completed

HTTP 200

0 redirects

37 checks

ellasworlds.com Website Audit

Speed Insights

Grade N/A

Not captured

https://ellasworlds.com

LCP

N/A

Largest paint

TBT

N/A

Blocking time

CLS

N/A

Layout shift

Four-score result

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes): 24 passed, 13 failed, and 0 unknown. Strongest area: Design. Weakest area: SEO / AEO.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

out of 100

47/106 rule points

Security

out of 100

58/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

54/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

91/110 rule points

Why this scored this way

Scores are deterministic: each category earns rule points for verified public signals and loses points for failed checks. Unknown checks are shown separately instead of guessed.

Category point breakdown

SEO / AEO47/106

Security58/76

Accessibility54/94

Design91/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Security

Common security headers

Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 1 violation rule(s), including 0 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: region (24).

high

Accessibility

Form labels

Detected labels or accessible names for 12 of 14 form control(s).

high

SEO / AEO

sitemap.xml validity

HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.

Recommendations

Score-losing issues ordered by remediation priority, severity, and score impact.

5 fixes

5 opportunities

9 insights

fail

high

Security

Priority 5

Add common public security headers

-18 rule pts

What failed

Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.

Evidence

Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

Priority

Priority 5: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.

How to fix it

Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.

Agent Prompt

## Role
Act as a focused public web security remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com.
- Scanner check ID: security_common_headers.
- Fix title: Add common public security headers.
- Scanner check: Common security headers.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: hosting headers, server middleware, edge/proxy config, CDN rules, and framework security header configuration; server, edge, CDN, hosting, proxy, form action, asset URL, cookie, and public file access configuration; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Add missing common browser protection headers with values appropriate for the site.
- Treat an existing CSP frame-ancestors directive as valid frame protection; preserve the directive and its allowed origins exactly instead of adding or substituting X-Frame-Options.
- Test CSP or frame policies carefully so they do not break scripts, images, analytics, payments, embeds, or auth.
- Prefer narrow, production-safe security configuration changes over blanket disables or permissive rules.
- Preserve authentication, authorization, private paths, and sensitive file protections while fixing the public launch page.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- Important security headers are visible on the public response.
- Any existing CSP frame-ancestors directive and its allowed origins remain unchanged.
- The page still renders and key flows still work after header changes.
- The public URL keeps legitimate visitors and assets working while removing the reported browser-side or public exposure risk.
- The change does not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, or private route protections.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- If an existing Content-Security-Policy contains a frame-ancestors directive, preserve that directive exactly, including its allowed origins, unless the site owner explicitly asks to change it. Do not replace it with X-Frame-Options merely to satisfy this scan.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Accessibility

Priority 5

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

What failed

The rendered page has accessibility rule violations detected by axe-core.

Evidence

axe found 1 violation rule(s), including 0 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: region (24).

Priority

Priority 5: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

axe checks the actual browser-rendered page, so these issues can affect people using keyboards, screen readers, or other assistive technology.

How to fix it

Fix the top axe rule IDs first, especially critical and serious violations around names, roles, labels, headings, contrast, landmarks, and keyboard-accessible controls.

Agent Prompt

## Role
Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_axe_violations.
- Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: axe found 1 violation rule(s), including 0 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: region (24).
- What needs attention: The rendered page has accessibility rule violations detected by axe-core.
- Why it matters: axe checks the actual browser-rendered page, so these issues can affect people using keyboards, screen readers, or other assistive technology.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: axe violation details, affected selectors, rendered DOM, component source, and interaction state that triggered the issue; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Fix the top axe rule IDs first, especially critical and serious violations around names, roles, labels, headings, contrast, landmarks, and keyboard-accessible controls.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Fix each reported accessibility violation at the semantic source.
- Avoid suppressing automated checks unless there is a documented false positive.
- Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds.
- Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- Critical and serious axe issues tied to this page are resolved or clearly documented as non-reproducible.
- Fixes do not introduce new keyboard, label, contrast, or landmark regressions.
- The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions.
- The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Accessibility

Priority 7

Label public form fields

-14 rule pts

What failed

Some form controls do not have a detectable label or accessible name.

Evidence

Detected labels or accessible names for 12 of 14 form control(s).

Priority

Priority 7: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

Unlabeled inputs make email capture, demo requests, and signups harder for assistive technology users.

How to fix it

Connect each input to a visible label or an accurate aria-label/aria-labelledby value.

