Auditing technical seo

Auditing Technical SEO

Overview

Technical SEO is the foundation. Content strategy, keyword work, and link building all assume that Google, Bing, and AI-search crawlers can actually fetch, render, and trust your pages. If any of those fail, nothing else compounds. In 2026 that surface is wider than it used to be: Core Web Vitals are still the user-experience signal Google measures at the 75th percentile with thresholds LCP < 2.5s, INP < 200ms, CLS < 0.1 [1], and a new tier of AI crawlers — GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended, Applebot-Extended — now decides whether your content shows up in ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity answers [2][3].

What this skill checks

• Crawlability: robots.txt parses cleanly and stays under Google's 500 KiB parse cap (bytes past it are ignored) [6]; no accidental site-wide Disallow: /; sitemap referenced as an absolute URL, reachable, valid, and within the single-sitemap limits of 50,000 URLs / 50 MB uncompressed — split into a sitemap index above either [7]. Run node scripts/baseline-check.js <url> rather than eyeballing these.
• Indexability: GSC index coverage cross-referenced via gsc-mcp, canonical tags consistent and self-referential where appropriate, hreflang correct on i18n sites, no duplicate content via tracking parameters, no noindex on pages that should rank [5].
• Rendering: SSR/SSG vs CSR-only routes (CSR-only pages are largely invisible to GPTBot/ClaudeBot/PerplexityBot, which do not execute JS reliably), critical content not hidden behind hydration [2][3].
• Core Web Vitals: LCP, INP, CLS, TTFB measured at p75 via lighthouse-mcp (PageSpeed Insights / CrUX field data) [1].
• Schema: JSON-LD present in <head> or root layout, types valid against schema.org (Article, BlogPosting, Organization, FAQPage, BreadcrumbList, Product as appropriate), validates via validator.schema.org [4].
• AI-search readiness: robots.txt makes a deliberate choice on GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot, Google-Extended (allow or block — both are valid; absence is the bug) [2][3]. llms.txt presence noted but not required: adoption is ~10% of domains and effect on AI citations is unproven [8].
• Mobile: viewport meta present, mobile-friendly via PSI mobile run.
• Security: HTTPS only, HSTS header, no mixed content, valid certificate.
• Meta basics: unique <title> (50–60 chars) and meta description (150–160 chars) per page; Lighthouse SEO category flags these explicitly [5].

The audit flow

1. Gather. Read repo files: package.json (framework detection), app/robots.ts or public/robots.txt, app/sitemap.ts or public/sitemap.xml, app/layout.tsx (or Astro Layout.astro / SvelteKit +layout.svelte) for <head> schema, next.config.js / astro.config.mjs / svelte.config.js for redirect/rewrite rules. Then fetch the live site's /robots.txt, /sitemap.xml, /llms.txt. Call lighthouse-mcp for PSI on the homepage and 2–3 representative inner pages (mobile + desktop). Call gsc-mcp if connected for index coverage and submitted-sitemap status.

2. Cross-reference. Does the deployed sitemap match what GSC has on file? Are CSR-only routes leaking into the sitemap? Does robots.txt block any URL that's also in the sitemap (the classic conflict) [7]? Are GSC-reported "Discovered – currently not indexed" URLs concentrated in one route group?

3. Write SEO_AUDIT.md to repo root. Findings ranked by traffic-impact × fix-effort in a quadrant — high-impact / low-effort first.

4. Open ONE PR with the highest-confidence, low-risk fixes only: adding viewport meta, adding missing meta descriptions, adding Sitemap: line to robots.txt, adding explicit GPTBot/ClaudeBot allow-or-block stanza, adding root Organization JSON-LD. Leave architectural calls (CSR → SSR migration, image pipeline rework) for human decision in the audit doc.

No-MCP fallback

When lighthouse-mcp and gsc-mcp aren't configured (user hasn't run /seo-setup, or invoked via /seo audit <url>), run the no-OAuth quick path. This finishes in <60s and produces a partial audit that's still useful — Lighthouse/GSC sections are flagged as missing rather than fabricated.

What to do:

1. Run scripts/baseline-check.js (node scripts/baseline-check.js <url>) — this does the whole static pass deterministically (fetches /, /robots.txt, and the declared sitemap; parses head tags and JSON-LD; resolves robots.txt groups; scores Pass A out of 10; emits a route). Use --json to consume the result. Do not hand-tally these checks; the script exists because the tally gates the router.

   What it checks, for reference:

   • GET /robots.txt — 200, non-empty, Sitemap: line present, under the 500 KiB parse cap [6], explicit policy on ≥3 AI crawlers.
   • GET <declared sitemap> — 200, parses as sitemap XML, >0 URLs, within 50,000 URLs / 50 MB [7].
   • GET / — title, meta description, canonical, viewport, valid JSON-LD, single <h1>, no stray noindex.

   Then fetch 2 inner pages discovered from the sitemap (a content page + a category/listing page if present) and repeat the head-tag checks on them.

2. Judge head-tag quality. The script reports presence and length; you judge fit. <title> 50–60 chars, <meta name="description"> 150–160 chars, canonical self-referential or sensibly cross-referential, no noindex on a page that should rank. Presence is mechanical (scored); quality is the part that needs a reader.

