completed

HTTP 200

0 redirects

37 checks

Website audit scorecard for protogrove.com

Speed Insights

Grade A

99% performance

https://protogrove.com

From Protogrove.com

LCP

428ms

Largest paint

TBT

0ms

Blocking time

CLS

0.008

Layout shift

Four-score result

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes): 24 passed, 12 failed, and 1 unknown. Strongest area: Security. Weakest area: Accessibility.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

out of 100

65/103 rule points

Security

out of 100

58/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

43/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

84/110 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 / AEO65/103

Security58/76

Accessibility43/94

Design84/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Security

Common security headers

Detected 0 of 5 common public security controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), referrer-policy.

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

high

Accessibility

Form labels

Detected labels or accessible names for 2 of 4 form control(s).

high

SEO / AEO

Sitemap 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

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

Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), 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: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.
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 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).
- 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 2 of 4 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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 of 4 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

-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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL returns HTTP 200.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml.
- Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.
- Scanner check: Sitemap 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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL 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 12

Add basic structured data

-10 rule pts

What failed

No JSON-LD schema was detected on the page.

Evidence

Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).

Priority

Priority 12: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product.

How to fix it

Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 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.

Score aggregation details

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

63/100

7 pass, 4 fail, 1 unknown

SEO / AEO

Severity mix: 1 critical, 6 high, 3 medium, 1 low.

high

Sitemap validity

-12 rule pts

HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.

high

Schema presence

-10 rule pts

Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).

medium

Heading structure

-8 rule pts

Detected 1 H1 heading(s) and 15 total headings.

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

46/100

4 pass, 4 fail, 0 unknown

Accessibility

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

high

Rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

high

Form labels

-14 rule pts

Detected labels or accessible names for 2 of 4 form control(s).

medium

Heading order

-11 rule pts

Heading levels found: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.

76/100

8 pass, 3 fail, 0 unknown

Design

Severity mix: 0 critical, 3 high, 6 medium, 2 low.

medium

Trust signals

-10 rule pts

Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).

medium

Rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 14.

low

Spacing consistency

-7 rule pts

Detected 1 spacing class/style signal(s).

Full check list

Failed, unknown, and passed checks are all shown so the report is transparent even when public data is partial.

Showing failed checks.

Failed checks

These checks need attention.

fail

medium

SEO / AEO

Heading structure

0/8

Detected 1 H1 heading(s) and 15 total headings.

Failed: earned 0 of 8 points.

Priority: Priority 9: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Clear headings help visitors, search engines, and assistive technology understand the page quickly.

Fix: Keep one H1 for the main promise, then use H2 and H3 headings in order for sections below it.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_heading_structure.
- Fix title: Use one clear H1 and ordered headings.
- Scanner check: Heading structure.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 9; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 8 of 8 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 H1 heading(s) and 15 total headings.
- What needs attention: The page heading structure is either missing a single main heading or skips heading levels.
- Why it matters: Clear headings help visitors, search engines, and assistive technology understand the page quickly.
- 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 heading tags in templates, CMS rich text, markdown, MDX, and reusable section components; 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: Keep one H1 for the main promise, then use H2 and H3 headings in order for sections below it.
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:
- Keep one H1 for the page promise or page identity.
- Use H2 for major sections and H3 for subsections without skipping levels for visual styling.
- 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 rendered page has one clear H1 and an ordered heading outline.
- Styling is handled with CSS/classes rather than incorrect heading levels.
- 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

medium

SEO / AEO

robots.txt reachability

0/8

HTTP 404 returned for robots_txt.

Failed: earned 0 of 8 points.

Priority: Priority 11: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: A reachable robots.txt helps crawlers understand what they can index before launch traffic arrives.

Fix: Add a public /robots.txt file and make sure it returns HTTP 200 without blocking the landing page.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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.

fail

high

SEO / AEO

Sitemap validity

0/12

HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.

Failed: earned 0 of 12 points.

Priority: Priority 7: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner.

Fix: Add a static sitemap file, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL returns HTTP 200.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml.
- Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.
- Scanner check: Sitemap 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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL 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

Schema presence

0/10

Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 12: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product.

