audit

---

name: audit description: > Run a comprehensive SEO audit on a website covering technical health, on-page optimization, content quality, and backlink profile. Use when the user asks for an SEO audit, site review, SEO health check, "what's wrong with my SEO", website analysis, or a full diagnostic of their site's search performance. For speed-specific issues, see audit-speed. For technical crawl/index issues only, see diagnose-seo. metadata: version: 1.0.0

SEO Audit

Run a comprehensive SEO audit covering technical foundations, on-page optimization, content quality, link profile, and competitive positioning.

Before You Start

Gather this context (ask if not provided):

1. Domain. What site are we auditing?
2. Goals. What are you trying to achieve? (More traffic, better rankings, fix a drop, pre-launch check)
3. Known issues. Anything you already suspect is wrong?
4. Access. Do you have Google Search Console and Google Analytics data? (Improves the audit significantly)
5. Scope. Full audit or focused on a specific area? (If unsure, run the full audit)

Audit Framework

A complete SEO audit covers five layers. Work through them in order — problems in earlier layers undermine everything that follows.

Layer 1: Technical Foundation     ← Can Google crawl and index the site?
Layer 2: On-Page Optimization     ← Are pages optimized for target keywords?
Layer 3: Content Quality          ← Is the content worth ranking?
Layer 4: Link Profile             ← Does the site have authority?
Layer 5: Competitive Position     ← How does the site compare to competitors?

Layer 1: Technical Foundation

Check whether search engines can properly access, crawl, render, and index the site.

Crawlability

• robots.txt — fetch and review. No critical paths blocked? Sitemap directive present?
• XML sitemap — exists, valid XML, lists all important pages, excludes noindex/redirected pages?
• Site architecture — important pages reachable within 3 clicks from homepage?
• Orphan pages — any pages with zero internal links pointing to them?
• Redirect chains — any paths with 2+ redirects in sequence?
• HTTP status — all important pages return 200? No unexpected 301s, 404s, or soft 404s?

Indexability

• noindex tags — any important pages accidentally noindexed?
• Canonical tags — self-referencing on all pages? No conflicting canonicals?
• Duplicate content — same content accessible at multiple URLs (www/non-www, HTTP/HTTPS, trailing slash)?
• Search Console index coverage — how many pages submitted vs indexed? Any excluded pages that should be indexed?

Performance

• Core Web Vitals — LCP < 2.5s, CLS < 0.1, INP < 200ms?
• TTFB — < 800ms from major regions?
• Mobile-friendly — passes Google's mobile usability tests?
• HTTPS — enforced across the entire site? Valid certificate?

Rendering

• JavaScript-dependent content — is critical content in the initial HTML or loaded via JS?
• Content visibility — can search engines see the full page content?

Layer 2: On-Page Optimization

Check whether individual pages are properly optimized for their target keywords.

Title Tags

• Every page has a unique <title>
• Titles include the primary target keyword
• Titles are under 60 characters (avoid truncation)
• Titles are descriptive and click-worthy (not keyword-stuffed)

Meta Descriptions

• Every important page has a unique meta description
• Descriptions are 150-160 characters
• Descriptions include a value proposition and call to action

Heading Structure

• One H1 per page containing the primary keyword
• Logical heading hierarchy (H1 → H2 → H3, no level skipping)
• Headings describe section content accurately

URL Structure

• URLs are clean, readable, and descriptive
• URLs use hyphens (not underscores)
• No excessive URL parameters or session IDs in indexed URLs
• Consistent URL structure across the site

Internal Linking

• Important pages have sufficient incoming internal links (3+)
• Anchor text is descriptive and varied (not all "click here")
• Hub-and-spoke structure exists for topic clusters
• No broken internal links (404 targets)

Image Optimization

• All images have descriptive alt attributes
• Images use modern formats (WebP/AVIF) where supported
• Images are appropriately sized (not serving 4000px images in 400px containers)
• Decorative images use empty alt=""

Structured Data

• Relevant schema markup present (Article, Product, FAQ, LocalBusiness, BreadcrumbList, etc.)
• Schema validates without errors in Google's Rich Results Test
• Schema matches visible page content (no hidden/misleading markup)

On-Page Scoring Rubric

For a detailed page-level audit, score each page across 8 sections:

Section	Weight	What to Score
Title Tag	15%	Keyword presence, in first half, 50-60 chars, unique, compelling, intent match
Meta Description	5%	Keyword included, 150-160 chars, CTA present, unique
Header Structure	10%	Single H1 with keyword, logical hierarchy (no skipped levels), H2s cover subtopics
Content Quality	25%	Sufficient length, comprehensive, unique value, up-to-date, good formatting, E-E-A-T signals
Keyword Optimization	15%	Keyword in title/H1/first 100 words/URL, density 0.5-2.5%, semantic terms present
Internal/External Links	10%	Sufficient internal links, descriptive anchors, quality external links, no broken links
Image Optimization	10%	Alt text on all images, descriptive filenames, optimized sizes, modern formats
Page-Level Technical	10%	Clean URL, correct canonical, mobile-friendly, LCP ≤2.5s, HTTPS, schema present

Content Length Benchmarks (for full score on "sufficient length"):

Intent Type	Target Word Count
Informational	1,500+ words
Commercial investigation	1,200+ words
Transactional	500+ words
Local	400+ words

Internal Link Count Guidelines:

Page Length	Target Internal Links
<500 words	2-4 links
500-1,000 words	3-6 links
1,000-2,000 words	5-10 links
2,000+ words	8-15 links

Keyword density penalties: >3.0% = keyword stuffing (score 0); <0.5% = under-optimized.

