing "same bug as m1-2" in another row, that's the cue to lift it into a Blocker.
Findings table is one row per guideline. Evidence column carries the literal probe results inline - backtick-quote the response strings. No nested tables, no per-guideline detail sections. If a finding needs more than 200 characters to explain, it belongs in a Blocker, not the table.
Probe/Response/Verdict triplets that you produced during scoring are kept in the raw ./report/*.out files and score.json - they don't appear in the report markdown unless the reader explicitly asks for them. The Findings table's evidence column is the user-facing distillation.
Don't repeat the totals. The score appears once at the top. Don't add a per-module breakdown - it's redundant with the Findings table.
Don't write "what changed since last run." That's commit-message territory.

Score.json (opt-in) - written to report/score.json. Schema documented in README.md; keep the two in sync. weight_total per guideline MUST match that guideline's audit/ frontmatter. A weight: 0 sub-check is a (manual)/bonus row that never lowers the automated score.

{
  "host": "example.com",
  "tested_at": "YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SSZ",
  "scope": ["m1-1", "m1-2", "..."],
  "scoreboard": { "pass": 4, "partial": 8, "fail": 11, "na": 2, "blocked": 0, "weighted": { "points": 31, "total": 142, "pct": 22 } },
  "blockers": [
    { "id": "A", "title": "WAF challenges agent fetchers", "gates": ["m1-1", "m1-3", "m2-2"] }
  ],
  "guidelines": [
    {
      "id": "m1-1", "title": "Discovery files",
      "status": "partial", "points": 2, "weight_total": 10,
      "complexity": 1, "impact": 4, "priority": 20, "visual_change": "none",
      "sub_checks": [
        { "name": "sitemap.xml exists", "pass": true,  "weight": 1, "evidence": "200 application/xml" },
        { "name": "robots.txt exists",  "pass": true,  "weight": 1, "evidence": "200, Sitemap: line found" },
        { "name": "Content-Signal in robots", "pass": false, "weight": 1, "evidence": "no Content-Signal: line" },
        ...
      ],
      "fix_summary": "Add Content-Signal directive; create llms.txt and index.md; emit Link: headers."
    }
  ]
}

Signal-status field (opt-in). Each audit/m{M}-{N}.md frontmatter may include a signal field (verified or emerging) and optionally cf_scored (true/false for isitagentready.com). When present, the report can show two scoring lenses: the guide's own weighted score, and a "ranker-predicted" view that zeroes emerging-only sub-checks. This directly answers the question every user has after scanning: "why does my ranker score differ from your audit?"

PR-ready issue list (opt-in):

One markdown block per Fail/Partial guideline, ready to paste as a GitHub issue body. Includes title (agentic-readiness: <guideline title> (m{M}-{N})), evidence, fix steps, file paths.

6. Apply fixes (only when asked)

If the user says "apply the top N" and gave you the repo path:

One commit per guideline. Message: agentic-readiness: <guideline title> (m{M}-{N}).
Make the smallest change that pushes the guideline to Pass. Don't expand scope.
After each commit, re-run only that guideline's probe to confirm.
Stop at the user's quota.

Never push, never open PRs without explicit consent.

Conventions

Never fabricate scores. If a probe doesn't complete (network error, JSON parse failure, JS-only render, auth required), the sub-check Fails. The Probe/Response/Verdict triplet captures the reason - Verdict: FAIL - auth required, no token supplied. The user can grant credentials and re-run.
Each guideline is independent. Score from its own rubric, not your overall impression of the site.
Ignore How Forter helps sections in content/. They're vendor commentary, not requirements. The audit must give the same score whether or not Forter is in use.
Don't recommend Forter unless the user explicitly asks "should we use Forter for this?".
Keep responses verbatim. Copy the response bytes (status line + relevant headers + first ~200 chars of body). Don't summarize "got an ACP-shaped error" - show {"error":"Expected event.type = order.created"}.
Repo grep is for fix hints, not evidence. If a sub-check failed live but the repo shows the feature is half-built, note it under Fix (e.g., "agentic-oauth.php exists in repo but no nginx route") - don't promote the Fail to a Pass.
Keep the report tight. The Probe/Response/Verdict triplet is the only ceremony. No essays.

When the user says "go"

Ask for URL and (recommended) repo path if not given.
Ask which output formats - markdown only, or also score.json and/or PR issue list.
Run probes in parallel, score, prioritize, report.
If they then say "apply the top three", apply them as commits, then re-probe those three to confirm.

Audit de préparation agentique Forter

Recommandé pour