Fix: Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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.

fail

high

Security

Common security headers

0/18

Failed: earned 0 of 18 points.

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.

Fix: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), 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: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.
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

Form labels

0/14

Detected labels or accessible names for 2 of 4 form control(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 14 points.

Priority: Priority 7: fix during launch polish.

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 of 4 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

medium

Accessibility

Heading order

0/11

Heading levels found: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.

Failed: earned 0 of 11 points.

Priority: Priority 13: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: A clean heading outline helps visitors scan the page and helps assistive technology navigate it.

Fix: Use headings in order: one H1, then H2 for major sections, then H3 for subsections.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_heading_order.
- Fix title: Fix heading order.
- Scanner check: Heading order.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 13; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 11 of 11 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Heading levels found: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.
- What needs attention: Heading levels appear to jump or start without a clear hierarchy.
- Why it matters: A clean heading outline helps visitors scan the page and helps assistive technology navigate it.
- 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: heading tags in templates, CMS rich text, markdown/MDX, accordions, cards, and reusable sections; 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: Use headings in order: one H1, then H2 for major sections, then H3 for subsections.
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:
- Correct heading levels without changing visual hierarchy unnecessarily.
- Use CSS classes for visual size rather than jumping heading levels.
- 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:
- Heading levels follow a logical order from one H1 through nested section headings.
- The page remains easy to scan visually and semantically.
- 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

medium

Accessibility

Basic contrast

0/8

10 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 1.

Failed: earned 0 of 8 points.

Priority: Priority 20: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Low contrast makes a launch page feel less polished and can exclude users with low vision.

Fix: Review key text, buttons, and links against a 4.5:1 contrast target for normal text.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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: 10 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.

fail

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

0/18

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

Failed: earned 0 of 18 points.

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.

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

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).
- 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

medium

Design

Trust signals

0/10

Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 16: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Trust signals reduce hesitation when strangers see the product for the first time.

Fix: Add honest proof such as customer quotes, usage stats, founder credibility, security notes, or relevant logos.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_trust_signals.
- Fix title: Add trust signals.
- Scanner check: Trust signals.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 16; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).
- What needs attention: The page does not expose detectable proof, customer, review, security, or credibility signals.
- Why it matters: Trust signals reduce hesitation when strangers see the product for the first time.
- 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: testimonials, logos, security notes, proof points, customer examples, reviews, guarantees, and contact/legal links; 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: Add honest proof such as customer quotes, usage stats, founder credibility, security notes, or relevant logos.
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 accurate trust signals that are true and supportable.
- Do not invent customers, ratings, awards, claims, or testimonials.
- 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 public page includes credible support for why visitors should trust the offer.
- All trust claims are accurate and safe to publish.
- 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.

fail

low

Design

Spacing consistency

0/7

Detected 1 spacing class/style signal(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 7 points.

Priority: Priority 25: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Consistent spacing helps the page feel deliberate and easier to scan.

Fix: Use consistent section padding, gaps, and margins across repeated content blocks.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_spacing_consistency.
- Fix title: Make spacing more consistent.
- Scanner check: Spacing consistency.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: low.
- Priority: 25; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 7 of 7 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 spacing class/style signal(s).
- What needs attention: The page exposes few consistent spacing signals in class or inline styles.
- Why it matters: Consistent spacing helps the page feel deliberate and easier to scan.
- 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: layout spacing tokens, component padding, section gaps, card grids, mobile breakpoints, and repeated patterns; 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: Use consistent section padding, gaps, and margins across repeated content blocks.
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:
- Normalize spacing using existing tokens or local conventions.
- Avoid one-off spacing hacks that create new breakpoints or layout shifts.
- 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:
- Spacing feels consistent across related sections and viewport sizes.
- No important UI shifts or overlaps after the change.
- 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.

fail

medium

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

0/9

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 14.

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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: 14.
- 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.

Page-level AEO readiness

Shared eligibility and content signals that affect every search and answer agent.

80/100 ready

Index and citation eligibility

No general noindex directive was detected.

Snippet and answer controls

No general nosnippet or max-snippet:0 control was detected.

Canonical alignment

The canonical resolves to the scanned public URL.

