This is the same real audit as a spreadsheet rather than a document: four sheets you can sort, filter and paste into your own tracker. It downloads as a standard .xlsx, opens in Google Sheets as well as Excel, and there is also a plain CSV of the findings on their own.
People search for the spreadsheet version for a specific reason — a PDF cannot be turned into a work plan. A findings table with a severity column can be filtered to "critical", handed to a developer, and tracked to done.
Download the Excel report
The full audit of pearllemon.com — 72/100 across six pillars, 14 findings. No email, no signup; the file is built in your browser when you click.
Same report, other formats
The four sheets
Each sheet answers a different question, which is why they are separated rather than stacked into one long tab.
Summary: the headline score, the six pillar weights and the arithmetic between them.
Findings: one row per issue, with severity, pillar, the measured evidence and the recommended fix. This is the sheet you filter.
Pillars: each pillar's score and the checks that produced it.
Measurements: the raw numbers, so a second auditor can reproduce the result.
Turning the findings sheet into a work plan
The workflow most teams use: filter the findings sheet to critical, add two columns for owner and due date, and that becomes the scope of the first month of work. The evidence column doubles as the estimate — "33 render-blocking scripts" is both a problem statement and a measure of how long the fix takes.
Because the severity ranking is already done, nobody has to re-argue priority in a kickoff meeting. The argument, if there is one, happens over the pillar weights on the summary sheet, which is a far more productive conversation.
Why not a tidier template with blank cells
Blank SEO audit templates in Excel are easy to find and mostly useless, because the hard part is not the grid — it is knowing which columns matter. This workbook is filled in with a genuine audit, so you can see what belongs in each column before you clear the data and reuse it.
If you want the empty version, delete the rows on the findings sheet. The headers, severity vocabulary and pillar weights are the part worth keeping.
CSV, if you are importing it somewhere
The CSV contains the findings table alone, in the same column order, for importing into a project tracker, a Notion database or a client portal. It carries no formatting, which is the point.
Score breakdown
pearllemon.com scored 72/100 when we audited it on . The overall figure is a weighted average of six pillars, so you can always reconstruct it by hand. The benchmark column is the average across 126 sites we have audited.
3 critical issues, 7 warnings and 4 passed checks. Each one records what was measured, not just a verdict — that evidence line is what makes an audit defensible when a client pushes back.
Critical (3)
No agent interfaces published
AI & E-E-A-T readiness
What we measured:
Agent-interface score 5/100. No /.well-known/agents.json, no WebMCP script tags, no AGENTS.md.
Recommendation:
Publish agents.json declaring your key user flows, add AGENTS.md, and expose WebMCP tools so AI agents can act without scraping the DOM.
Authorship and dates are invisible to machines
AI & E-E-A-T readiness
What we measured:
Authoritativeness score 10/100. No schema.author, no machine-readable <time datetime=…>, 0 authoritative outbound citations.
Recommendation:
Add a visible author byline wired to schema.author, surface a publish/updated date in <time>, and cite two to three .gov/.edu/.org sources.
Security header coverage is incomplete
Security
What we measured:
Security pillar scored 48/100 against the header and transport checks.
Recommendation:
Add Content-Security-Policy, Strict-Transport-Security, X-Content-Type-Options, Referrer-Policy and Permissions-Policy at the edge.
Warning (7)
33 render-blocking scripts and 45 external stylesheets
Performance
What we measured:
111 external resources in total; HTML document weighs 688 KB before assets.
Recommendation:
Defer non-critical JavaScript, combine and inline critical CSS, and drop unused plugin stylesheets. This is the single biggest lever on LCP here.
No images are lazy-loaded
Performance
What we measured:
0% of 58 images use loading="lazy"; only 41% use a modern format.
Recommendation:
Add loading="lazy" below the fold and serve WebP/AVIF for the remaining 59% of images.
16 form inputs have no associated label
Accessibility
What we measured:
16 unlabelled inputs, 14 links with no discernible text, no <main> landmark.
