` - [ ] 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](https://seojuice.com/tools/seo-audit/) and > [Domain Authority Checker](https://seojuice.com/tools/domain-authority/) 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.

--- 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 `` - [ ] 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](https://seojuice.com/tools/seo-audit/) and > [Domain Authority Checker](https://seojuice.com/tools/domain-authority/) 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.