Sitemap coverage and freshness

Sitemap coverage could not be verified.

Structured data

Detected 0 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types none.

Public or paywalled content

No isAccessibleForFree structured-data value was detected.

Entity clarity

Detected 3 of 3 core identity signals across the title, description, and H1.

Answer-ready visible text

Detected 845 visible words and 10 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.

Authorship and accountability

Detected author or accountable entity: ProtoGrove.

Published or updated date

No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.

Supporting-source links

Detected 9 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.

Rendered content availability

Rendered audit completed with 130 visible text element(s).

Synthetic search-agent reachability

8 of 8 search/discovery User-Agent probes returned reachable content.

Optional LLM-readable summary

No llms.txt file was found; this is optional and does not reduce core AEO readiness.

OpenAIChatGPT search

OAI-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

OpenAIOpenAI model training

GPTBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

OpenAIChatGPT user fetches

ChatGPT-User

UNKNOWN

User-requested fetch

Robots: not applicable to user-requested fetches

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude model training

ClaudeBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude search

Claude-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude user fetches

Claude-User

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

GoogleGoogle Search and AI features

Googlebot

PASS · ALLOWED

Search and discovery

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

GoogleGemini data use and grounding

Google-Extended

POLICY ALLOWED

Data-use policy control

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

MicrosoftBing and Copilot

Bingbot

PASS · ALLOWED

Search and discovery

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

PerplexityPerplexity search

PerplexityBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

PerplexityPerplexity user fetches

Perplexity-User

UNKNOWN

User-requested fetch

Robots: not applicable to user-requested fetches

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AppleSiri, Spotlight, and Safari search

Applebot

PASS · ALLOWED

Search and discovery

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AppleApple foundation-model training

Applebot-Extended

POLICY ALLOWED

Data-use policy control

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Mistral AIMistral search

MistralAI-Index

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Mistral AIMistral user fetches

MistralAI-User

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

MetaMeta AI model and product data

meta-externalagent

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

MetaMeta AI user fetches

meta-externalfetcher

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAmazon model training

Amazonbot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAlexa and Rufus search

Amzn-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAlexa user fetches

Amzn-User

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Common CrawlOpen web datasets

CCBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Ready combines robots policy, a bounded synthetic User-Agent fetch, indexability, and snippet eligibility. Synthetic probes do not prove vendor-origin traffic. Purple preference states are training or data-use choices and do not lower the AEO score.

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

protogrove.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

# protogrove.com Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://protogrove.com](https://protogrove.com)
Report URL: /scan/protogrove-com-65-launch-readiness-report-e8966fa6
Created: 2026-08-09T16:32:34.165Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 65/100
- SEO / AEO: 63/100
- Security: 76/100
- Accessibility: 46/100
- Design: 76/100

## Launch Readiness

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes).

Passed: 24. Failed: 12. Unknown: 1.
Strongest area: Security. Weakest area: Accessibility.

## AI Crawler Access

These results combine robots.txt policy, page controls, and bounded synthetic User-Agent probes. Synthetic probes do not prove that traffic came from the vendor; training and data-use choices are neutral publisher preferences.

- **OpenAI — ChatGPT search** (OAI-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **OpenAI — OpenAI model training** (GPTBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **OpenAI — ChatGPT user fetches** (ChatGPT-User): UNKNOWN — robots not_applicable; synthetic probe not_tested. ChatGPT-User is used for user-requested retrieval, so robots.txt is not treated as a reliable access control for this row. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Anthropic — Claude model training** (ClaudeBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Anthropic — Claude search** (Claude-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Anthropic — Claude user fetches** (Claude-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Google — Google Search and AI features** (Googlebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Google — Gemini data use and grounding** (Google-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Microsoft — Bing and Copilot** (Bingbot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Perplexity — Perplexity search** (PerplexityBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Perplexity — Perplexity user fetches** (Perplexity-User): UNKNOWN — robots not_applicable; synthetic probe not_tested. Perplexity-User is used for user-requested retrieval, so robots.txt is not treated as a reliable access control for this row. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Apple — Siri, Spotlight, and Safari search** (Applebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Apple — Apple foundation-model training** (Applebot-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral search** (MistralAI-Index): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral user fetches** (MistralAI-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Meta — Meta AI model and product data** (meta-externalagent): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Meta — Meta AI user fetches** (meta-externalfetcher): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Amazon — Amazon model training** (Amazonbot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Amazon — Alexa and Rufus search** (Amzn-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Amazon — Alexa user fetches** (Amzn-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Common Crawl — Open web datasets** (CCBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.

