GEO for developer tools: get named in AI answers.
CiteSprint is a productized sprint by Praveen Doddamani: a measured baseline of the buyer prompts that matter, FAQ and “vs” pages you can publish, and 2–3 ethical mention targets — we pick them and draft the pitches; you send. Unlike a monitoring dashboard, the goal is getting you on the shortlist — not more charts about who already is.
Founding $497 while first-5 spots remain · then $747 · then from $997 · ~10 business days after kickoff · free mini-audit
Watching the scoreboard ≠ getting on the roster
Founders buy tools that track whether ChatGPT or Perplexity mention competitors. Useful — until you realize the gap is not “more charts.” It’s that AI has nothing clean to cite about you.
Dashboards & alerts about AI answers
You learn who got named last week. You still lack FAQ pages, comparison pages, and plain-language facts that models can retrieve and quote.
Baseline the prompts. Ship the pages.
We pick the questions buyers actually ask, score how often you’re named, then deliver FAQ + vs pages as markdown/PR artifacts and 2–3 credible mention pitches (you send).
Indie & early B2B SaaS — especially API / uptime / synthetics
Built for founders who ship product, not for enterprise SEO departments. First focus: tools that compete on “best API / uptime / synthetic monitoring” shortlists.
API, uptime & synthetics
Synthetic checks, Playwright monitors, status pages, on-call — where buyer prompts are clear and mid-tier tools often lose everyday wording to bigger names.
Indie / early B2B SaaS
You have a real product and some traction, but AI shortlists still name the giants. You need a focused sprint, not a six-month retainer.
Not a fit (yet)
Consumer apps with no B2B buyer prompts, brands already dominating every AI shortlist, or anyone who needs “guaranteed #1 in ChatGPT.” We’ll say so in the free mini-audit.
What’s included — exact package
One focused sprint. You get artifacts you can open in git or your CMS — PRs or clean markdown, not slide decks. Founding $497 (first 5) → $747 (next 10) → from $997 (up to ~$1,500 if scope needs it). Typical handoff: ~10 business days after kickoff.
-
1
Measured baseline (written)
Buyer prompts that create pipeline, win / tie / lose, and who AI tends to name. Each report lists the assistants actually used — only what the practice harness supports. Null results are allowed and reported in plain English.
-
2
FAQ + honest “vs” pages (markdown / PR-ready)
Draft technical FAQs and 2–3 comparison pages written so assistants can quote you without inventing claims. Delivered as clean markdown (or a PR against your docs/site repo when that fits) — not a deck. JSON-LD / schema notes only where relevant to your stack.
-
3
2–3 credible mention targets — we draft, you send (<10 min)
We pick 2–3 ethical places models (and buyers) actually trust — curated GitHub awesome-lists, useful Stack Overflow context, high-rep Reddit threads, niche developer indexes — and hand you a ready packet for each: target URL, exact snippet / PR text, and a short how-to (open issue, reply, or PR). Your side is usually copy-paste or one PR — typically under 10 minutes per mention. Not spam links, bot comments, or purchased “AI mention” packages. If a placement isn’t realistic, we say so.
Package handoff: baseline write-up + page drafts + mention pitches + a simple re-test checklist. Optional only: brief notes on llms.txt / schema — helpful, not a hero deliverable.
Plain English — no fake certainty
I run each buyer prompt many times and score how often your brand is named, including control prompts I don’t try to improve — so a null result is possible. I’ll tell you exactly which assistants each report used. Practice demos use what we can defend today: direct site checks, published ChatGPT/Gemini naming studies (e.g. Glotier), ChatGPT citation maps (e.g. Reditus), and clearly labeled inferred roundups — not invented “we measured ChatGPT + Perplexity + AI Overviews on every prompt” claims.
What you’ll hear
Whether you’re often named but ranked late, strong only on niche wording (for example Playwright / synthetics), weak on other prompt types, or barely named at all. A nice website file alone usually doesn’t close those gaps.