Recommendation:
Associate every input with a <label>, give icon-only links accessible names, and wrap the primary content in <main>.
Only one question-style H2
Content
What we measured:
AI citation score 55/100; one question-format heading across 14 H2s. Answer-first opening paragraph was detected.
Recommendation:
Convert two to three H2s into the questions people actually search ("What is…", "How do I…") — this is what answer engines quote.
Primary call to action sits far below the fold
Content
What we measured:
First CTA appears 7,268 px down the page. Conversion-readiness grade 88/100 otherwise.
Recommendation:
Move a primary CTA into the first viewport.
Inconsistent NAP formatting
Technical SEO
What we measured:
Two different phone-number formats detected across the page and schema.
Recommendation:
Normalise every phone number to a single E.164 format in both copy and LocalBusiness schema.
No web app manifest
Technical SEO
What we measured:
PWA score 3. Favicon and apple-touch-icon present; manifest and theme-color absent.
Recommendation:
Add a manifest.json with icons and a theme colour.
Passed (4)
Crawlability is clean
Technical SEO
What we measured:
robots.txt present, XML sitemap available, canonical declared, all 18 priority AI bots allowed.
Recommendation:
No action needed. Re-check after any hosting or CDN change.
Structured data is well covered
Technical SEO
What we measured:
Structured-grounding score 90/100: Organization, LocalBusiness, Article-class and FAQPage schema all present.
Recommendation:
No action needed. Keep FAQPage in sync with the visible copy.
Trust and social proof are strong
Content
What we measured:
Testimonials, case studies, client logos, trust badges and a Trustpilot profile all detected.
Recommendation:
No action needed.
Image alt coverage is near complete
Accessibility
What we measured:
57 of 58 images carry alt text; a skip link and <nav> landmark are present.
Recommendation:
Fix the single remaining image and this check is clean.
Raw measurements
The underlying numbers the scores were derived from. A report that shows only scores is impossible to check; a report that shows measurements can be re-run by anyone.
Measurements recorded during the audit of pearllemon.com
Metric
Value
Words of body copy
2,780
Heading structure
1 × H1, 14 × H2, 13 × H3
Internal links
134
External links
15
Images
58 (1 missing alt text)
Modern image formats
41% of images
Lazy-loaded images
0% of images
Render-blocking scripts
33
External CSS files
45
Total external resources
111
HTML document size
688 KB
Readability (Flesch)
52 — grade 9.9, "difficult"
AI crawlers allowed
18 of 18 priority bots
How 72/100 compares
Every completed audit in the LemAudit database that carries a full pillar breakdown. Sites were submitted by agencies and prospects, so the sample skews towards small and mid-sized business websites rather than enterprise.
The average site in that sample scores 65/100. Two patterns hold almost universally: accessibility and technical fundamentals are in decent shape, while content depth and machine-readable authorship are not. Content is the weakest pillar overall at 31/100.
Most common worst-issue across 126 audited sites
Most common worst issue
Sites affected
No agent interfaces detected
104 of 126
Very thin content
17 of 126
No WebMCP tools exposed
12 of 126
Duplicate <title> tags
5 of 126
Missing H1 tag
2 of 126
robots.txt blocks all crawlers
2 of 126
Frequently asked questions
Does the Excel file open in Google Sheets?
Yes. It is a standard .xlsx with no macros and no external links, so Google Sheets imports all four sheets without conversion errors. Microsoft Office is not required anywhere in this workflow.
Can I use this as a blank SEO audit template in Excel?
Yes — clear the rows on the findings sheet and keep the headers, the severity values and the pillar weights. Those are the parts that took the work.
What is the difference between the Excel and CSV downloads?
Excel has all four sheets and keeps the formatting. CSV is the findings table only, unformatted, for importing into another system.
Are the numbers in the spreadsheet real?
Every row came from an audit our engine ran against a live site we own. Nothing in the workbook is illustrative.
Can I generate this spreadsheet for a client site?
Yes. Any audit exports to the same four-sheet workbook, and on paid plans the summary sheet carries your agency's name rather than ours.
