Site Audit

Site Audit — two-layer website health check

You are running the site-audit skill. Your job: run a two-layer health check on a website codebase and help the user pick exactly ONE thing to fix this session. Same discipline as the audit skill — find one improvement, fix it, done.

Architecture (do not improvise — follow exactly)

Layer 1 (deterministic Python): python3 tools/site_audit.py --root <path> — walks the site repo, runs 12 mechanical checks on HTML/CSS/JS files, prints findings to stdout, generates .tmp/site_audit_map.json (metadata-only site map).

Layer 2 (Opus subagent in isolated context): Spawn an Explore-type subagent with model: "opus" so the analysis runs in a fresh context window — your main session never sees the site map or any file contents Layer 2 reads. Only the structured findings list crosses back into your conversation.

Combined: Both layers' findings get displayed as one numbered list, mechanical and conceptual interleaved by severity. The user picks ONE number; you then read ONLY the affected file(s) and propose a fix together.

Step-by-step instructions

Step 0 — Determine the site root

If $ARGUMENTS contains a path, use it. Otherwise:

1. Check if the current working directory contains .html files — if so, use CWD.
2. Else ask the user for the site root.
3. If neither works, ask the user for the path and STOP.

Step 1 — Run Layer 1

python3 tools/site_audit.py --root "<site_root>"

This prints structured findings to stdout AND writes .tmp/site_audit_map.json. Capture both.

If the tool errors out, surface the error to the user and STOP.

Step 2 — Spawn Layer 2 subagent

Use the Agent tool with these EXACT parameters:

subagent_type: "Explore"
model: "opus"
description: "Layer 2 conceptual site audit"
prompt: <see verbatim prompt below>

Verbatim Layer 2 prompt (substitute {{SITE_ROOT}} with the actual path):

You are running Layer 2 of the site_audit workflow for the website at {{SITE_ROOT}}. A deterministic Python audit (Layer 1) has already run and produced a site map at .tmp/site_audit_map.json (in the agentic-workflow repo root). Your job: find CONCEPTUAL issues that the mechanical checker cannot catch.

INPUT: read .tmp/site_audit_map.json first. It contains metadata for every HTML page, CSS file, and site structure. This is your PRIMARY source of truth.

PERMISSIONS:

• Use Read freely on .tmp/site_audit_map.json.
• You MAY read up to 5 specific files in the website repo to drill into something the site map hints at. NO MORE.
• DO NOT load entire directories. DO NOT grep across the whole repo.
• DO NOT echo file contents in your response — only paths, line numbers, and one-line descriptions.
• Do not write to any files.

CONCEPTUAL CATEGORIES TO LOOK FOR (return findings in any combination of these):

1. architecture_smell — the site has patterns that imply it needs a template system but doesn't have one (e.g., many pages with near-identical structure). Look at page count, shared CSS refs, and inline script duplication from the site map.
2. ux_inconsistency — different pages have different navigation, CTA patterns, or form layouts. Compare page metadata across the site map entries.
3. seo_strategy_gap — pages target similar keywords without differentiation, or there is no clear internal linking strategy. Check titles, descriptions, and internal_links arrays.
4. content_hierarchy — heading structure doesn't match page purpose (e.g., course page h1 is generic, not course-specific). Check heading_sequence in the site map.
5. conversion_path_break — the user journey from landing to form submission has friction (e.g., pages with no forms, CTAs linking to external pages, inconsistent form targets). Check form_snippets and internal_links.
6. design_system_gap — CSS variables defined but underutilized, or multiple conflicting style patterns. Check css_files variables_defined against page count and structure.
7. performance_architecture — site-level performance patterns (all pages loading the same heavy assets, no code splitting, redundant external dependencies).

OUTPUT FORMAT (strict, no exceptions):

Return a markdown list of findings. NO preamble, NO summary, NO commentary. Just the findings. Each one in this exact shape:

[CONCEPTUAL] <category_snake_case>
    <relative/path/to/affected/file>
    → <one-line description of the conceptual issue>
    Fix: <one-line suggestion>

Maximum 6 findings total. Order by severity (most concerning first). Quality over quantity.

If you find ZERO real conceptual issues, return exactly:

NO_CONCEPTUAL_FINDINGS

Begin now. Read the site map first.

Step 3 — Combine findings into one list

Take Layer 1 stdout (which already has its own numbered list [1], [2], ...) and append Layer 2's findings, continuing the numbering from where Layer 1 stopped.

Print to the user in this exact shape:

===============================================================
SITE AUDIT — <site root> — <timestamp>
Layer 1: <N> mechanical findings
Layer 2: <M> conceptual findings (subagent took <T>s)
===============================================================

<Layer 1 findings exactly as printed by tools/site_audit.py>

──────── CONCEPTUAL ────────
[N+1] [CONCEPTUAL] <category>
    <path>
    → <description>
    Fix: <fix>

[N+2] ...

===============================================================
Pick ONE finding to discuss in detail.
Reply with the number, "explain N" for more context,
or "skip" to bail out.
===============================================================

If Layer 2 returned NO_CONCEPTUAL_FINDINGS, say "Layer 2: 0 conceptual findings" and skip the CONCEPTUAL section.

Step 4 — Wait for the user to pick

Stop and wait. Do NOT proceed to fix anything until the user replies with a number, "explain N", or "skip".

On a number reply: read the affected file(s) — and ONLY those file(s). Discuss the issue, propose a specific fix, wait for go-ahead.

On "explain N": read just enough to give a 2-3 sentence elaboration. Do not propose a fix yet.

On "skip": acknowledge and stop.

Step 5 — Apply the fix (one finding only)

When the user approves a fix:

• Make the change with Edit or Write
• Re-run python3 tools/site_audit.py --root "<site_root>" --mechanical-only --checks <relevant_check> to confirm the finding is gone
• Show the before/after delta

Hard rule: only fix ONE finding per invocation.

Important constraints

1. Never echo file contents from the site map or from Layer 2 into the user-facing output. Findings only contain paths and one-line descriptions.
2. Never read more than necessary. If the user picks finding [3], read that file only.
3. The subagent's context is discarded. Only the structured findings list crosses back.
4. One fix per invocation. Re-run for more.
5. If Layer 2 fails or times out, fall back to Layer 1 only. Still useful.

See also

• tools/site_audit.py — the Layer 1 implementation
• workflows/site_audit.md — the SOP and review-loop documentation