## Page-level AEO Readiness

Readiness: 80/100

- **Index and citation eligibility**: PASS — No general noindex directive was detected.
- **Snippet and answer controls**: PASS — No general nosnippet or max-snippet:0 control was detected.
- **Canonical alignment**: PASS — The canonical resolves to the scanned public URL.
- **Sitemap coverage and freshness**: FAIL — Sitemap coverage could not be verified.
- **Structured data**: UNKNOWN — Detected 0 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types none.
- **Public or paywalled content**: UNKNOWN — No isAccessibleForFree structured-data value was detected.
- **Entity clarity**: PASS — Detected 3 of 3 core identity signals across the title, description, and H1.
- **Answer-ready visible text**: PASS — Detected 845 visible words and 10 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.
- **Authorship and accountability**: PASS — Detected author or accountable entity: ProtoGrove.
- **Published or updated date**: UNKNOWN — No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.
- **Supporting-source links**: PASS — Detected 9 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.
- **Rendered content availability**: PASS — Rendered audit completed with 130 visible text element(s).
- **Synthetic search-agent reachability**: PASS — 8 of 8 search/discovery User-Agent probes returned reachable content.
- **Optional LLM-readable summary**: INFO — No llms.txt file was found; this is optional and does not reduce core AEO readiness.

## 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 controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), referrer-policy.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Fix: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.

### 2. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).
- 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 2 of 4 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

- 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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL returns HTTP 200.

### 5. Add basic structured data

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 10
- Evidence: Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).
- Why it matters: Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product.
- Fix: Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts.

## Opportunities

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

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 4. Use-case signals: 0. Integration/API signals: 0.
- 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.

### Make trust and proof easier to detect

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).
- Why it matters: Visitors who arrive cold from search, social, or AI citations need proof before they submit a form, start a trial, or buy.
- Next step: Add honest proof such as customer quotes, recognizable logos, security notes, usage stats, reviews, case studies, or founder credibility.

### 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.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 10 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: 14.
- 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: 845. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 6. CTA labels: Try Ella.
- 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: ProtoGrove: software with a world of its own. H1: Thoughtful software,  at the roots of innovation. 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: Accessibility
- Evidence: SEO / AEO: 63/100. Security: 76/100. Accessibility: 46/100. Design: 76/100
- Interpretation: The weakest area is Accessibility, 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: 10. 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: 233ms. Load complete: 332ms. First contentful paint: 300ms. Resources: 4. Scripts: 0. Images: 0. Third-party origins: 2. 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: 2. Critical: 0. Serious: 1. Top rules: color-contrast, heading-order.
- 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 protogrove.com without re-entering the URL. The previous report stays saved so the next result can be compared against it.

Start free audit

New scan Visit scanned site

completed

HTTP 200

0 redirects

37 checks

Website audit scorecard for protogrove.com

Speed Insights

Grade A

99% performance

https://protogrove.com

From Protogrove.com

LCP

428ms

Largest paint

TBT

0ms

Blocking time

CLS

0.008

Layout shift

Four-score result

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes): 24 passed, 12 failed, and 1 unknown. Strongest area: Security. Weakest area: Accessibility.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

out of 100

65/103 rule points

Security

out of 100

58/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

43/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

84/110 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 / AEO65/103

Security58/76

Accessibility43/94

Design84/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Security

Common security headers

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

high

Accessibility

Form labels

Detected labels or accessible names for 2 of 4 form control(s).

high

SEO / AEO

Sitemap 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

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

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), 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: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.
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 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).
- 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 2 of 4 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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 of 4 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

-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

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml.
- Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.
- Scanner check: Sitemap 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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL 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 12

Add basic structured data

-10 rule pts

What failed

No JSON-LD schema was detected on the page.

