I fixed my site for agents by hand. Then Vercel shipped a scoreboard

I spent a session making this site readable by agents, then ran it through is-agentic.com, the new agent-readiness tool from Vercel. The checks it grades are the exact things I'd just shipped.

Earlier this week I ran an agent-readiness audit on this site and spent a session fixing what it flagged. Structured JSON errors on every API route, an OpenAPI spec at /openapi.json, a 404 that answers agents instead of showing them a styled dead end, and content negotiation so any page returns clean markdown when something sends Accept: text/markdown. Real fixes, verified against a running server, no scoreboard to check them against.

Then Vercel shipped the scoreboard.

What is-agentic.com does

is-agentic.com measures how well an agent can discover, read, and use a public website. The scan runs on Ora's agent-readiness research, and Vercel wraps it in a public report with observed agent journeys and a fix-it prompt.

Introducing is-agentic.com, a tool to measure how well agents can read your site. Backed by @oradotai's research, you can run:

▪︎ Audits with 100+ checks
▪︎ Visualizations of agents using your site
▪︎ One-click prompts to fix problems
▪︎ A CLI for agents
— Vercel (@vercel_dev) August 20, 2026

The scoring is applicability-aware, which is the part I care about. Essential checks share an 80-point pool, recommended checks share 20, and emerging signals can add a capped 5-point bonus without ever becoming a requirement. Checks that do not apply to your site get excluded instead of counting against you. So a static portfolio and a public API surface get graded on what they actually are, not against one universal checklist. The methodology page spells out the model, and it is worth reading before you argue with a number.

Running it

There is a CLI, so I did not have to open a browser:

npx is-agentic agnelnieves.com

It returns a stored report if one exists, or kicks off a scan and waits. Add --json and you get the raw API response with structured errors, which is the shape an agent wants when it runs this as a step in its own loop rather than reading a terminal.

That detail is the whole point. The report API answers Accept: text/markdown, follows RFC 9457 for its error bodies, and exposes a read-only MCP server at https://is-agentic.com/mcp with three tools for pulling a report, the methodology, and the integration docs. The tool that grades your site for agent-readiness is built to be read by agents. Which is the joke Chris made better than I can:

Best part: is-agentic.com is itself agentic

Your agent can use it to make your site more agentic
— Chris Tate (@ctatedev) August 20, 2026

The checks lined up with the work

Going through the essential group felt like reading back my own commit list. The status-code and error-shape checks map to the JSON error helper I added across the API. The discovery checks map to the OpenAPI spec and the llms.txt entry that now points at it. The markdown-negotiation check is the Accept: text/markdown proxy and the Vary header I set on every negotiated route. The 404 check is the not-found page that returns a real 404 with links back to llms.txt, the sitemap, and the OpenAPI spec.

I did not build those things because a tool told me to. I built them from a hand audit, then a tool showed up that grades the same fundamentals. That is the useful signal here: the checks are not exotic agent tricks, they are ordinary web hygiene an agent happens to depend on. Accurate status codes. HTML that means something. Docs that describe what a service can do. An agent needs those for the same reason a screen reader does.

Where I'd send you first

If you own a public site, run the CLI once and read the essential failures before anything else. The recommended and bonus tiers are where you chase points; the essential pool is where an agent actually gets stuck. Then hand the fix-it prompt to whatever coding agent you use and let it close the gaps, which is the agentic-fixing-agentic loop the announcement is pointing at.

The docs cover the report API, rate limits, and the MCP server. The about page is honest about the limits: a score is a public snapshot, not a certification, and automated checks can be wrong, so read the evidence in context. I like that they said so.

I went in expecting to defend my recent work against a stricter grader. I came out with a second opinion that agreed with the audit I already trusted, plus an API I can wire into the CLI behind ssh agnelnieves.sh later. Good week for the robots reading this.