SEO Audit Report — example.com
- Strong technical foundation — HTTPS, sitemap, and schema in good shape
- Meta description is short and missing a clear call-to-action
- Trust signals are solid; individual author bylines would strengthen EEAT
Score breakdown
| Category | Score | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Technical SEO | 92/100 | 35% |
| On-page SEO | 68/100 | 35% |
| Trust & EEAT | 85/100 | 30% |
| Overall | 78/100 | 100% |
Executive summary
The site has a strong technical base — clean HTTPS, a valid sitemap, and structured data on key templates. On-page SEO is workable but the homepage meta description is below the ideal length and lacks a CTA. Trust is good (legal pages, contact, pricing transparency) with room to add author bios on content.
Top prioritised fixes
High Expand meta description to 150–160 characters with a CTA
Why it matters: Short descriptions waste SERP space and often lower click-through rate.
Fix: Rewrite the homepage meta to ~155 characters and add a line like “Start free — no card required.”
High Add Content-Security-Policy header
Why it matters: Other security headers are present; CSP is the main gap for modern hardening.
Fix: Deploy a restrictive CSP and test in staging before production.
Medium Add visible “last updated” on key landing pages
Why it matters: Freshness signals help users and search engines trust the content.
Fix: Show a human-readable date near the hero or footer on top templates.
Low Audit image alt text site-wide
Why it matters: Decorative images should use alt=""; informative images need descriptive alts.
Want this for your site?
Five specialists crawl up to 120 pages, optional Search Console data, PDF + share link.
Get 3 audits for $49 · Sign up — 1 free deep dive · Try the free one-URL check
Where this fits a weekly workflow
Sample SEO Audit Report · CloudyBot is most useful when the message is already decided and you need a consistent check, export, or comparison—not a blank-canvas redesign. Pair it with the social post generator for rasters, model pricing for API cost, or scheduled specialists when the same page changes every week.
A practical loop is: capture the source (changelog, pricing page, or competitor URL), write one proof line a human would defend, export, then queue the next run. If the same source moves every Monday, graduate from this page to a duty with a delivery destination. Caps live on pricing. Keep a short decision log: what changed, who reviewed the claim, and which channel got the tile. That log is what makes next week faster than this one.
What this page does not replace
It does not replace brand review, legal claims, or a human checking customer-visible numbers. It removes the repetitive step so you spend time on the caption, the proof line, and the follow-up. See blog categories for related guides, or product docs when you are wiring skills.
If you are comparing vendors, write the job in one sentence before you open another tab. A mention listener, a visual diff tool, and a scheduled browser specialist are not interchangeable. Pick the artifact you actually read on Monday morning, then automate that loop.