# website-audit > Auto-audit any website end-to-end — technical health, SEO basics, broken links, mobile rendering, design quality, copy clarity, and conversion readiness — producing a scored, evidence-backed report. Two modes: PROSPECT mode (fast audit of a lead's site to generate evidence for outreach; emits a portable audit_packet JSON other tools can consume) and QA mode (deep pre-launch / post-launch gate on a site you built, with pass/fail checklist). Use whenever the user asks to "audit this site", "run a website audit", "what's broken on this site", "check this prospect's website", "QA this build", "is this site ready to launch", or provides a URL asking what works and what doesn't. - Skill: `theycallmeholla/website-audit` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add theycallmeholla/website-audit` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/theycallmeholla/website-audit/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Marketing & Growth - Author: Theycallmeholla (https://skillmd.com/u/theycallmeholla) - Updated: 2026-08-19 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/theycallmeholla/website-audit --- # Website Audit (Prospect + QA) You are running a structured website audit. The audit has two layers, always in this order: 1. **Deterministic layer** — run `scripts/audit.mjs` (Playwright crawler). Objective, scriptable facts: status codes, broken links, SEO tags, console errors, HTTPS, mobile viewport, screenshots. Never hand-guess anything the script can measure. 2. **AI judgment layer** — YOU read the script's JSON output and *look at every screenshot* with the Read tool. Judge what a script can't: design era/quality, copy clarity, duplicated content, CTA strength, trust signals, mobile layout breakage. Then score, and write the report for the selected mode. ## Step 0 — Pick the mode Ask (or infer from context) which mode applies: - **PROSPECT mode** — the site belongs to a lead. Goal: fast, evidence-backed ammunition for outreach. Depth: crawl up to ~10 pages, focus on the 5 most compelling problems. Output: `audit_packet` JSON + short human summary. - **QA mode** — the site is one we built/are delivering. Goal: nothing ships broken. Depth: crawl up to ~30 pages (or full sitemap if small), run the FULL checklist, every item gets pass/fail. Output: QA gate report. A single CRITICAL fail = do not ship. If the user gave a URL with no context, ask one question: is this a lead's site or one of yours? If you have a lead list or CRM available, checking whether the domain appears there answers it without asking. ## Step 1 — Run the deterministic layer ```bash cd /scripts npm install playwright@latest --no-save 2>/dev/null || npm install playwright --no-save node audit.mjs --max-pages=<10|30> --out=/home/claude/audit- ``` The script emits `audit.json` plus a `screenshots/` folder (homepage desktop + mobile full-page, plus desktop shots of every crawled page). If the script fails on a hard-blocked site (Cloudflare challenge etc.), note it, fall back to WebFetch for content checks, and mark technical items "not verifiable". Additional cheap checks to run yourself alongside the script: - `curl -sI http://` → does HTTP redirect to HTTPS? - Fetch `/` → does a real 404 page exist (script covers this; verify the screenshot looks intentional, not a default server page)? - Optional (QA mode): PageSpeed Insights API for Core Web Vitals: `https://www.googleapis.com/pagespeedonline/v5/runPagespeed?url=&strategy=mobile` (no key needed for light use). Record LCP, CLS, performance score. ## Step 2 — AI judgment layer Read `audit.json` fully. Then **Read every screenshot** — do not skip the mobile ones; mobile breakage is the most common finding and the script cannot see it, only you can. Judge each of these, citing the specific screenshot/page as evidence: - **Design era & polish**: does it look current or 2012? Cramped hero, tiny text, stock-photo soup, clashing colors, inconsistent spacing. - **Mobile rendering**: overflowing text, overlapping elements, unusable nav, tap targets too small, horizontal scroll. - **Copy & content**: unclear what the business does within 5 seconds; jargon; walls of text; duplicated info (same phone number 3×, bullet list restating the paragraph above it); placeholder/lorem text; outdated content (old year in footer, expired offers). - **Conversion path**: is there ONE obvious primary CTA above the fold? Is phone number click-to-call on mobile? Is the contact form short and working? Are trust signals present (reviews, credentials, photos of real people/work)? - **Consistency**: NAP (name/address/phone) consistent across pages — and matching whatever record you hold for the business, if you have one. Related installed skills compose here — invoke them when depth is wanted: `ui-oddity-scan` (per-page oddity pass), `ux-audit` (flow-level friction), `fresh-eyes` (first-time-visitor confusion). In PROSPECT mode skip these unless asked; in QA mode run `ui-oddity-scan` on the top 3 pages. ## Step 3 — Score Use `references/checklist.md` for the full item list. Severity weights: | Severity | Weight | Meaning | |---|---|---| | CRITICAL | 15 | Actively losing customers / broken function (site down, broken forms, no mobile usability, SSL errors) | | MAJOR | 8 | Meaningfully hurting results (no HTTPS redirect, broken links on key pages, missing titles/meta, dead CTA, unreadable mobile) | | MINOR | 3 | Polish / best practice (missing alt text, thin meta descriptions, no favicon, slow-ish pages) | Score = 100 − Σ(weights), floored at 0. Grade: A ≥ 90, B ≥ 80, C ≥ 65, D ≥ 50, F < 50. ## Step 4 — Output ### PROSPECT mode → `audit_packet` Write `audit_packet.json` next to the audit output. The shape is deliberately portable — a downstream outreach or content-analysis step can consume it directly, or it can enrich an existing prospect record: ```json { "packet_type": "audit_packet", "domain": "example.com", "audited_at": "", "mode": "prospect", "score": 47, "grade": "F", "pages_crawled": 9, "top_findings": [ { "severity": "CRITICAL", "category": "mobile", "finding": "Homepage nav unusable on mobile — links overlap the logo", "evidence": "screenshots/home-mobile.png", "sales_angle": "60%+ of local searches are mobile; their front door is broken for most visitors" } ], "all_findings": [ "...same shape, every finding..." ], "works_well": [ "things that are fine — keeps the audit honest and outreach credible" ], "screenshots_dir": "audit-example.com/screenshots" } ``` Then give the user a short human summary: grade, the top 3–5 findings each with its `sales_angle` line, and one sentence on what's genuinely fine (credibility). Do NOT write outreach copy — that's a downstream stage. ### QA mode → gate report Markdown report (send as a file): checklist table with pass/fail per item from `references/checklist.md`, findings grouped CRITICAL → MAJOR → MINOR each with evidence path, and a verdict line: **SHIP** (no CRITICAL, ≤2 MAJOR) / **FIX THEN SHIP** / **DO NOT SHIP** (any CRITICAL). Include the before-fix score so re-runs show progress. ## Step 5 — Verify before reporting Re-check your top 3 findings manually before presenting: re-fetch the page or re-read the screenshot. A false "broken" claim in outreach kills credibility; a false pass in QA ships a bug. Never report a finding you haven't personally confirmed against evidence. ## Recurring audits If the user wants ongoing monitoring, offer to set up a scheduled task that runs this skill weekly against a list of client sites and reports only regressions (score drops or new CRITICAL/MAJOR findings).