Evidence

Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).

Priority

Priority 12: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product.

How to fix it

Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 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.

Score aggregation details

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

63/100

7 pass, 4 fail, 1 unknown

SEO / AEO

Severity mix: 1 critical, 6 high, 3 medium, 1 low.

high

Sitemap validity

-12 rule pts

HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.

high

Schema presence

-10 rule pts

Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).

medium

Heading structure

-8 rule pts

Detected 1 H1 heading(s) and 15 total headings.

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

46/100

4 pass, 4 fail, 0 unknown

Accessibility

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

high

Rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

high

Form labels

-14 rule pts

Detected labels or accessible names for 2 of 4 form control(s).

medium

Heading order

-11 rule pts

Heading levels found: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.

76/100

8 pass, 3 fail, 0 unknown

Design

Severity mix: 0 critical, 3 high, 6 medium, 2 low.

medium

Trust signals

-10 rule pts

Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).

medium

Rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 14.

low

Spacing consistency

-7 rule pts

Detected 1 spacing class/style signal(s).

Full check list

Failed, unknown, and passed checks are all shown so the report is transparent even when public data is partial.

Showing failed checks.

Failed checks

These checks need attention.

fail

medium

SEO / AEO

Heading structure

0/8

Detected 1 H1 heading(s) and 15 total headings.

Failed: earned 0 of 8 points.

Priority: Priority 9: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Clear headings help visitors, search engines, and assistive technology understand the page quickly.

Fix: Keep one H1 for the main promise, then use H2 and H3 headings in order for sections below it.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_heading_structure.
- Fix title: Use one clear H1 and ordered headings.
- Scanner check: Heading structure.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 9; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 8 of 8 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 H1 heading(s) and 15 total headings.
- What needs attention: The page heading structure is either missing a single main heading or skips heading levels.
- Why it matters: Clear headings help visitors, search engines, and assistive technology understand the page quickly.
- 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 heading tags in templates, CMS rich text, markdown, MDX, and reusable section components; 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: Keep one H1 for the main promise, then use H2 and H3 headings in order for sections below it.
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:
- Keep one H1 for the page promise or page identity.
- Use H2 for major sections and H3 for subsections without skipping levels for visual styling.
- 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 rendered page has one clear H1 and an ordered heading outline.
- Styling is handled with CSS/classes rather than incorrect heading levels.
- 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

medium

SEO / AEO

robots.txt reachability

0/8

HTTP 404 returned for robots_txt.

Failed: earned 0 of 8 points.

Priority: Priority 11: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: A reachable robots.txt helps crawlers understand what they can index before launch traffic arrives.

Fix: Add a public /robots.txt file and make sure it returns HTTP 200 without blocking the landing page.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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.

fail

high

SEO / AEO

Sitemap validity

0/12

HTTP 404 returned for sitemap_xml.

Failed: earned 0 of 12 points.

Priority: Priority 7: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: A sitemap helps search engines discover the landing page and related public pages sooner.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_sitemap_xml.
- Fix title: Publish a valid sitemap.
- Scanner check: Sitemap 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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL 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

Schema presence

0/10

Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 12: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product.

Fix: Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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.

fail

high

Security

Common security headers

0/18

Failed: earned 0 of 18 points.

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), 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: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.
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

Form labels

0/14

Detected labels or accessible names for 2 of 4 form control(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 14 points.

Priority: Priority 7: fix during launch polish.

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 of 4 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

medium

Accessibility

Heading order

0/11

Heading levels found: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.

Failed: earned 0 of 11 points.

Priority: Priority 13: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: A clean heading outline helps visitors scan the page and helps assistive technology navigate it.

Fix: Use headings in order: one H1, then H2 for major sections, then H3 for subsections.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_heading_order.
- Fix title: Fix heading order.
- Scanner check: Heading order.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 13; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 11 of 11 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Heading levels found: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 4, 4.
- What needs attention: Heading levels appear to jump or start without a clear hierarchy.
- Why it matters: A clean heading outline helps visitors scan the page and helps assistive technology navigate it.
- 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: heading tags in templates, CMS rich text, markdown/MDX, accordions, cards, and reusable sections; 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: Use headings in order: one H1, then H2 for major sections, then H3 for subsections.
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:
- Correct heading levels without changing visual hierarchy unnecessarily.
- Use CSS classes for visual size rather than jumping heading levels.
- 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:
- Heading levels follow a logical order from one H1 through nested section headings.
- The page remains easy to scan visually and semantically.
- 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

medium

Accessibility

Basic contrast

0/8

10 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 1.