Agent Prompt

## Role
Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_form_labels.
- Fix title: Label public form fields.
- Scanner check: Form labels.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 7; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected labels or accessible names for 12 of 14 form control(s).
- What needs attention: Some form controls do not have a detectable label or accessible name.
- Why it matters: Unlabeled inputs make email capture, demo requests, and signups harder for assistive technology users.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: inputs, selects, textareas, custom form controls, search fields, newsletter embeds, and generated form components; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Connect each input to a visible label or an accurate aria-label/aria-labelledby value.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Connect each control to a visible label, aria-label, or aria-labelledby that accurately describes the input.
- Keep labels available to assistive technology and preserve validation/error messaging.
- Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds.
- Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- Every public form control has a detectable accessible name.
- Keyboard and screen reader users can understand and complete the form.
- The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions.
- The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

SEO / AEO

Priority 7

Publish a valid sitemap.xml

-12 rule pts

What failed

The sitemap file was not reachable or did not look like valid sitemap XML.

Evidence

HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.

Priority

Priority 7: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner.

How to fix it

Add a static sitemap file or dynamic /sitemap.xml route with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML, include your public canonical URLs, and confirm it returns HTTP 200.

Agent Prompt

## Role
Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml.
- Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.xml.
- Scanner check: sitemap.xml validity.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 7; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 12 rule points lost.
- Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.
- What needs attention: The sitemap file was not reachable or did not look like valid sitemap XML.
- Why it matters: A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: robots.txt Sitemap directives, static sitemap files, dynamic sitemap routes, sitemap indexes, canonical URL generation, and deployment output; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add a static sitemap file or dynamic /sitemap.xml route with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML, include your public canonical URLs, and confirm it returns HTTP 200.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Provide a reachable sitemap URL with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Preserve an existing robots.txt Sitemap directive such as /sitemap_index.xml when it is intentional and valid.
- Include canonical public URLs and avoid localhost, staging, private, noindex, or duplicate URLs.
- Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts.
- Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The sitemap URL declared in robots.txt, or /sitemap.xml when no directive exists, returns HTTP 200 with a valid urlset or sitemapindex root.
- The sitemap contains at least the scanned public page or its canonical equivalent.
- The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files.
- The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

SEO / AEO

Priority 8

Write a clear page title

-10 rule pts

What failed

The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline.

Evidence

Title is 4 characters.

Priority

Priority 8: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.

How to fix it

Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.

Agent Prompt

## Role
Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_title_present.
- Fix title: Write a clear page title.
- Scanner check: Page title.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Title is 4 characters.
- What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome.
- Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering.
- Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts.
- Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters.
- The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity.
- The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files.
- The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

Score aggregation details

Category scores come from earned rule points divided by available rule points. Failed checks are ordered by severity and score lost.

44/100

5 pass

7 fail

0 unknown

-10 rule pts

No canonical link tag was detected.

76/100

5 pass

1 fail

0 unknown

Security

Severity mix: 2 critical, 3 high, 0 medium, 0 low.

high

Common security headers

-18 rule pts

Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

57/100

5 pass

3 fail

0 unknown

Accessibility

Severity mix: 0 critical, 3 high, 5 medium, 0 low.

high

Rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

Failed: earned 0 of 9 points.

Priority: Priority 13: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Horizontal overflow and tiny tap targets make the page feel broken on real devices, especially for mobile visitors.

Fix: Remove elements wider than the viewport, add responsive constraints, and make important links, buttons, inputs, and controls at least 40px tall and wide where possible.

Agent Prompt

## Role
Act as a focused conversion-focused frontend quality remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_rendered_layout.
- Fix title: Fix rendered layout ergonomics.
- Scanner check: Rendered layout ergonomics.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 13; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 9 of 9 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 22.
- What needs attention: The browser-rendered page has layout or tap-target issues.
- Why it matters: Horizontal overflow and tiny tap targets make the page feel broken on real devices, especially for mobile visitors.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: mobile viewport, horizontal overflow sources, tap target sizes, fixed-position elements, menus, forms, and embeds; page layout, responsive CSS, component states, copy hierarchy, CTA placement, spacing tokens, rendered console output, and performance-sensitive assets; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Remove elements wider than the viewport, add responsive constraints, and make important links, buttons, inputs, and controls at least 40px tall and wide where possible.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Constrain overflowing elements and increase small important tap targets where possible.
- Preserve layout intent while making the rendered page usable on real devices.
- Improve the actual rendered page at mobile and desktop sizes, not only the source code shape.
- Preserve core conversion flows while making layout, hierarchy, readability, or runtime health better.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The rendered page has no meaningful horizontal overflow.
- Important links, buttons, inputs, and controls are comfortably tappable.
- The rendered page is visually stable and usable on mobile and desktop viewports.
- The fix does not hide content, break CTAs, introduce console errors, or reduce clarity for visitors.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

Public report link

Markdown export

Share the website audit report

Copy a public report link or a Markdown version with scores, fixes, opportunities, insights, and a normal link back to the scanned site.

