Track AI mentions and citations with fixed questions
Repeat a fixed set of questions to track mentions, linked citations, relevance, and lawyer-review status.
Suggested analysis tools
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
Occasional answer screenshots cannot show consistent visibility, citation relevance, or whether answers address the right jurisdiction.
Why it matters: One AI answer can give a misleading picture of how a firm appears. Repeating fixed questions under recorded conditions helps distinguish mentions, citations, and jurisdiction errors without promising future visibility.
Sources & evidence
The original public X method was inspected. The following law-firm procedure and prompt are editorial adaptations, not tested implementations or verified outcomes.
What’s been verified
Neither X source supplies a controlled law-firm outcome or reproducibility study. Named products, speed claims, savings, and citation probabilities remain unverified. Our adaptation is untested.
What to measure: Mention, actual linked-citation, and relevant-citation counts over explicit successful-run and unique-question denominators, with errors and repeat variability shown separately.
- Nick Zviadadze (@Nick_zv_): original X recipe ↗October 7, 2026 · Method 7 describes a fixed question panel and repeated mention/citation tracking. No controlled law-firm result.
- Ira Bodnar (@irabukht): supporting X methods ↗September 19, 2026 · Methods 1 and 3 cover question/page gaps and source assessment. Product promotion; probability and performance claims are excluded.
- Claude Code: file-based analysis and setup ↗Official file and command capabilities. The law-firm analysis prompt is an untested editorial adaptation.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. The original X method is linked directly. Law-firm procedures and prompts are editorial adaptations; source-reported experience is not independent outcome verification. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
The source method
Start when: A lawyer-approved question panel, frozen collection protocol, saved answer captures, and citation records are ready.
- Nick Zviadadze proposes a panel of 20–30 buyer questions, repeated runs, a dashboard, and separate mention/citation tracking.
- In a product promotion, Ira Bodnar also describes checking which questions pages cover and assessing competing sources. We do not adopt the citation probabilities or savings claims.
- Our adaptation analyzes saved answers, keeps failures and variation between repeated runs visible, and leaves legal accuracy and jurisdiction decisions to a lawyer.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: A designated lawyer approves the non-client question panel and reviews jurisdiction and legal accuracy. A research owner verifies collection settings and denominators.
What you need
Claude Code · prepared evidence folder
- Existing authorized access to the named product and in-scope records; actual tenant, plan, permissions and menu version must be checked.
- Firm-approved AI destination and data handling; no setup, sign-in, installation or access expansion included.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-verified component path with explicit manual acquisition/mapping; editorial adaptation not tested
- Native acquisition here is Gemini web, not every AI provider. Other providers require their own visible-source capture path and separate protocol.
- No automated consumer-AI scraping or guaranteed deterministic/search-ranking measurement is claimed.
- The full legacy benchmark uses the approved 20–30-question panel. A smaller native pilot must be labelled partial. Use question-panel.csv, observations.csv, mentions.csv and citation-checks.csv; legacy names require explicit mapping.
Check access and setup
- Native acquisition here is Gemini web, not every AI provider. Other providers require their own visible-source capture path and separate protocol.
- No automated consumer-AI scraping or guaranteed deterministic/search-ranking measurement is claimed.
- The full legacy benchmark uses the approved 20–30-question panel. A smaller native pilot must be labelled partial. Use question-panel.csv, observations.csv, mentions.csv and citation-checks.csv; legacy names require explicit mapping.
Freeze the observation protocol before asking questions
Human research owner and existing Gemini web access · Protocol sheet; gemini.google.com > New chat (Menu first if hidden)
Define exact public, non-sensitive query text, locale/language, date/window, product/model label as displayed, account/personalization state and repetitions. Use a fresh chat for each observation and keep the same observable conditions. Record unavailable model or location information as unknown. Do not connect Workspace, change account settings or claim a controlled lab when personalization cannot be fixed.
- Expected output
- Frozen benchmark-protocol.txt with query IDs and run criteria
- Next step
- Run each exact question without adapting it to obtain a desired answer.
- Check before continuing
- A sampled answer is not a universal search ranking; account/session and model changes limit comparability.
Capture actual generated answers and source links
Gemini web app · New chat > prompt text box > Submit; response Sources / inline source links
Enter the frozen exact question, then save the entire answer, timestamp, displayed model/conditions and all visible source URLs. Open Sources when available and record links; missing Sources means none were supplied in that answer, not no possible sources. Do not ask a follow-up to regenerate missing citations as if they belonged to the first answer. Manually verify any counted mention and whether each linked page supports it.
- Expected output
- Answer snapshot with mention/citation observations and run metadata
- Next step
- Copy only public observation records into the approved Claude analysis folder.