Failed: earned 0 of 8 points.

Priority: Priority 20: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Low contrast makes a launch page feel less polished and can exclude users with low vision.

Fix: Review key text, buttons, and links against a 4.5:1 contrast target for normal text.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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: 10 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.

fail

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

0/18

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).

Failed: earned 0 of 18 points.

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.

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

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).
- 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

medium

Design

Trust signals

0/10

Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 16: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Trust signals reduce hesitation when strangers see the product for the first time.

Fix: Add honest proof such as customer quotes, usage stats, founder credibility, security notes, or relevant logos.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_trust_signals.
- Fix title: Add trust signals.
- Scanner check: Trust signals.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 16; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).
- What needs attention: The page does not expose detectable proof, customer, review, security, or credibility signals.
- Why it matters: Trust signals reduce hesitation when strangers see the product for the first time.
- 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: testimonials, logos, security notes, proof points, customer examples, reviews, guarantees, and contact/legal links; 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: Add honest proof such as customer quotes, usage stats, founder credibility, security notes, or relevant logos.
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 accurate trust signals that are true and supportable.
- Do not invent customers, ratings, awards, claims, or testimonials.
- 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 public page includes credible support for why visitors should trust the offer.
- All trust claims are accurate and safe to publish.
- 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.

fail

low

Design

Spacing consistency

0/7

Detected 1 spacing class/style signal(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 7 points.

Priority: Priority 25: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Consistent spacing helps the page feel deliberate and easier to scan.

Fix: Use consistent section padding, gaps, and margins across repeated content blocks.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_spacing_consistency.
- Fix title: Make spacing more consistent.
- Scanner check: Spacing consistency.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: low.
- Priority: 25; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 7 of 7 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 spacing class/style signal(s).
- What needs attention: The page exposes few consistent spacing signals in class or inline styles.
- Why it matters: Consistent spacing helps the page feel deliberate and easier to scan.
- 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: layout spacing tokens, component padding, section gaps, card grids, mobile breakpoints, and repeated patterns; 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: Use consistent section padding, gaps, and margins across repeated content blocks.
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:
- Normalize spacing using existing tokens or local conventions.
- Avoid one-off spacing hacks that create new breakpoints or layout shifts.
- 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:
- Spacing feels consistent across related sections and viewport sizes.
- No important UI shifts or overlaps after the change.
- 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.

fail

medium

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

0/9

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 14.

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.

Copyable 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 protogrove.com at https://protogrove.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: 14.
- 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.

Page-level AEO readiness

Shared eligibility and content signals that affect every search and answer agent.

80/100 ready

Index and citation eligibility

No general noindex directive was detected.

Snippet and answer controls

No general nosnippet or max-snippet:0 control was detected.

Canonical alignment

The canonical resolves to the scanned public URL.

Sitemap coverage and freshness

Sitemap coverage could not be verified.

Structured data

Detected 0 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types none.

Public or paywalled content

No isAccessibleForFree structured-data value was detected.

Entity clarity

Detected 3 of 3 core identity signals across the title, description, and H1.

Answer-ready visible text

Detected 845 visible words and 10 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.

Authorship and accountability

Detected author or accountable entity: ProtoGrove.

Published or updated date

No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.

Supporting-source links

Detected 9 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.

Rendered content availability

Rendered audit completed with 130 visible text element(s).

Synthetic search-agent reachability

8 of 8 search/discovery User-Agent probes returned reachable content.

Optional LLM-readable summary

No llms.txt file was found; this is optional and does not reduce core AEO readiness.