Share preview

ellasworlds.com website audit report

Needs fixes before launch: 65/100 overall, with prioritized fixes for SEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Public report link

Markdown report

# ellasworlds.com Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://ellasworlds.com](https://ellasworlds.com)
Report URL: /scan/ellasworlds-com-65-launch-readiness-report-f9a1b923
Created: 2026-07-23T20:55:23.779Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 65/100
- SEO / AEO: 44/100
- Security: 76/100
- Accessibility: 57/100
- Design: 83/100

## Launch Readiness

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes).

Passed: 24. Failed: 13. Unknown: 0.
Strongest area: Design. Weakest area: SEO / AEO.

## Prioritized Fixes

### 1. Add common public security headers

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Fix: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.

### 2. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 1 violation rule(s), including 0 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: region (24).
- Why it matters: axe checks the actual browser-rendered page, so these issues can affect people using keyboards, screen readers, or other assistive technology.
- Fix: Fix the top axe rule IDs first, especially critical and serious violations around names, roles, labels, headings, contrast, landmarks, and keyboard-accessible controls.

### 3. Label public form fields

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 14
- Evidence: Detected labels or accessible names for 12 of 14 form control(s).
- Why it matters: Unlabeled inputs make email capture, demo requests, and signups harder for assistive technology users.
- Fix: Connect each input to a visible label or an accurate aria-label/aria-labelledby value.

### 4. Publish a valid sitemap.xml

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 12
- Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.
- Why it matters: A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner.
- Fix: Add a static sitemap file or dynamic /sitemap.xml route with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML, include your public canonical URLs, and confirm it returns HTTP 200.

### 5. Write a clear page title

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 10
- Evidence: Title is 4 characters.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Fix: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.

## Opportunities

### Add answer-ready sections for common buyer questions

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 9. Use-case signals: 0. Integration/API signals: 2.
- Why it matters: Answer engines and search visitors need concise textual answers to summarize who the product is for, how it works, what it costs, and what it connects with.
- Next step: Add short, crawlable sections for pricing or plans, ideal users, use cases, integrations, security, and how the product differs from alternatives.

### Add an optional LLM-readable site summary

- Impact: low
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for llms_txt.
- Why it matters: This is not required for Google AI features, but a concise public markdown summary can help AI agents and internal tools understand key pages.
- Next step: Publish a short llms.txt with product facts, audience, key public links, docs, pricing, support, and usage boundaries.

### Speed up the rendered first impression

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 580ms. First contentful paint: 448ms. Scripts: 14. Third-party origins: 10. Transfer: not available.
- Why it matters: Visitors judge quality before reading much copy; a slow first render makes the product feel heavier and less trustworthy.
- Next step: Compress hero media, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party scripts, and keep the first viewport visually complete without waiting on heavy client work.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 8 of 100 rendered contrast sample(s) missed target. Worst ratio: 1.
- Why it matters: Computed contrast catches the actual colors visitors see after CSS, themes, and overlays are applied.
- Next step: Audit foreground/background token pairs for body text, muted text, links, buttons, inputs, and badges, then raise weak pairs to WCAG AA contrast targets.

### Polish rendered responsive ergonomics

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 22.
- Why it matters: Overflow and tiny controls are easy for static scans to miss but obvious to real users, especially on mobile and tablet layouts.
- Next step: Constrain wide elements, avoid fixed-width content that exceeds the viewport, and increase touch target sizes for interactive controls.

## Insights

### Crawlability needs review

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: HTTP 200. robots.txt: not reachable. sitemap.xml: not reachable. noindex check: clear.
- Interpretation: One or more crawl/index signals could prevent the page from being reliably discovered or shown.
- Recommended use: Use this as the first launch gate before deeper content, ranking, or AI visibility work.

