completed

HTTP 200

0 redirects

38 checks

Website audit scorecard for salonevamichelle.com

The scanner fetched the public page, extracted deterministic facts, and stored scored results across SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Submitted

https://www.salonevamichelle.com/

Final URL

https://www.salonevamichelle.com

Created

Aug 8, 2026, 6:03 PM

Safe fetch

55 ms

Four-score result

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes): 25 passed, 12 failed, and 1 unknown. Strongest area: SEO / AEO. Weakest area: Accessibility.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

out of 100

101/111 rule points

Security

out of 100

53/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

44/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

67/110 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 / AEO101/111

Security53/76

Accessibility44/94

Design67/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (1).

high

Accessibility

Image alt text

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

high

Security

Mixed content indicators

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

high

Security

Common security headers

Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, frame protection (x-frame-options or content-security-policy frame-ancestors), referrer-policy.

Recommendations

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

5 fixes

8 opportunities

9 insights

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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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

Security

Priority 4

Remove insecure page resources

-12 rule pts

What failed

The page references insecure HTTP assets or links from an HTTPS page.

Evidence

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

Priority

Priority 4: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.

How to fix it

Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: security_mixed_content.
- Fix title: Remove insecure page resources.
- Scanner check: Mixed content indicators.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 4; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 12 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).
- What needs attention: The page references insecure HTTP assets or links from an HTTPS page.
- Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.
- 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: asset URLs, scripts, stylesheets, images, links, embeds, forms, CMS fields, and third-party snippets; 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: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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:
- Replace insecure http:// resources with https:// equivalents where supported.
- Remove or proxy resources that cannot be served securely.
- 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:
- The HTTPS page no longer references insecure HTTP assets, links, or form actions in public markup.
- No important assets break after the URL 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.
- 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

Priority 5

Add common public security headers

-11 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 11 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, 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 11

Add meaningful image alt text

-14 rule pts

What failed

One or more images are missing alt text.

Evidence

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

Priority

Priority 11: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.

How to fix it

Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_alt_text.
- Fix title: Add meaningful image alt text.
- Scanner check: Image alt text.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 11; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.
- What needs attention: One or more images are missing alt text.
- Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.
- 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: image components, CMS image fields, markdown/MDX images, icon-only graphics, logos, badges, and decorative media; 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: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.
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 concise alt text for informative images and empty alt text for decorative images.
- Do not duplicate adjacent visible text in alt text unless needed for meaning.
- 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:
- Informative public images have meaningful accessible names.
- Decorative images are ignored by assistive technology.
- 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 8

Write a clear page title

-10 rule pts

What failed

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

Evidence

Title is 75 characters.

Priority

Priority 8: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

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

How to fix it

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

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_title_present.
- Fix title: Write a clear page title.
- Scanner check: Page title.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Title is 75 characters.
- What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome.
- Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering.
- Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts.
- Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters.
- The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity.
- The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files.
- The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

Score aggregation details

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

91/100

11 pass, 1 fail, 1 unknown

SEO / AEO

Severity mix: 1 critical, 7 high, 3 medium, 1 low.

high

Page title

-10 rule pts

Title is 75 characters.

70/100

4 pass, 2 fail, 0 unknown

Security

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

high

Mixed content indicators

-12 rule pts

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

high

Common security headers

-11 rule pts

47/100

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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (1).

high

Image alt text

-14 rule pts

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

medium

Semantic buttons and links

-10 rule pts

Detected 6 semantic control(s) out of 20.

61/100

6 pass, 5 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 speed signals

-10 rule pts

DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.

medium

Rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

Horizontal overflow: 3145px. Small tap targets: 14.

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

high

SEO / AEO

Page title

0/10

Title is 75 characters.

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 8: fix during launch polish.

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

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

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_title_present.
- Fix title: Write a clear page title.
- Scanner check: Page title.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Title is 75 characters.
- What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome.
- Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering.
- Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts.
- Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters.
- The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity.
- The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files.
- The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Security

Mixed content indicators

0/12

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 12 points.

Priority: Priority 4: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.

