Questions and answers

Yes. The prompt and the skill file are both free and MIT licensed. There's no account to create here, no email to hand over, no usage cap and no paid tier waiting behind the first audit. You need a Claude account, which has its own free tier.

No. It runs on the free tier. A longer audit uses a fair number of messages though, so on a free account you may hit a limit partway through — just say "continue" when you can. Paid plans make longer audits smoother rather than unlocking anything extra.

Neither. This is deliberately the simple kind of tool. If you can open Claude and type, you can run it. There's nothing to configure, no Python to install and no terminal involved.

Usually three to eight minutes, depending on how many pages your site has and how fast they respond. Most of that is fetching pages one at a time. You'll see progress as it goes.

Six to ten, picked by signal rather than crawling everything. It reads your navigation, robots.txt and sitemap first to work out what exists, then prioritises your About page, service pages, real blog posts, contact and FAQ. For most small business sites that's nearly everything that matters. You can point it at extra pages afterwards.

Yes, it works on any publicly reachable site. Running it on two or three competitors and comparing the reports is a genuinely useful exercise, particularly for spotting content gaps.

Yes. Run it again and ask it to compare against the previous report if you're in the same conversation. Across conversations, paste the old report in first so it has something to compare against.

Yes. The technical checks are language-independent, and the content assessment works in any language Claude handles well. Ask for the report in whatever language suits you.

For anything visible in your page source — titles, headings, markup, links, alt text — it's reading the actual code, so it's as accurate as the fetch. For content judgement it's an informed opinion rather than a measurement, which is true of any audit including a human one.

The scores are a triage heuristic for deciding what to fix first. They are not a Google metric and nobody should present them to a client as one.

The instructions specifically forbid it from reporting anything it hasn't observed, from estimating numbers it can't measure, and from flagging something as missing before checking whether it exists elsewhere on the site. It's also told to say plainly when a page renders with JavaScript and it can't see the content.

That said, verify anything surprising. If it says your homepage has no H1, view the source and confirm before rebuilding a template.

Because neither produces rich results in Google any more. HowTo went in September 2023 and FAQ rich results were restricted and then discontinued. Guides and tools still recommending them are working from old information. Our facts page keeps a dated list of what's retired.

Same reason. It would be inconsistent to tell you it does nothing and then add it here to look thorough. The page source has a comment explaining the omission if you want to check.

The audit runs inside your own Claude conversation. Nothing is sent to us, because there's no server on our side — this site is a static page that hands you a text file. Your data is governed by Anthropic's terms for your Claude account, the same as any other conversation.

No analytics, no cookies, no fingerprinting on this site. You can verify that by opening your browser's network tab.

Yes. MIT licensed, so you can use it commercially, modify it, and build it into your own process. If you're charging for the report, do the obvious thing and verify the findings before sending it.

Different jobs. Those tools own large proprietary datasets — backlinks, keyword volume, rank tracking — and Screaming Frog crawls far deeper and faster than this ever will. None of that is something a page fetch can replicate.

What this does instead is read your actual pages with judgement, explain the problems without jargon, and write the corrected code. If you already pay for a crawler, this complements it. If you don't, this covers more ground than you'd expect for nothing.

Two ways. Most stop at the report; this writes the fix and tells you where it goes on your platform. And most of the powerful ones require Claude Code with Python and a terminal, which rules out most of the people who need an audit. This runs wherever you already use Claude.

For a small site with obvious problems, run this first and fix what it finds — you'll get most of the available value for nothing. Bring in a person when you need competitive strategy, link building, content at volume, or a technical migration. Those are judgement and labour, not checks.