# SEO Audit Report — [CLIENT NAME]

Prepared by **[YOUR AGENCY]** · [DATE] · Domain audited: `[example.com]`

---

## 1. Executive summary

**Overall score: [ /100 ]**

[Two or three sentences in plain language. What state is the site in, and what
is the single biggest opportunity? No jargon. Assume this is the only section
the budget holder reads.]

**Top three priorities**

1. **[Issue]** — [commercial consequence in one line] — *[effort: S/M/L]*
2. **[Issue]** — [commercial consequence in one line] — *[effort: S/M/L]*
3. **[Issue]** — [commercial consequence in one line] — *[effort: S/M/L]*

**Estimated revenue impact of fixing the above:** [£X–£Y / month]
Assumptions: [sessions/month], [conversion rate], [average order value].

---

## 2. Performance — score [ /100 ]

| Metric | Current | Target | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Largest Contentful Paint | [ ]s | < 2.5s | [pass/warn/fail] |
| Interaction to Next Paint | [ ]ms | < 200ms | [pass/warn/fail] |
| Cumulative Layout Shift | [ ] | < 0.1 | [pass/warn/fail] |
| Total page weight | [ ]MB | < 1.5MB | [pass/warn/fail] |

**Findings**

- **[Finding title]** — *Where:* [URL/element]. *Why it matters:* [commercial
  impact]. *Fix:* [platform-specific instruction].

**Already healthy:** [list passed checks — this is what makes the failures credible]

---

## 3. Technical health — score [ /100 ]

Checks: indexability, canonical tags, redirect chains, sitemap, robots.txt,
SSL validity, broken internal links, duplicate content, HTTP status codes.

| Check | Result | Severity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Indexable by search engines | [ ] | [critical/warning/passed] |
| Canonical tags self-referencing | [ ] | [ ] |
| XML sitemap present and valid | [ ] | [ ] |
| robots.txt not blocking key paths | [ ] | [ ] |
| SSL certificate valid | [ ] | [ ] |
| Broken internal links | [ ] found | [ ] |

**Findings**

- **[Finding title]** — *Where:* [ ]. *Why it matters:* [ ]. *Fix:* [ ].

---

## 4. On-page structure — score [ /100 ]

| Check | Result | Severity |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Unique title tags (< 60 chars) | [ ] | [ ] |
| Meta descriptions present (< 158 chars) | [ ] | [ ] |
| Single H1 per page | [ ] | [ ] |
| Heading hierarchy unbroken | [ ] | [ ] |
| Images with alt text | [ ]% | [ ] |
| Structured data present | [ ] | [ ] |

Rank findings by the traffic of the affected page, not alphabetically.

**Findings**

- **[Finding title]** — *Where:* [ ]. *Why it matters:* [ ]. *Fix:* [ ].

---

## 5. Mobile experience — score [ /100 ]

- Viewport configured correctly: [ ]
- Tap targets ≥ 48px: [ ]
- Text legible without zoom: [ ]
- No horizontal overflow: [ ]
- Layout shift on mobile: [ ]

**Findings**

- **[Finding title]** — *Where:* [ ]. *Why it matters:* [ ]. *Fix:* [ ].

---

## 6. AI search readiness — score [ /100 ]

Can AI assistants retrieve, understand and cite this site?

- `llms.txt` present: [ ]
- AI crawlers permitted in robots.txt: [ ]
- Key answers in server-rendered text (not JS-only): [ ]
- Organization / Product / FAQ schema present: [ ]
- Entity consistency (name, address, description) across the site: [ ]

**Findings**

- **[Finding title]** — *Where:* [ ]. *Why it matters:* [ ]. *Fix:* [ ].

---

## 7. Prioritised action plan

| # | Action | Severity | Owner | Effort | Expected outcome |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | [ ] | Critical | [dev/content/agency] | [S/M/L] | [ ] |
| 2 | [ ] | Critical | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 3 | [ ] | Warning | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 4 | [ ] | Warning | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |
| 5 | [ ] | Minor | [ ] | [ ] | [ ] |

---

## 8. Methodology and scope

- Pages audited: [ ]
- Date of crawl: [ ]
- Tools used: [ ]
- Out of scope: [e.g. backlink profile, paid search, content strategy]
- Next review date: [ ]

---

*Template: adapt freely, no attribution required. Every finding should state
what was found, where, why it matters commercially, and the specific fix for
the client's platform. Never include a finding you have not verified.*