Score grade scale:

Score	Grade	Assessment
90-100	A+	Exceptional — maintain
80-89	A	Strong — minor tweaks
70-79	B	Good — several areas need attention
60-69	C	Average — significant improvements needed
50-59	D	Below average — major issues
<50	F	Poor — comprehensive overhaul required

Layer 3: Content Quality

Evaluate whether the content deserves to rank.

E-E-A-T Assessment

• Experience — Does the content demonstrate first-hand experience with the topic?
• Expertise — Is the content written with subject-matter depth? Does it go beyond surface-level?
• Authoritativeness — Does the site have a reputation in this topic area? Are authors credible?
• Trustworthiness — Are claims sourced? Is the site transparent about who publishes it?

Content Coverage

• Does each page have a clear target keyword and intent?
• Is the content comprehensive enough to fully satisfy the search query?
• Are there thin pages (< 300 words) that should be expanded or consolidated?
• Is content up to date? Any pages with stale data, broken examples, or outdated advice?

Content Gaps

• What topics do competitors cover that this site doesn't?
• Are there keywords with search demand that no existing page targets?
• Are there topic clusters that are incomplete (pillar page but missing spokes, or vice versa)?

Cannibalization

• Are multiple pages targeting the same keyword?
• If so, are they competing against each other in rankings?
• Resolution: consolidate, differentiate, or canonical the weaker page to the stronger one.

Layer 4: Link Profile

Assess the site's backlink authority and quality.

Backlink Overview

• Total referring domains
• Dofollow vs nofollow ratio
• Link acquisition trend (growing, stable, or declining?)
• Average authority of linking domains

Link Quality

• Any high-spam-score referring domains that could trigger penalties?
• Are links contextual (in-content) or low-value (sidebar, footer, comment)?
• Anchor text distribution — natural diversity or suspicious over-optimization?

Link Gaps

• Which competitor pages earn the most backlinks? What content type?
• Are there broken backlinks worth recovering? (404 pages that once had links)
• Are there linkable assets on the site that aren't being promoted?

Layer 5: Competitive Position

Understand where the site stands relative to competitors.

Keyword Overlap

• Which keywords do you share with competitors?
• Where are you winning vs losing?
• What keywords do competitors rank for that you don't?

Content Comparison

• How does content depth and quality compare to top-ranking competitors?
• What formats are competitors using that you aren't (video, tools, templates)?
• What unique angles or data could differentiate your content?

Authority Comparison

• How does your domain authority/rating compare?
• Do competitors have significantly more referring domains?
• Are there authority-building opportunities you're not pursuing?

Scoring

After completing all layers, assign a health score:

Layer	Weight	Score (1-10)	Weighted
Technical Foundation	25%	[score]	[weighted]
On-Page Optimization	20%	[score]	[weighted]
Content Quality	25%	[score]	[weighted]
Link Profile	15%	[score]	[weighted]
Competitive Position	15%	[score]	[weighted]
Overall	100%		[total]

Scoring guide:

• 8-10: Strong — maintain and optimize
• 5-7: Needs work — clear improvement opportunities
• 1-4: Critical — fundamental issues blocking performance

Veto Conditions

These conditions cap the overall score regardless of how well other layers perform. A single veto prevents a site from appearing healthy when it has a fatal flaw:

Condition	Cap	Rationale
robots.txt blocks all of Googlebot or blocks /	Overall capped at 1/10	Nothing else matters if Google can't crawl
> 20% of important pages have noindex accidentally	Overall capped at 3/10	Most of the site is invisible to search
All three Core Web Vitals are "Poor"	Technical capped at 3/10	Google deprioritizes sites with terrible UX
Zero external backlinks (entire domain)	Link Profile capped at 2/10	No external authority signal exists
Site serves HTTP without redirect to HTTPS	Technical capped at 4/10	Google requires HTTPS for trust signals
Google manual action active	Overall capped at 2/10	Penalty overrides all optimization

Check veto conditions before scoring layers. If any veto fires, flag it prominently in the executive summary and cap the relevant score.

Output Format

SEO Audit: [domain]

Overall Health Score: [score]/10

Executive Summary 3-5 sentences covering: the site's biggest strength, the most critical issue, and the highest-impact opportunity.

Layer Scores

Layer	Score	Top Issue
Technical Foundation	[x]/10	[one-line summary]
On-Page Optimization	[x]/10	[one-line summary]
Content Quality	[x]/10	[one-line summary]
Link Profile	[x]/10	[one-line summary]
Competitive Position	[x]/10	[one-line summary]

Critical Issues (fix immediately)

Issue	Layer	Affected Pages	Impact	Fix
...	...	...	high	...

High-Priority Improvements (fix this month)

Improvement	Layer	Effort	Expected Impact
...	...	low/medium/high	...

Opportunities (plan for next quarter)

Opportunity	Layer	Description
...	...	...

Detailed Findings [Full findings organized by layer with specific evidence and recommendations]

90-Day Action Plan

Month 1: Fix the foundation

• [Critical technical fixes]
• [Quick on-page wins]

Month 2: Strengthen content

• [Content gaps to fill]
• [Pages to refresh]
• [Internal linking improvements]

Month 3: Build authority

• [Link building priorities]
• [Competitive positioning moves]

---

Pro Tip: Try the free SEO Audit and Domain Authority Checker at seojuice.com for a quick automated baseline. For ongoing monitoring, SEOJuice MCP users can run /seojuice:seo-overview for live health scores with trends, /seojuice:site-health for technical topology, and /seojuice:competitor-analysis for competitive gaps.