### AEO depends on normal SEO plus answerable text

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Visible words: 1434. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 4. CTA labels: Buy credits.
- Interpretation: Google AI features currently rely on standard Search eligibility; the extra advantage comes from content that is easy to quote, summarize, and verify.
- Recommended use: Prioritize clear text answers, crawlable support pages, accurate schema, and visible proof over speculative AI-only markup.

### Detected entity signals

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Title: Ella. H1: An AI friend who actually  remembers  you.. Schema types: none.
- Interpretation: The stronger and more consistent these entity signals are, the easier it is for search and answer systems to identify the brand, product category, and page purpose.
- Recommended use: Keep the title, H1, meta description, Open Graph, schema, footer, and about/pricing/docs pages aligned around the same product facts.

### No structured data detected

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: JSON-LD blocks: 0. Types: none. Parse errors: 0.
- Interpretation: Missing or invalid structured data makes the page rely more heavily on inferred meaning from text and layout.
- Recommended use: Validate JSON-LD and use only accurate facts that are visible or clearly supported on the public page.

### Weakest score area

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: SEO / AEO: 44/100. Security: 76/100. Accessibility: 57/100. Design: 83/100
- Interpretation: The weakest area is SEO / AEO, so improvements there should have the most visible effect on readiness.
- Recommended use: Use the score mix to choose the next workstream instead of treating every issue as equally urgent.

### LLM-readable file not found

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for llms_txt.
- Interpretation: llms.txt can be a useful optional summary for agents, but it should not be treated as a guaranteed AI search ranking factor.
- Recommended use: Invest first in crawlability, helpful visible content, internal links, and accurate schema; add llms.txt as a tidy supplement.

### Rendered page experience snapshot

- Category: Design
- Evidence: Rendered text samples: 100. Contrast failures: 8. Console errors: 0. Horizontal overflow: 0px.
- Interpretation: The scan inspected the browser-rendered page, so contrast, runtime, layout, and timing signals are more representative than static markup alone.
- Recommended use: Use rendered checks to prioritize issues that visitors actually experience after JavaScript and CSS load.

### Rendered speed snapshot

- Category: Design
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 580ms. Load complete: 746ms. First contentful paint: 448ms. Resources: 28. Scripts: 14. Images: 6. Third-party origins: 10. Transfer: not available.
- Interpretation: These are lightweight browser timings from one rendered scan, so they are useful directional signals rather than real-user performance proof.
- Recommended use: Use slow timings, high script counts, heavy transfer size, and many third-party origins to choose focused speed work, then verify important changes with analytics or field data when available.

### Rendered axe accessibility snapshot

- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: axe violations: 1. Critical: 0. Serious: 0. Top rules: region.
- Interpretation: axe-core catches common accessibility failures in the actual rendered DOM, but it is still automated coverage and not a full manual accessibility audit.
- Recommended use: Treat critical and serious axe failures as high-priority fixes, then manually review keyboard flow, focus states, screen reader meaning, and interaction states.

## Scope

FreeScan.app performs safe public checks only. It is not a penetration test, full SEO engagement, full accessibility audit, WCAG certification, backlink audit, rank tracker, or analytics platform.

Public reports expose the scanned public URL, safe scores, sanitized public evidence, and fix guidance. They do not include credentials, cookies, hidden form values, or sensitive response bodies.

Rescan same URL

Rerun the full deterministic scanner for ellasworlds.com without re-entering the URL. The previous report stays saved so the next result can be compared against it.

