Websites that rank on Google and get cited by AI.

Three things: search dominance (SEO + GEO + AEO so you appear in Google and in AI assistants), high-performance web development (Astro, React 19, WordPress, headless WordPress), and workflow automation (n8n, Zapier, Make, trigger.dev, AI agents). Most engagements pull from more than one of these because they compound.

SEO targets Google's blue links. GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) targets citations in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, and Google AI Overviews. The signals overlap but the formats differ: GEO rewards 134 to 167 word citable passages, llms.txt, and schema-anchored entity identity. We do both as one practice.

Anywhere. We are remote-first by default, async-friendly, and bilingual in English and Spanish. We have worked across the Americas, Europe, and Australia time zones. If you can hold a Calendly slot in your timezone, we can hold the engagement.

A 30-minute discovery call, free. We learn the business, the goal, and the constraints. If it is a fit, we send a written proposal with scope, timeline, deliverables, and price within a week. If we are not the right fit, we say so and try to point you at someone who is.

It depends on scope. Small marketing sites start in the low four figures (USD); search dominance retainers and full-stack web rebuilds run higher. We write a clear proposal before we ask for a number, and we do not propose engagements we do not believe will pay back within a reasonable horizon.

We work alongside in-house teams often. We can take a single workstream (just GEO, just an automation buildout), train your team to maintain it, and exit. We can also embed for a fixed period as an extension of your team. Both are available, so say which fits.

New as a brand, not as practitioners. We compensate the missing testimonials with three things you can verify today: a public blog documenting every technique we apply, this site itself as our first dogfooded case study, and a comparable written proposal before you commit to anything.

Three co-founders with senior years in search, frontend, and full-stack delivery. The site you're reading is built with the exact stack we sell clients (Astro 6, llms.txt, full schema, EN/ES hreflang). Every proposal we send fixes scope, deliverables, timeline, and price in writing before you sign. That gives you a concrete basis to compare us against any other agency, and to hold us accountable to what we committed.

Because the underlying mechanics are public. Google has documented Core Web Vitals as a ranking signal since 2021. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Perplexity publish how their crawlers fetch and weight content. The llms.txt proposal (Answer.AI) is an open spec at llmstxt.org. We are not selling theory. We apply public, verifiable methods, sourced on our blog.

We commit realistic baselines per project in writing before you sign, then ship monthly reports on rank, AI citations, Core Web Vitals, and Search Console data. If the trend diverges from the baseline, we course-correct with data, not with another vague quarter.

Baselines come out of the initial audit: current rankings, current AI citation rate, current Core Web Vitals, current weekly hours absorbed by manual work. Each metric is anchored to the engagement type: technical SEO ranks move in 4 to 8 weeks; first AI citations typically land in 6 to 10 weeks; automation hours-saved usually shows up by week one or two. If a metric drifts for two consecutive months, we open a review and adjust the plan with data, before the quarter ends, not after.