← Back to search
50
Partial
Agentic Readiness Score
+25 llms.txt +15 structured API missing +20 ai-plugin
Raise this score to 95+
We ship the 6-file GEO uplift as a pull request against your repo. Flat fee, turnaround under 72 hours.
Fix this for $199 →
developer apiai-friendlymlllms-txt

Agentic Signals

📄
Found
🤖
ai-plugin.json
Not found
📖
OpenAPI Spec
Not found
🔗
Structured API
Found
🏷
Schema.org Markup
Found
MCP Server
Not found

Embed this badge

Show off your agentic readiness — the badge auto-updates when your score changes.

Agentic Ready 50/100

            

llms.txt Content

# Hydrata > Hydraulic-model verification, delivered two ways: verify your own model on the > platform (self-serve), or have Hydrata verify it for you (done-for-you advisory). > Designed by engineers, for engineers. Open source. Auditable. Hydrata is a hydraulic-model verification platform for consulting engineers, local authorities, dam owners, and researchers. Verification is delivered in two modes: **Mode A: Verify it yourself (self-serve platform)** Upload a finished HEC-RAS .zip or ANUGA project. The platform runs automated verification checks (mass balance, mesh quality, parameter sensitivity, jurisdiction-checklist comparison) and returns results through a live web portal with full audit trail. You can also run ANUGA 2D flood simulations in the cloud. API and MCP access available for power users. **Mode B: Have Hydrata verify it (done-for-you advisory)** Send us your model. A Hydrata analyst runs the verification engagement and delivers a signed verification (chartered-engineer sign-off, CPEng Engineers Australia) in a live review portal for geospatial reviewer comments. Independent third-party review. Five working days, end to end. In both modes, Hydrata is not the engineer-of-record. The client's engineer remains responsible for the design. Hydrata identifies issues and documents the verification process. The platform organises its work around four claims, in order: - Validate: does the model match observed reality? (calibration, sensitivity, benchmark comparisons) - Verify: is the model internally consistent? (mass balance, mesh quality, boundary conditions, parameter audit) - Comply: does the submission meet regulator requirements? (jurisdiction-specific templates, signed deliverables, audit trail) - Communicate: can a non-modeller understand the result? (interactive maps, scenario comparison, public stakeholder views) Target users: consulting engineers responsible for flood, stormwater, or coastal model submissions; municipal stormwater teams; own