## Role Act as a focused public web security remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: security_common_headers. - Fix title: Add common public security headers. - Scanner check: Common security headers. - Category: Security. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 18 rule points lost. - Evidence: Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy. - What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible. - Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: hosting headers, server middleware, edge/proxy config, CDN rules, and framework security header configuration; server, edge, CDN, hosting, proxy, form action, asset URL, cookie, and public file access configuration; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Add missing common browser protection headers with values appropriate for the site. - Treat an existing CSP frame-ancestors directive as valid frame protection; preserve the directive and its allowed origins exactly instead of adding or substituting X-Frame-Options. - Test CSP or frame policies carefully so they do not break scripts, images, analytics, payments, embeds, or auth. - Prefer narrow, production-safe security configuration changes over blanket disables or permissive rules. - Preserve authentication, authorization, private paths, and sensitive file protections while fixing the public launch page. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Important security headers are visible on the public response. - Any existing CSP frame-ancestors directive and its allowed origins remain unchanged. - The page still renders and key flows still work after header changes. - The public URL keeps legitimate visitors and assets working while removing the reported browser-side or public exposure risk. - The change does not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, or private route protections. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - If an existing Content-Security-Policy contains a frame-ancestors directive, preserve that directive exactly, including its allowed origins, unless the site owner explicitly asks to change it. Do not replace it with X-Frame-Options merely to satisfy this scan. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: accessibility_axe_violations. - Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations. - Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations. - Category: Accessibility. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 18 rule points lost. - Evidence: axe found 1 violation rule(s), including 0 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: region (24). - What needs attention: The rendered page has accessibility rule violations detected by axe-core. - Why it matters: axe checks the actual browser-rendered page, so these issues can affect people using keyboards, screen readers, or other assistive technology. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: axe violation details, affected selectors, rendered DOM, component source, and interaction state that triggered the issue; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Fix the top axe rule IDs first, especially critical and serious violations around names, roles, labels, headings, contrast, landmarks, and keyboard-accessible controls. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Fix each reported accessibility violation at the semantic source. - Avoid suppressing automated checks unless there is a documented false positive. - Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds. - Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Critical and serious axe issues tied to this page are resolved or clearly documented as non-reproducible. - Fixes do not introduce new keyboard, label, contrast, or landmark regressions. - The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions. - The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: accessibility_form_labels. - Fix title: Label public form fields. - Scanner check: Form labels. - Category: Accessibility. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 7; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 14 rule points lost. - Evidence: Detected labels or accessible names for 12 of 14 form control(s). - What needs attention: Some form controls do not have a detectable label or accessible name. - Why it matters: Unlabeled inputs make email capture, demo requests, and signups harder for assistive technology users. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: inputs, selects, textareas, custom form controls, search fields, newsletter embeds, and generated form components; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Connect each input to a visible label or an accurate aria-label/aria-labelledby value. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Connect each control to a visible label, aria-label, or aria-labelledby that accurately describes the input. - Keep labels available to assistive technology and preserve validation/error messaging. - Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds. - Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Every public form control has a detectable accessible name. - Keyboard and screen reader users can understand and complete the form. - The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions. - The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml. - Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.xml. - Scanner check: sitemap.xml validity. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 7; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 12 rule points lost. - Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml. - What needs attention: The sitemap file was not reachable or did not look like valid sitemap XML. - Why it matters: A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: robots.txt Sitemap directives, static sitemap files, dynamic sitemap routes, sitemap indexes, canonical URL generation, and deployment output; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add a static sitemap file or dynamic /sitemap.xml route with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML, include your public canonical URLs, and confirm it returns HTTP 200. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Provide a reachable sitemap URL with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Preserve an existing robots.txt Sitemap directive such as /sitemap_index.xml when it is intentional and valid. - Include canonical public URLs and avoid localhost, staging, private, noindex, or duplicate URLs. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The sitemap URL declared in robots.txt, or /sitemap.xml when no directive exists, returns HTTP 200 with a valid urlset or sitemapindex root. - The sitemap contains at least the scanned public page or its canonical equivalent. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_title_present. - Fix title: Write a clear page title. - Scanner check: Page title. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 10 rule points lost. - Evidence: Title is 4 characters. - What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline. - Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome. - Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters. - The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_title_present. - Fix title: Write a clear page title. - Scanner check: Page title. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost. - Evidence: Title is 4 characters. - What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline. - Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome. - Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters. - The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_canonical. - Fix title: Add a canonical URL. - Scanner check: Canonical tag. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 9; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost. - Evidence: No canonical link tag was detected. - What needs attention: The page does not declare which public URL is the preferred version. - Why it matters: A canonical tag reduces duplicate URL confusion before marketing links start spreading. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: canonical URL generation, site URL environment variables, routing aliases, trailing slash behavior, and deployment domains; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add a canonical link tag that points to the final public landing page URL. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Set the canonical link to the preferred final public URL for this page. - Keep canonical, og:url, sitemap URLs, and redirects aligned where possible. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The public HTML exposes one canonical URL for the scanned page. - The canonical points to the intended public destination and avoids staging, localhost, tracking parameters, or duplicate variants. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_robots_txt. - Fix title: Publish robots.txt. - Scanner check: robots.txt reachability. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: medium. - Priority: 11; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 8 of 8 rule points lost. - Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for robots_txt. - What needs attention: The standard crawler instruction file was not reachable. - Why it matters: A reachable robots.txt helps crawlers understand what they can index before launch traffic arrives. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: public robots.txt file or route, deployment static assets, and crawler directives for the landing page; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add a public /robots.txt file and make sure it returns HTTP 200 without blocking the landing page. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Publish a reachable robots.txt that permits crawling of the public landing page. - Only block private, admin, search-result, staging, or low-value paths intentionally. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - /robots.txt returns HTTP 200 publicly. - The scanned public page is not blocked by robots.txt. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml. - Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.xml. - Scanner check: sitemap.xml validity. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 7; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 12 of 12 rule points lost. - Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml. - What needs attention: The sitemap file was not reachable or did not look like valid sitemap XML. - Why it matters: A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: robots.txt Sitemap directives, static sitemap files, dynamic sitemap routes, sitemap indexes, canonical URL generation, and deployment output; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add a static sitemap file or dynamic /sitemap.xml route with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML, include your public canonical URLs, and confirm it returns HTTP 200. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Provide a reachable sitemap URL with valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Preserve an existing robots.txt Sitemap directive such as /sitemap_index.xml when it is intentional and valid. - Include canonical public URLs and avoid localhost, staging, private, noindex, or duplicate URLs. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The sitemap URL declared in robots.txt, or /sitemap.xml when no directive exists, returns HTTP 200 with a valid urlset or sitemapindex root. - The sitemap contains at least the scanned public page or its canonical equivalent. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_llms_txt. - Fix title: Add an LLM-readable product file. - Scanner check: LLM-readable file. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: low. - Priority: 24; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 4 of 4 rule points lost. - Evidence: HTTP 404 returned for llms_txt. - What needs attention: The scan did not find llms.txt or .well-known/llms.txt. - Why it matters: A short LLM-readable file can help answer engines and AI tools summarize your product accurately. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: public /llms.txt or /.well-known/llms.txt route/file and source content used to describe the product; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add /llms.txt or /.well-known/llms.txt with the product name, audience, value proposition, and key public links. