Seo audit

SEO + AEO Audit

Produce an audit a developer can act on the same day: concrete findings, each with evidence (the actual tag, the actual HTTP response) and a fix, ranked by impact. Do not hand back a generic "add alt text and use keywords" listicle — those are worthless. The value is in checking this site and reporting what is actually broken.

SEO (ranking in search results) and AEO (getting quoted by AI answer engines) share the same foundation: a crawler must be able to fetch your URL and read real content and metadata in the raw HTML response, without running your JavaScript. Most of the highest-impact findings come from that one fact, so establish it first.

Step 0 — Establish what you're auditing

Before checking anything, figure out three things. Guessing here wastes the whole audit.

1. Is there a live URL? If yes, you audit what crawlers actually receive (best signal). If not, audit the build output / source and say so — some checks (real HTTP status, redirects) can't be verified without a deployment.
2. What renders the HTML? Static file, server-rendered (SSR), statically generated (SSG), or client-rendered (CSR/SPA)? Look at the framework: a plain Vite/CRA React or Vue SPA is CSR by default; Next/Nuxt/Astro/SvelteKit are usually SSR/SSG; a .html file is static. This single fact drives the most important check below.
3. What are the routes/pages? Home, product/landing pages, blog posts, legal pages. You'll sample across types — a per-page problem (e.g. every route serving the same title) only shows up when you compare pages.

Step 1 — The rendering test (do this first, it finds the biggest problems)

A crawler for Google can execute JS, but it does so on a delay and imperfectly. Bing, DuckDuckGo, and nearly every AI crawler (GPTBot, PerplexityBot, ClaudeBot, Bytespider) and every social/link-preview scraper (Slack, Discord, iMessage, X/Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, WhatsApp) do not run JS at all. They read only the raw HTML. So the question that decides half your findings is: what is in the raw HTML before JavaScript runs?

Test it. Fetch the raw HTML of several different routes — a JS-free fetch (curl -sL <url>, or WebFetch, which does not execute page JS) — and inspect, per route:

• Is the <title> specific to that page, or does every route return the same (usually the homepage's) title?
• Are <meta name="description">, Open Graph (og:title/og:description/og:image), and <link rel="canonical"> present and correct for that route?
• Is the main body content (article text, product copy, headings) present in the HTML, or is the body essentially <div id="root"></div> with nothing inside?
• Is the JSON-LD (<script type="application/ld+json">) present in the raw HTML?

Interpreting the result:

• CSR trap (very common, very damaging). If every route returns the same title/meta and an empty body shell, the site is client-rendered and its per-page SEO exists only after JS runs. Consequences to report explicitly, because the user usually doesn't realize the scope:
  • Every shared link (blog post, product page) shows the generic homepage preview — killing social CTR.
  • Bing / AI engines index an empty shell for every URL → the content is invisible to them.
  • The canonical trap: if the static index.html hardcodes rel="canonical" to the homepage, every route ships that canonical in raw HTML. Crawlers can collapse all pages into the homepage and drop them from the index. This is severe — flag it as P0.
  • Fix: prerender or server-render the routes. Name concrete options for their stack (e.g. for a Vite SPA: a prerender plugin / react-snap / migrate to SSG; for Next.js: ensure pages aren't forced client-only). Prerendering the static, public routes usually solves it with the least change.
• SSR/SSG/static. If each route already ships correct, unique metadata and real content, note it as a strength and move on to the finer checks — the foundation is sound.

If there is no live URL, reason from the source: an index.html with a single root div and a client router is CSR; check whether the build step prerenders.

Step 2 — Run the category checks

Work through references/checklist.md (indexability, metadata, structured data, social, sitemap/robots, content/semantics, performance signals, AEO). Read it now — it is the substance of the audit. For each category, report what you actually observed on this site with the evidence, not a definition of the category.

Structured data (JSON-LD) has its own reference because it's where rich results and AI citations are won or lost: read references/structured-data.md when checking schema, and validate any JSON-LD you find (correct @type, required properties present, values matching visible content, no fabricated aggregateRating/review data — fake ratings get manual actions).

Prefer real tools over eyeballing where available: fetch robots.txt and sitemap.xml and confirm they parse and the URLs 200; check that sitemap.xml matches the actual routes (stale or missing entries are common); verify redirects and status codes with the live URL.

Step 3 — Report

Lead with what matters. Use this structure:

# SEO + AEO Audit — <site>

**Verdict:** <2-3 sentences: overall health + the single most important thing to fix>

## 🔴 P0 — Critical (silently breaking indexing/sharing)
- **<finding>** — <evidence: the actual tag/response>. Impact: <what it costs>. Fix: <concrete step>.

## 🟡 P1 — Should fix
...

## 🟢 P2 — Nice to have
...

## Strengths (already done well)
- <don't just list problems — note what's correct so the user doesn't "fix" working things>

Rules that keep the report useful:

• Rank by impact, not by category. A wrong canonical outranks a missing twitter:site. The user acts top-down, so order must reflect real cost.
• Every finding carries evidence. Quote the actual title that repeated, the canonical URL that was wrong, the HTTP status. "Meta descriptions could be improved" is noise; "all 12 blog posts return <title>Homepage Title</title> in raw HTML — verified via curl" is a finding.
• Every finding carries a fix specific to their stack, not a textbook definition.
• Note strengths. It calibrates trust and stops the user from breaking things that work.
• Don't invent problems. If the foundation is solid, say so. A short honest audit beats a padded one.

What NOT to do

• Don't keyword-stuff recommendations or suggest doorway/cloaking tactics — modern search penalizes them and AEO ignores them.
• Don't recommend fake reviews, fake ratings, or fabricated structured data.
• Don't produce a generic checklist with no reference to what this site actually does.
• Don't over-index on tiny wins (a missing theme-color) while a CSR/canonical problem is silently deindexing the whole site.