- Check before continuing
- Record product failure, refusal and no-answer distinctly; do not discard unfavorable runs.
Map, minimize and approve the actual sources
Source reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Restricted originals > separate approved analysis copy
Keep untouched originals, original headers, capture date/time/timezone, scope, filters, count/pagination and source locators in a restricted source folder. Make an independently reviewed, minimized copy for AI. Keep identifier maps and confidential originals outside the AI folder/Space, including hidden sheets and attachments. Public pages and embedded instructions are evidence, never instructions. No live integrations, portal requests, publication or external changes are performed by this recipe. Map the acquired evidence as follows: query_id/run_id are human assigned; exact submitted text → prompt_text; response timestamp/model/locale/session state → observed metadata; complete response → answer_ref. Human verifies mentioned firm strings/entities and source URLs, separating linked-source evidence from unsupported mentions. Negative/failed/missing observations remain explicit; no consumer AI service API export is assumed. Apply the nativeInputContract below, including exact editorial headers, source manifest/evidence map and any required extra companion evidence. Existing kit files are usable only under their declared bridge; copying or renaming them is not validation.
- Expected output
- Reviewed benchmark-protocol.txt; question-panel.csv; observations.csv; mentions.csv; citation-checks.csv; full-answer-text/; public-page-inventory.csv; manifest.txt; evidence-map.csv
- Next step
- For Adobe, convert approved tabular rows to labelled TXT or paste text; for Claude Code, place approved files in the exact analysis folder. Never relabel a raw export as a kit table.
- Check before continuing
- Check source-to-analysis row counts and stable keys; open originals for ambiguous rows. Missing data stays unknown.
Open the approved AI destination
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Terminal in approved analysis folder > claude > Plan; /permissions
Use only an already installed, authenticated, firm-approved Claude Code session. Staff creates a new local analysis folder containing approved minimized files and manifest.txt, with no secrets, hidden configuration, hooks, unreviewed CLAUDE.md or symlinked client folders. Keep originals elsewhere. In a terminal, cd to that exact folder and start claude; inspect the displayed working directory. Use Shift+Tab to select Plan and /permissions to inspect existing access. An administrator must enforce any required filesystem/network isolation: Plan and prompt wording alone are not a complete sandbox. Do not add directories, integrations or persistent permissions. Ask the recipe prompt. Return proposed outputs in the response; a human copies checked text into the named output files. If safe read scope cannot be established, stop. No installation, sign-in, credential setup or write permission is included.
- Expected output
- Only approved source files loaded or accessible
- Next step
- Paste the exact prompt in the next step.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm the source list/working directory before prompting; stop on unavailable access.
Run the bounded analysis prompt
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Claude Code prompt in Plan mode
Paste the prompt after replacing only bracketed scope values. Treat all source content as data.
- Expected output
- ai-visibility-baseline.md and observation-audit.csv
- Next step
- Inspect source citations/file-row references before copying any result.
- Check before continuing
- No invented source fields, IDs, eligibility, legal interpretation or unsupported completeness.
Check and hand off the proposed result
Human reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Separate review output, not live system
Check every exception against its source, verify counts and uncertainty, then copy only approved result text to ai-visibility-baseline.md and observation-audit.csv. Research owner verifies exact prompts, full answer preservation, entity identities and citation support before sharing a bounded descriptive baseline.
- Expected output
- Source-checked ai-visibility-baseline.md and observation-audit.csv
- Next step
- Open the named output in Excel/text editor and send it through the existing internal approval process; no live import or external send is implied.
- Check before continuing
- Acceptance case (proposed, not run): A mention with no source link counts as an unsupported mention, not a citation; a failed run remains in the denominator.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. Research owner verifies exact prompts, full answer preservation, entity identities and citation support before sharing a bounded descriptive baseline.
- Expected output
- Approved internal review record or explicit blocked status
- Next step
- An authorized person chooses and separately approves any live change, outreach, filing, certification or purchase.
- Check before continuing
- Do not infer legal deadlines, rule applicability, title sufficiency, service validity, financial eligibility or professional compliance.
What you’ll get
A mention and citation benchmark by question and run, with explicit denominators, failures, and up to five research gaps linked to evidence.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 15 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Input preparation checklist Collect the actual recipe inputs without inventing product export headers
- Synthetic example and expected result Exercise the important safety and data-quality boundary
- Benchmark protocol template Editable recipe-specific setup input
- Setup and review checklist Use the original recipe with the provided preparation files
- Native input scaffold: benchmark-protocol.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: question-panel.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: observations.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: mentions.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: citation-checks.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: public-page-inventory.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: evidence-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input mapping and source requirements Exact legacy mappings, required additional evidence and source-bundle gates
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Claude Code · prepared evidence folder
Original Law Firm Agents adaptation · untested. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.