Advocacy Grade

bonefishgrill.com

Evidence collected August 31, 2026 · 10 polite, robots.txt-respecting requests · every claim cites what it saw

No letter grade — withheld, not failed

No letter grade is issued because 3 of 4 categories could not be observed. The categories that were measurable are scored below.

Not scored
Content Supply
not observable
Not scored
Shareability
not observable
Not scored
Employee & Culture
not observable
54/100
AI Discoverability
reduced confidence

Read this before the numbers

This tool was built in a few days, on a stack of stated assumptions. I didn't have the time — or the inside knowledge of what buyers in this category actually optimize for — to be certain these are the metrics that matter most. The four categories and their weights are editorial judgment, not measurement: nobody has proven that these things cause employees to post, and I don't claim otherwise.

Where the evidence comes from: three of the four categories read only what your company has published on its own public site — the part you can fix on Monday. Half of Employee & Culture comes from somewhere else: aggregate counts of how many of your people posted in the last 90 days, from a licensed third-party index of public professional-network activity. Nothing here was scraped from LinkedIn by this tool. Those counts are records in an index, not a census — they undercount, they undercount small companies most, and you can't check them yourself — so each one says so where it appears, a zero is reported as "none in the index" and never as "nobody posts," and a company with fewer than 25 people in the index gets the number reported but not scored. No individual is named anywhere in this report.

To prioritize speed, this particular report was loaded using cached data; it was generated from evidence originally collected on August 31, 2026 rather than live. Reports are cached for 30 days. Every observation below is dated and cited.

What you can hold me to: every number cites its evidence and says where it came from, nothing unseen is guessed at, robots.txt is respected on every fetch, and when this tool can't read a site it says so instead of issuing a grade.

What was found — most fixable first

Ranked by impact × ease of fixing, not by category. Counts describe the pages actually read, and each finding cites them.

Opportunity

No structured data on your homepage

The homepage carries no JSON-LD schema.org markup. Machine readers — search engines and AI assistants alike — get no structured statement of who you are (Organization, name, logo, sameAs profiles).

Evidence: homepage HTML.

The fix: Add an Organization JSON-LD block to the homepage: name, url, logo, and sameAs links to your official social profiles.

Opportunity

Your people are barely posting

In the licensed index, 17 of the 1,389 employees it has records for posted anything in the last 90 days (1.2%). That is a share of the index's coverage, not of your headcount. Across the 124 graded companies in this corpus with comparable counts the median is 6.1%. This is a third-party count and a lower bound — but the gap to the median is not a rounding error.

Evidence: licensed third-party index.

The fix: This is the gap an advocacy program closes directly. Start with the 9 decision-maker(s) who already post: give them something from your site worth sharing this week.

Opportunity

Your job listings are invisible without JavaScript

Your careers page (https://www.bonefishgrill.com/careers) returns HTML, but the job listings are injected client-side — a plain reader sees a page with no roles on it. Machine readers that do not execute JavaScript (many crawlers and AI assistants) cannot see that you are hiring.

Evidence — careers page probes
  • https://www.bonefishgrill.com/careers

The fix: Server-render at least the role titles and locations, or publish jobs in structured data (schema.org JobPosting).

What's already working

Working

All tracked AI user-agents may read your site

robots.txt permits all 25 tracked AI user-agents at the site root, so AI search engines and assistants that honor robots.txt can read and cite you.

Evidence: robots.txt.

Working

Your homepage share card is complete

The homepage carries og:title, og:description and og:image, so a shared homepage link renders a full preview card.

Evidence: homepage HTML.

What could not be seen

Anything the reader could not observe is listed here rather than guessed at or silently skipped.

Not visible

No sitemap returned any URLs

Sitemaps were checked at 1 location(s) (declared in robots.txt or at the conventional paths) and collected zero URLs. Your content inventory is invisible to this tool — and to anything else that discovers content this way. This means "not found where sitemaps usually live", not "no content".

Evidence: sitemap fetches.

The fix: Publish an XML sitemap of your canonical content and declare it with a Sitemap: line in robots.txt.

For the record

Note

No llms.txt

No llms.txt file is served. This costs nothing today — the evidence that llms.txt affects anything is weak — so I do not count it against you.

Evidence: llms.txt fetch.

How the numbers break down

Weights: Content Supply 30% · Shareability 25% · Employee & Culture 25% (half what the site says, half what employees do) · AI Discoverability 20%. The weights are editorial judgment about what an advocacy program draws on — not the result of a study. Every row cites the observation behind it and says whether it was read from your site or from the licensed index.

Content Supply — not scored

No sitemap URLs were retrieved, so content volume could not be measured.

Shareability — not scored

No content pages were sampled.

Employee & Culture — not scored

No sitemap URLs were retrieved.

AI Discoverability — 54/100 (reduced confidence)

SignalPointsWhat was observed
AI crawler access45/45All 25 tracked AI user-agents are permitted at the site root
Content-Signal coherence9/15No Content-Signal declared. Neither a grant nor a restriction — scored neutrally.
Structured data0/400 schema.org type(s) on the homepage; article schema not measured
llms.txt0/0Not present. This costs nothing — the evidence that llms.txt affects anything is weak.

robots.txt compliance is voluntary and advisory. This reports the declared policy; it is not a claim that any crawler was actually blocked.