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Add a concise text file with product name, audience, value proposition, important public links, and any relevant docs/support URLs. - Keep it factual and aligned with visible public content. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - /llms.txt or /.well-known/llms.txt returns HTTP 200 publicly. - The content is short, accurate, and useful for AI tools without exposing private details. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_schema_presence. - Fix title: Add basic structured data. - Scanner check: Schema presence. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 12; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost. - Evidence: Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s). - What needs attention: No JSON-LD schema was detected on the page. - Why it matters: Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: JSON-LD generation in document head, route metadata, CMS SEO/schema fields, or server-rendered templates; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Add JSON-LD types that fit the visible page, such as Organization, WebSite, SoftwareApplication/Product, FAQPage, or BreadcrumbList. - Use only accurate public facts and avoid unsupported ratings, prices, reviews, authors, or claims. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The public HTML includes at least one application/ld+json block. - The schema parses as valid JSON and matches facts visible or clearly supported on the public page. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused technical SEO, AEO, and crawlability remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: seo_open_graph. - Fix title: Complete Open Graph metadata. - Scanner check: Open Graph basics. - Category: SEO / AEO. - Status: fail. - Severity: low. - Priority: 18; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 5 of 5 rule points lost. - Evidence: Detected 0 of 4 Open Graph basics. - What needs attention: The page is missing several social preview fields. - Why it matters: Launch links on X, LinkedIn, Slack, and communities look less trustworthy without a strong preview. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: Open Graph metadata source, social image generation, canonical URL config, and CMS social preview fields; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Add og:title, og:description, og:image, and og:url that match the landing page content. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Add or correct og:title, og:description, og:image, and og:url. - Make social preview text match the page title, description, and public offer. - Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts. - Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - At least three core Open Graph fields are present, including useful title and description. - Preview URLs and images are absolute public URLs where the stack requires them. - The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files. - The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused public web security remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: security_common_headers. - Fix title: Add common public security headers. - Scanner check: Common security headers. - Category: Security. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 18 of 18 rule points lost. - Evidence: Detected 0 of 5 common public security headers. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy. - What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible. - Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: hosting headers, server middleware, edge/proxy config, CDN rules, and framework security header configuration; server, edge, CDN, hosting, proxy, form action, asset URL, cookie, and public file access configuration; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Add missing common browser protection headers with values appropriate for the site. - Treat an existing CSP frame-ancestors directive as valid frame protection; preserve the directive and its allowed origins exactly instead of adding or substituting X-Frame-Options. - Test CSP or frame policies carefully so they do not break scripts, images, analytics, payments, embeds, or auth. - Prefer narrow, production-safe security configuration changes over blanket disables or permissive rules. - Preserve authentication, authorization, private paths, and sensitive file protections while fixing the public launch page. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Important security headers are visible on the public response. - Any existing CSP frame-ancestors directive and its allowed origins remain unchanged. - The page still renders and key flows still work after header changes. - The public URL keeps legitimate visitors and assets working while removing the reported browser-side or public exposure risk. - The change does not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, or private route protections. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - If an existing Content-Security-Policy contains a frame-ancestors directive, preserve that directive exactly, including its allowed origins, unless the site owner explicitly asks to change it. Do not replace it with X-Frame-Options merely to satisfy this scan. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: accessibility_form_labels. - Fix title: Label public form fields. - Scanner check: Form labels. - Category: Accessibility. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 7; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 14 of 14 rule points lost. - Evidence: Detected labels or accessible names for 12 of 14 form control(s). - What needs attention: Some form controls do not have a detectable label or accessible name. - Why it matters: Unlabeled inputs make email capture, demo requests, and signups harder for assistive technology users. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: inputs, selects, textareas, custom form controls, search fields, newsletter embeds, and generated form components; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Connect each input to a visible label or an accurate aria-label/aria-labelledby value. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Connect each control to a visible label, aria-label, or aria-labelledby that accurately describes the input. - Keep labels available to assistive technology and preserve validation/error messaging. - Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds. - Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Every public form control has a detectable accessible name. - Keyboard and screen reader users can understand and complete the form. - The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions. - The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: accessibility_contrast. - Fix title: Improve detectable color contrast. - Scanner check: Basic contrast. - Category: Accessibility. - Status: fail. - Severity: medium. - Priority: 20; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 8 of 8 rule points lost. - Evidence: 8 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 1. - What needs attention: The scanner found text/background color pairs that may be hard to read, or could not verify contrast. - Why it matters: Low contrast makes a launch page feel less polished and can exclude users with low vision. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: CSS variables, design tokens, theme config, text/background combinations, buttons, links, badges, and disabled states; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Review key text, buttons, and links against a 4.5:1 contrast target for normal text. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Adjust foreground/background colors or font treatment where contrast is too low. - Preserve brand feel while making text readable in real viewport states. - Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds. - Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Important text and controls meet reasonable contrast targets in rendered states. - No new low-contrast states are introduced. - The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions. - The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused web accessibility remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: accessibility_axe_violations. - Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations. - Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations. - Category: Accessibility. - Status: fail. - Severity: high. - Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 18 of 18 rule points lost. - Evidence: axe found 1 violation rule(s), including 0 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: region (24). - What needs attention: The rendered page has accessibility rule violations detected by axe-core. - Why it matters: axe checks the actual browser-rendered page, so these issues can affect people using keyboards, screen readers, or other assistive technology. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: axe violation details, affected selectors, rendered DOM, component source, and interaction state that triggered the issue; semantic markup, labels, landmarks, headings, focus states, image rendering, form controls, and browser-rendered accessibility output; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Fix the top axe rule IDs first, especially critical and serious violations around names, roles, labels, headings, contrast, landmarks, and keyboard-accessible controls. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Fix each reported accessibility violation at the semantic source. - Avoid suppressing automated checks unless there is a documented false positive. - Fix the semantic or interaction source of the issue rather than hiding warnings with ARIA or visual-only workarounds. - Keep keyboard, screen reader, and touch users in the verification path. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Critical and serious axe issues tied to this page are resolved or clearly documented as non-reproducible. - Fixes do not introduce new keyboard, label, contrast, or landmark regressions. - The affected UI remains usable by keyboard and assistive technology and does not introduce heading, label, focus, or contrast regressions. - The change can be checked in the browser or with an accessibility audit tool when available. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused conversion-focused frontend quality remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: design_rendered_performance. - Fix title: Improve rendered speed signals. - Scanner check: Rendered speed signals. - Category: Design. - Status: fail. - Severity: medium. - Priority: 14; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost. - Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 580ms. Load complete: 746ms. First contentful paint: 448ms. Resources: 28. Scripts: 14. Images: 6. Third-party origins: 10. Transfer: not available. - What needs attention: The browser-rendered page shows slow or heavy speed signals. - Why it matters: Slow pages lose impatient visitors and make every SEO, social, and paid-traffic visit work harder. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: rendered performance metrics, image/video weight, third-party scripts, fonts, blocking resources, and hydration behavior; page layout, responsive CSS, component states, copy hierarchy, CTA placement, spacing tokens, rendered console output, and performance-sensitive assets; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Reduce render-blocking scripts/styles, compress and size images, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party tags, and keep above-the-fold content quick to paint. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Reduce obvious performance bottlenecks with targeted asset, script, font, or loading changes. - Avoid removing required analytics, auth, payment, or product functionality without approval. - Improve the actual rendered page at mobile and desktop sizes, not only the source code shape. - Preserve core conversion flows while making layout, hierarchy, readability, or runtime health better. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - Rendered performance metrics improve or the bottleneck is clearly documented. - The page still renders complete content and key interactions. - The rendered page is visually stable and usable on mobile and desktop viewports. - The fix does not hide content, break CTAs, introduce console errors, or reduce clarity for visitors. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