3. AI-bot readiness — read the script's "AI citation readiness" block, which resolves robots.txt groups rather than grepping for names. Two distinct questions:

   • Citation (the one that pays): can the retrieval crawlers reach you — OAI-SearchBot, Claude-SearchBot, PerplexityBot? Per OpenAI's crawler docs, sites that block OAI-SearchBot "will not be shown in ChatGPT search answers." Naming GPTBot does not cover this: GPTBot is training-only and has no bearing on citation. Missing a retrieval bot from robots.txt is not automatically a failure — an unnamed bot inherits User-agent: *, so a permissive wildcard still lets it through — but that is luck, not policy, and it breaks the moment someone tightens the wildcard. Recommend naming them explicitly.
   • Policy hygiene (the Pass A point): an explicit stanza for ≥3 AI crawlers. Absence is the bug, not the directive — both Allow: and Disallow: are valid choices.

   If either is thin, reference templates/robots-ai-bots.txt as a paste-ready starting point.

4. Core Web Vitals — if PSI_API_KEY is set in env (or ~/.config/seo-superpower/.env), call scripts/psi-quick.py <url> (CrUX field data preferred, lab fallback flagged). If no key, skip CWV and note it in the output rather than guessing. Thresholds are p75: LCP < 2.5s, INP < 200ms, CLS < 0.1 [1].

5. Emit a partial SEO_AUDIT.md with this banner at the top:

   > **Partial audit — Lighthouse/GSC data missing.** Run `/seo-setup` to unlock CWV + GSC analysis. Static checks below were run without OAuth.
   

Everything else in SEO_AUDIT.md follows the normal output schema below. Findings that depended on Lighthouse or GSC become explicit gaps ("CWV not measured — gated on /seo-setup") rather than fake data.

Output path — SEO_AUDIT_OUTPUT env var

By default, SEO_AUDIT.md is written to the repo root (./SEO_AUDIT.md). When auditing a foreign repo (e.g., dogfooding against a user's site without committing the audit to their tree), set SEO_AUDIT_OUTPUT to redirect:

SEO_AUDIT_OUTPUT=~/audits/example-2026-05-12.md /seo audit https://example.com

Common patterns:

• ./SEO_AUDIT.md (default) — commit alongside the fix PR.
• ~/audits/<domain>-<date>.md — keep audits in a personal archive, don't pollute the target repo.
• /tmp/SEO_AUDIT.md — throwaway / demo runs.

Add SEO_AUDIT.md to the target repo's .gitignore if the audit is meant to be ephemeral.

Output format — SEO_AUDIT.md shape

# SEO Audit — example.com — 2026-04-26

## Quadrant
                 LOW EFFORT          HIGH EFFORT
HIGH IMPACT  | Add meta descriptions | Migrate /blog to SSR
LOW IMPACT   | Tidy llms.txt         | Refactor schema graph

## Findings

### [P0] Sitemap not referenced in robots.txt
Severity: high · Effort: 5 min · Confidence: 100%
Fix: Add `Sitemap: https://example.com/sitemap.xml` to `app/robots.ts`.

### [P0] LCP 4.1s on /pricing (p75 mobile)
Severity: high · Effort: medium · Confidence: 90%
Cause: hero image not preloaded, no priority hint.
Fix: <Image priority fetchPriority="high" /> on hero.

### [P1] No GPTBot/ClaudeBot stanza in robots.txt
Severity: medium · Effort: 2 min · Confidence: 100%
Decision required: allow or block? Both are valid choices.

Lifecycle awareness

Mirroring the lifecycle pattern in finding-underserved-keywords:

• Initial (pre-launch / first 3 months): focus on indexability, schema, sitemap correctness, canonical hygiene, robots.txt sanity. Core Web Vitals data isn't statistically meaningful yet — CrUX needs traffic.
• Growth (3–12 months): add CWV regressions and mobile-friendliness; cross-reference GSC index coverage to catch routes silently dropping out.
• Mature (12+ months): decay defense — schema drift (types deprecated upstream at schema.org), CWV regressions from third-party script creep, sitemap bloat from old URLs, AI-crawler policy review as new bots emerge.

Common mistakes

• Running the audit before the site is deployed — most checks need a live URL.
• Conflating crawlability with rankings — fixing robots.txt won't lift a thin-content page.
• Skipping mobile — Google indexes mobile-first; desktop-only Lighthouse misses real failures.
• Blocking AI-search bots without realizing — broad Disallow: / against User-agent: * blocks ClaudeBot too [3].
• Treating Lighthouse SEO score as the audit — it's 8 pass/fail checks, not a strategy [5].

Common false positives

• Lighthouse flagging "image elements do not have explicit width and height" on the LCP image when it's intentionally the hero — that's correct architecture, not a bug.
• Schema.org validator "warnings" that are recommendations, not errors — distinguish before opening a PR.
• PSI showing CWV "needs improvement" on a brand-new page — CrUX field data is sparse; lab data only at this stage.
• llms.txt missing — flag as suggestion only; no measurable AI-citation effect yet [8].

Citations and verification tags in SOURCES.md.