What we won’t pretend
That one screenshot proves a win. That technical files fix rank by themselves. That anyone can guarantee ChatGPT will name you next week. If the baseline is null or flat, you’ll hear that first.
Free mini-audit
Free mini-audit (about 45 minutes of async work): I check a short set of buyer prompts and send you a plain written baseline. Optional short call only if you want it. Free audits are limited so quality stays high.
What you send
Three fields: product URL or GitHub, your top 2 competitors, and a work email. That’s enough to start. Prefer plain text? Write hello@citesprint.tech.
What you get back
A short written audit: who tends to get named, three priorities, and whether a CiteSprint is even a fit — Citation-ready, Partial, or barely there. Honest labels on how we scored.
Example audit on a public developer tool (Checkly)
Framed carefully: this is an example audit on a public site — a Partial score insight, not a customer claim that CiteSprint works for Checkly.
Stronger when buyers ask about API / Playwright / synthetics (inferred from 2026 roundups + Reditus cites).
Often absent from classic “best uptime monitoring” shortlists in Glotier’s Aug 2026 ChatGPT + Gemini study (6 prompts).
Site files (robots, llms.txt, schema) helped clarity — they did not fix rank by themselves.
- Being named is not the same as owning everyday buyer wording — measure both.
- Prompt type matters: niche wording (Playwright / synthetics) can look stronger than status-page / uptime prompts.
- Missing FAQ and “vs” pages leave third parties in control of the story AI quotes.
- Files alone don’t close the gap — quotable pages and mentions do more of the work.
Four steps. ~10 business days after kickoff.
Free mini-audit
About 45 minutes of async work. Plain written baseline. Top issues. We only invite a paid sprint if it looks useful.
Kickoff & measured baseline
Confirm ICP, top competitors, and the questions that matter. Align on honesty rules and which assistants this report will actually use.
We draft; you approve & ship
Markdown / PR-ready FAQ + vs pages, plus 2–3 mention packets (URL + exact snippet + how-to) — you send, usually <10 min each. Optional llms.txt / JSON-LD notes only if useful.
Re-test checklist
You re-check the same prompts yourself with a simple checklist so progress is visible, not promised. No invented before/after screenshots — see the sample audit for proof format.
Crystal-clear pricing.
Start free with the mini-audit. Three-step ladder: $497 founding (first 5, case-study rights) → $747 (next 10) → from $997 (up to ~$1,500 by scope).
About 45 minutes of async work — I check a short set of buyer prompts and send a plain written baseline. Optional short call only if you want it.
- Buyer-intent prompts checked and summarized
- Top fixable issues in founder language
- Honest fit check for the paid sprint
Free audits are limited so quality stays high. No payment required.
One-time productized sprint · one product / domain
- Measured baseline + honest measurement notes
- FAQ + 2–3 “vs” pages as markdown / PR-ready drafts
- 2–3 credible mention pitches — we draft; you send
- Re-test checklist · ~10 business days after kickoff
Optional: brief technical-file notes (e.g. llms.txt / JSON-LD) if useful — not a hero deliverable. Proof format: sample audit — no invented screenshots.
Or email hello@citesprint.tech.
Three clear steps — lead with founding
1. Founding — $497 · first 5 clients · case-study rights
2. Early — $747 · next 10 clients
3. Standard — from $997 · up to ~$1,500 by scope, agreed in writing
Founding trade: Permission to publish before/after results (named or anonymized) and a short candid quote; if published, we’ll note that you received the founding rate. No positive review is required. Early ($747) and standard seats do not require case-study rights.
What we won’t do
AI citation work only helps if it’s durable and honest. We refuse shortcuts that burn trust — and we won’t sell you certainty, retainers, or a black-box dashboard we can’t defend.
Plain questions, plain answers
Is this another AI-mention monitoring tool?
No. Monitoring dashboards tell you who got named. CiteSprint is a one-time productized sprint: baseline your buyer prompts, ship FAQ + vs pages as markdown/PR artifacts, and get help with 2–3 credible mention targets — we pick targets and draft pitches; you send.
What’s the price?