## Role Act as a focused conversion-focused frontend quality remediation expert who can inspect the public page and safely improve the underlying implementation. ## Inputs - Primary context: Improve ellasworlds.com at https://ellasworlds.com. - Scanner check ID: design_rendered_layout. - Fix title: Fix rendered layout ergonomics. - Scanner check: Rendered layout ergonomics. - Category: Design. - Status: fail. - Severity: medium. - Priority: 13; lower numbers are more urgent. - Score impact: 9 of 9 rule points lost. - Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 22. - What needs attention: The browser-rendered page has layout or tap-target issues. - Why it matters: Horizontal overflow and tiny tap targets make the page feel broken on real devices, especially for mobile visitors. - Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix. - Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page. - Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything. - Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals. - Likely places to inspect: mobile viewport, horizontal overflow sources, tap target sizes, fixed-position elements, menus, forms, and embeds; page layout, responsive CSS, component states, copy hierarchy, CTA placement, spacing tokens, rendered console output, and performance-sensitive assets; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps. ## Task Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Remove elements wider than the viewport, add responsive constraints, and make important links, buttons, inputs, and controls at least 40px tall and wide where possible. First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience. Use this check-specific implementation guide: - Constrain overflowing elements and increase small important tap targets where possible. - Preserve layout intent while making the rendered page usable on real devices. - Improve the actual rendered page at mobile and desktop sizes, not only the source code shape. - Preserve core conversion flows while making layout, hierarchy, readability, or runtime health better. - Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project. Acceptance criteria for this fix: - The rendered page has no meaningful horizontal overflow. - Important links, buttons, inputs, and controls are comfortably tappable. - The rendered page is visually stable and usable on mobile and desktop viewports. - The fix does not hide content, break CTAs, introduce console errors, or reduce clarity for visitors. - A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment. ## Output Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions. ## Rules - Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing. - Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts. - Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change. - If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior. - Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression. - Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions. - Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them. - Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved. - Make changes that are easy to review and roll back. - Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets. - Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology. - Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available. ## Safety - Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data. - Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include. - Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies. - Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