OpenAIChatGPT search

OAI-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

OpenAIOpenAI model training

GPTBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

OpenAIChatGPT user fetches

ChatGPT-User

UNKNOWN

User-requested fetch

Robots: not applicable to user-requested fetches

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude model training

ClaudeBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude search

Claude-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude user fetches

Claude-User

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

GoogleGoogle Search and AI features

Googlebot

PASS · ALLOWED

Search and discovery

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

GoogleGemini data use and grounding

Google-Extended

POLICY ALLOWED

Data-use policy control

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

MicrosoftBing and Copilot

Bingbot

PASS · ALLOWED

Search and discovery

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

PerplexityPerplexity search

PerplexityBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

PerplexityPerplexity user fetches

Perplexity-User

UNKNOWN

User-requested fetch

Robots: not applicable to user-requested fetches

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AppleSiri, Spotlight, and Safari search

Applebot

PASS · ALLOWED

Search and discovery

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AppleApple foundation-model training

Applebot-Extended

POLICY ALLOWED

Data-use policy control

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Mistral AIMistral search

MistralAI-Index

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Mistral AIMistral user fetches

MistralAI-User

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

MetaMeta AI model and product data

meta-externalagent

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

MetaMeta AI user fetches

meta-externalfetcher

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAmazon model training

Amazonbot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAlexa and Rufus search

Amzn-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAlexa user fetches

Amzn-User

PASS · ALLOWED

User-requested fetch

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

Common CrawlOpen web datasets

CCBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Controls: robots meta: index, follow

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

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

protogrove.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

# protogrove.com Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://protogrove.com](https://protogrove.com)
Report URL: /scan/protogrove-com-65-launch-readiness-report-e8966fa6
Created: 2026-08-09T16:32:34.165Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 65/100
- SEO / AEO: 63/100
- Security: 76/100
- Accessibility: 46/100
- Design: 76/100

## Launch Readiness

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes).

Passed: 24. Failed: 12. Unknown: 1.
Strongest area: Security. Weakest area: Accessibility.

## AI Crawler Access

These results combine robots.txt policy, page controls, and bounded synthetic User-Agent probes. Synthetic probes do not prove that traffic came from the vendor; training and data-use choices are neutral publisher preferences.

- **OpenAI — ChatGPT search** (OAI-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **OpenAI — OpenAI model training** (GPTBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **OpenAI — ChatGPT user fetches** (ChatGPT-User): UNKNOWN — robots not_applicable; synthetic probe not_tested. ChatGPT-User is used for user-requested retrieval, so robots.txt is not treated as a reliable access control for this row. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Anthropic — Claude model training** (ClaudeBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Anthropic — Claude search** (Claude-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Anthropic — Claude user fetches** (Claude-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Google — Google Search and AI features** (Googlebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Google — Gemini data use and grounding** (Google-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Microsoft — Bing and Copilot** (Bingbot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Perplexity — Perplexity search** (PerplexityBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Perplexity — Perplexity user fetches** (Perplexity-User): UNKNOWN — robots not_applicable; synthetic probe not_tested. Perplexity-User is used for user-requested retrieval, so robots.txt is not treated as a reliable access control for this row. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Apple — Siri, Spotlight, and Safari search** (Applebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Apple — Apple foundation-model training** (Applebot-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral search** (MistralAI-Index): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral user fetches** (MistralAI-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Meta — Meta AI model and product data** (meta-externalagent): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Meta — Meta AI user fetches** (meta-externalfetcher): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Amazon — Amazon model training** (Amazonbot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Amazon — Alexa and Rufus search** (Amzn-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Amazon — Alexa user fetches** (Amzn-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.
- **Common Crawl — Open web datasets** (CCBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No robots.txt file was published, so this token is allowed by default. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control. Relevant page controls: robots meta: index, follow.