Founding $497 for the first 5 (case-study rights). Then $747 for the next 10. Then from $997 one-time — up to ~$1,500 if scope needs it. Exact standard number depends on prompts, pages, and mention targets, agreed in writing before you pay.
What if we’re already named on most prompts?
Risk reducer: if the paid-sprint baseline already shows you’re named on most of the agreed target prompts, we stop and refund.
Will you guarantee that ChatGPT names us?
No — and be wary of anyone who does. We improve quotable facts, category language, and ethical mentions. Re-testing is built in so you can see movement yourself.
Who is the first ideal customer?
Indie and early B2B SaaS, especially API / uptime / synthetic monitoring tools that want clearer naming on buyer prompts — without buying another dashboard.
What’s the free mini-audit, really?
About 45 minutes of async work: I check a short set of buyer prompts and send you a plain written baseline — score-style labels (Citation-ready / Partial / barely there) and fixable priorities. Optional short call only if you want it. It’s also how we decide if the paid sprint is a fit. Free audits are limited so quality stays high.
How do you deliver the work?
As artifacts founders can ship: clean markdown comparisons and technical FAQs, or a PR against your docs/site repo when that fits — not slide decks. JSON-LD / schema notes only where relevant. No invented claims.
What counts as a “credible mention”?
Places models and developers already trust — curated GitHub awesome-lists, useful Stack Overflow context, high-rep Reddit threads, niche developer indexes. We draft pitches with exact snippets, target URLs, and a short how-to; you send — typically under 10 minutes per mention. Not spam links, bot comments, or purchased mention packages.
Do I need a developer on my team?
Helpful but not required. Deliverables are written for founders: markdown you can paste into Webflow/Framer/docs (or merge as a PR), plus clear notes for whoever touches robots.txt or JSON-LD.
How long does the sprint take?
About ~10 business days after kickoff to draft handoff, depending on how fast you answer a few questions. Shipping pages on your site is on your timeline.
Is this ongoing social, PPC, or a SaaS dashboard?
No. CiteSprint is a one-time productized sprint. No ongoing social management, no PPC, no black-box monitoring dashboard — just baseline, pages, and pitched mentions you send.
How do you measure “getting named” if AI answers change?
See the measurement section above: I run each buyer prompt many times (including control prompts I don’t try to improve) and score naming rate — so a null result is possible. Each report says which assistants were used. Practice demos lean on measured third-party ChatGPT/Gemini studies plus direct site checks — not invented multi-engine claims.
Is CiteSprint a company / funded GEO platform?
No. CiteSprint is the product name for this personal sprint by Praveen Doddamani. Currently taking a small number of clients.
How do I get started?
Use the contact form or email hello@citesprint.tech and request the free mini-audit.
Who’s behind CiteSprint
Praveen Doddamani
Personal service — not a funded GEO platform. I built CiteSprint for indie developer-tool founders who keep seeing competitors named in AI answers and need a focused sprint: baseline the prompts, ship quotable pages, and pursue a few ethical mentions without buying another dashboard.
Engineer-facing delivery: markdown and PRs you can merge, measurement notes that name which assistants each report actually used, and mention packets (URL + exact snippet + how-to) you can send in under 10 minutes — not agency slideware.
Request a free mini-audit
Prefer email? Write hello@citesprint.tech anytime. Or use the form — it goes to the same inbox.
Micro-intake · 3 fields
Form fallback: open mailto template · plain text hello@citesprint.tech
What to expect
About 45 minutes of async work on my side from those three fields. You get a plain written baseline — who tends to get named, three priorities, and whether a CiteSprint is even a fit. Paid sprint handoff is typically ~10 business days after kickoff.
$497 founding (first 5, case-study rights) → $747 (next 10) → from $997. Risk reducer on paid sprints: already named on most agreed prompts → stop and refund.
See a full practice write-up: sample Checkly audit.
Get named where buyers already ask.
Start with a free mini-audit. If a sprint makes sense, we’ll say so — and if it doesn’t, we’ll say that too.
~45 min async · hello@citesprint.tech · by Praveen Doddamani