ellasworlds.com Website Audit

Add common public security headers

Agent Prompt

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Agent Prompt

Label public form fields

Agent Prompt

Publish a valid sitemap.xml

Agent Prompt

Write a clear page title

Agent Prompt

SEO / AEO

sitemap.xml validity

Page title

Canonical tag

Security

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Form labels

Basic contrast

Design

Rendered speed signals

Rendered layout ergonomics

Failed checks

Page title

Agent Prompt

Canonical tag

Agent Prompt

robots.txt reachability

Agent Prompt

sitemap.xml validity

Agent Prompt

LLM-readable file

Agent Prompt

Schema presence

Agent Prompt

Open Graph basics

Agent Prompt

Common security headers

Agent Prompt

Form labels

Agent Prompt

Basic contrast

Agent Prompt

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Agent Prompt

Rendered speed signals

Agent Prompt

Rendered layout ergonomics

Agent Prompt

Unknown and not detected statesFreeScan.app keeps partial public data explicit. It marks unverifiable signals as unknown or not detected instead of inventing evidence.

Safe fetch metadataPublic headers and redirects captured during intake. Response bodies, cookies, and credentials are not stored.

ellasworlds.com Website Audit

Add common public security headers

Agent Prompt

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Agent Prompt

Label public form fields

Agent Prompt

Publish a valid sitemap.xml

Agent Prompt

Write a clear page title

Agent Prompt

SEO / AEO

sitemap.xml validity

Page title

Canonical tag

Security

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Form labels

Basic contrast

Design

Rendered speed signals

Rendered layout ergonomics

Failed checks

Page title

Agent Prompt