## Page-level AEO Readiness

Readiness: 80/100

- **Index and citation eligibility**: PASS — No general noindex directive was detected.
- **Snippet and answer controls**: PASS — No general nosnippet or max-snippet:0 control was detected.
- **Canonical alignment**: PASS — The canonical resolves to the scanned public URL.
- **Sitemap coverage and freshness**: FAIL — Sitemap coverage could not be verified.
- **Structured data**: UNKNOWN — Detected 0 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types none.
- **Public or paywalled content**: UNKNOWN — No isAccessibleForFree structured-data value was detected.
- **Entity clarity**: PASS — Detected 3 of 3 core identity signals across the title, description, and H1.
- **Answer-ready visible text**: PASS — Detected 845 visible words and 10 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.
- **Authorship and accountability**: PASS — Detected author or accountable entity: ProtoGrove.
- **Published or updated date**: UNKNOWN — No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.
- **Supporting-source links**: PASS — Detected 9 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.
- **Rendered content availability**: PASS — Rendered audit completed with 130 visible text element(s).
- **Synthetic search-agent reachability**: PASS — 8 of 8 search/discovery User-Agent probes returned reachable content.
- **Optional LLM-readable summary**: INFO — No llms.txt file was found; this is optional and does not reduce core AEO readiness.

## 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 controls. Present: none. Missing: strict-transport-security, content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), referrer-policy.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Fix: Add only the missing protections among Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, frame protection, and Referrer-Policy. An existing CSP frame-ancestors directive already provides frame protection and must remain unchanged.

### 2. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (5), heading-order (1).
- 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 2 of 4 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

- 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, dynamic sitemap route, or robots.txt Sitemap directive that returns valid urlset or sitemapindex XML. Include public canonical URLs and confirm the sitemap URL returns HTTP 200.

### 5. Add basic structured data

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 10
- Evidence: Detected 0 JSON-LD schema block(s).
- Why it matters: Structured data gives search and answer engines explicit facts about your product.
- Fix: Add JSON-LD for SoftwareApplication, Product, Organization, or WebSite using only accurate public facts.

## Opportunities

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

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 4. Use-case signals: 0. Integration/API signals: 0.
- 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.

### Make trust and proof easier to detect

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: Detected 0 trust-signal keyword occurrence(s).
- Why it matters: Visitors who arrive cold from search, social, or AI citations need proof before they submit a form, start a trial, or buy.
- Next step: Add honest proof such as customer quotes, recognizable logos, security notes, usage stats, reviews, case studies, or founder credibility.

### 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.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 10 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: 14.
- 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: 845. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 6. CTA labels: Try Ella.
- 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: ProtoGrove: software with a world of its own. H1: Thoughtful software,  at the roots of innovation. 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: Accessibility
- Evidence: SEO / AEO: 63/100. Security: 76/100. Accessibility: 46/100. Design: 76/100
- Interpretation: The weakest area is Accessibility, 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: 10. 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: 233ms. Load complete: 332ms. First contentful paint: 300ms. Resources: 4. Scripts: 0. Images: 0. Third-party origins: 2. 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: 2. Critical: 0. Serious: 1. Top rules: color-contrast, heading-order.
- 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 protogrove.com without re-entering the URL. The previous report stays saved so the next result can be compared against it.

Website audit scorecard for protogrove.com

Add common public security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Label public form fields

Copyable agent prompt

Publish a valid sitemap

Copyable agent prompt

Add basic structured data

Copyable agent prompt

SEO / AEO

Sitemap validity

Schema presence

Heading structure

Security

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Form labels

Heading order

Design

Trust signals

Rendered layout ergonomics

Spacing consistency

Failed checks

Heading structure

Copyable agent prompt

robots.txt reachability

Copyable agent prompt

Sitemap validity

Copyable agent prompt

Schema presence

Copyable agent prompt

Common security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Form labels

Copyable agent prompt

Heading order

Copyable agent prompt

Basic contrast

Copyable agent prompt

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Trust signals

Copyable agent prompt

Spacing consistency

Copyable agent prompt

Rendered layout ergonomics

Copyable agent prompt

AI crawler accessMajor AI search, user-fetch, and data-use agents checked for /, with robots evidence, synthetic reachability, and page-level AEO controls.12 pass0 fail2 unknown7 preferences

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.

Website audit scorecard for protogrove.com

Add common public security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Label public form fields

Copyable agent prompt

Publish a valid sitemap

Copyable agent prompt

Add basic structured data

Copyable agent prompt

SEO / AEO

Sitemap validity

Schema presence

Heading structure

Security

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Form labels

Heading order

Design

Trust signals

Rendered layout ergonomics

Spacing consistency

Failed checks

Heading structure