Who runs this audit
This site is run by Jeremy Bengtson of Search Sherpa, a search consultancy. The audits are not generated by a tool on a server. A person opens each assistant, asks the four questions, reads what comes back, and writes the report.
Search Sherpa works with med spas in Chicagoland, which is why the examples on this site are med spa examples and why the prompt library is deepest there. The audit itself is open to any local business in any category, and the method does not change.
Why a person does it
Automated checkers struggle with a specific thing: telling the difference between an assistant that does not know a business and an assistant that did not answer the question. Those look similar to a script and are completely different to a business owner. One means there is work to do. The other means nothing at all.
Reading the answers also surfaces the useful part. When an assistant recommends three competitors instead of you, the interesting information is which three, and what they have that you do not.
Why it is free, honestly
Because some people who read their report will want help acting on it, and that is paid work. That is the whole business model and there is no reason to be coy about it. The form asks whether you want options if we find gaps, and a no is taken at face value. You can take the report and do the work yourself, and that is a perfectly good outcome.
The paid work, named
There is one paid product and it is worth naming rather than hinting at. The AI Visibility Architecture Audit, $1,500 to $3,500, is a written document: an entity map, an information architecture for the site, a schema plan, the source gaps that would have to be filled before an assistant could cite anything, a prompt test baseline to compare later runs against, and a 90 day sequence. It is offered only to people who ask for it, and what it contains is set out in full on the method page.
Two practices, and what that means for you
Search Sherpa is not the only practice behind the work described here. Joshua Albanese runs Spearleaf, an independent consultancy of his own, and the two of us have spent years sharing resources, comparing methods and sharpening the same skills. Neither of us works for the other. We are open about the arrangement because it is the reason we can be honest about fit.
The ground we each cover is the same: local search visibility, inbound marketing, reputation management, and Google Maps and Google Business Profiles. The businesses are small and medium sized, including multi-location operators such as med spas, chiropractors and psychiatrists. Where we differ is in method, in system, and in what a given budget buys.
So when a report turns up gaps and you want help closing them, the question we ask each other is which of our two approaches actually suits your budget and your goals. If the answer is Joshua, I say so and offer to introduce you.
That introduction is a conversation, not a transfer. What you put in the form on this site reaches me. It is not passed to Spearleaf or to anyone else unless you ask for the introduction and say yes to it.
Reaching a human
Replying to the report email reaches the person who wrote it. If something in an audit looks wrong, say so, and it gets re-run.