Fix: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: security_mixed_content.
- Fix title: Remove insecure page resources.
- Scanner check: Mixed content indicators.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 4; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 12 of 12 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).
- What needs attention: The page references insecure HTTP assets or links from an HTTPS page.
- Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.
- 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: asset URLs, scripts, stylesheets, images, links, embeds, forms, CMS fields, and third-party snippets; 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: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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:
- Replace insecure http:// resources with https:// equivalents where supported.
- Remove or proxy resources that cannot be served securely.
- 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:
- The HTTPS page no longer references insecure HTTP assets, links, or form actions in public markup.
- No important assets break after the URL 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.
- 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

7/18

Failed: earned 7 of 18 points from partial coverage.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 11 of 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, 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

Image alt text

0/14

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

Failed: earned 0 of 14 points.

Priority: Priority 11: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.

Fix: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_alt_text.
- Fix title: Add meaningful image alt text.
- Scanner check: Image alt text.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 11; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 14 of 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.
- What needs attention: One or more images are missing alt text.
- Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.
- 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: image components, CMS image fields, markdown/MDX images, icon-only graphics, logos, badges, and decorative media; 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: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.
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 concise alt text for informative images and empty alt text for decorative images.
- Do not duplicate adjacent visible text in alt text unless needed for meaning.
- 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:
- Informative public images have meaningful accessible names.
- Decorative images are ignored by assistive technology.
- 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

Semantic buttons and links

0/10

Detected 6 semantic control(s) out of 20.

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 17: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Non-semantic controls can be hard to use with keyboards and screen readers.

Fix: Use button for actions and anchor links for navigation, with clear accessible names.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_semantic_controls.
- Fix title: Use semantic buttons and links.
- Scanner check: Semantic buttons and links.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 17; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 6 semantic control(s) out of 20.
- What needs attention: Interactive controls are not consistently represented as semantic buttons or links.
- Why it matters: Non-semantic controls can be hard to use with keyboards and screen readers.
- 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: clickable divs/spans, custom buttons, menus, tabs, cards, links, and keyboard event handlers; 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 button for actions and anchor links for navigation, with clear accessible names.
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:
- Use real buttons for actions and real links for navigation.
- Add keyboard support and accessible state only when native elements are not enough.
- 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:
- Interactive controls are keyboard operable and expose correct roles/names/states.
- The change preserves click, keyboard, hover, focus, and disabled states.
- 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

11 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 11 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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 3 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 3 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 speed signals

0/10

DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 14: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Slow pages lose impatient visitors and make every SEO, social, and paid-traffic visit work harder.

Fix: Reduce render-blocking scripts/styles, compress and size images, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party tags, and keep above-the-fold content quick to paint.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_rendered_performance.
- Fix title: Improve rendered speed signals.
- Scanner check: Rendered speed signals.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 14; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.
- What needs attention: The browser-rendered page shows slow or heavy speed signals.
- Why it matters: Slow pages lose impatient visitors and make every SEO, social, and paid-traffic visit work harder.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: rendered performance metrics, image/video weight, third-party scripts, fonts, blocking resources, and hydration behavior; page layout, responsive CSS, component states, copy hierarchy, CTA placement, spacing tokens, rendered console output, and performance-sensitive assets; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Reduce render-blocking scripts/styles, compress and size images, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party tags, and keep above-the-fold content quick to paint.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Reduce obvious performance bottlenecks with targeted asset, script, font, or loading changes.
- Avoid removing required analytics, auth, payment, or product functionality without approval.
- Improve the actual rendered page at mobile and desktop sizes, not only the source code shape.
- Preserve core conversion flows while making layout, hierarchy, readability, or runtime health better.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- Rendered performance metrics improve or the bottleneck is clearly documented.
- The page still renders complete content and key interactions.
- The rendered page is visually stable and usable on mobile and desktop viewports.
- The fix does not hide content, break CTAs, introduce console errors, or reduce clarity for visitors.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

low

Design

Runtime console health

0/7

Detected 1 site-authored console error(s) and 0 uncaught page error(s) during render. Samples: AxiosError: Request failed with status code 401

Failed: earned 0 of 7 points.

Priority: Priority 15: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Runtime errors can break forms, CTAs, animations, tracking, or responsive behavior even when the static HTML looks fine.

Fix: Open the page in a browser, reproduce the console errors, and fix missing assets, hydration problems, client-side exceptions, or failing third-party scripts.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_runtime_health.
- Fix title: Fix runtime browser errors.
- Scanner check: Runtime console health.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: low.
- Priority: 15; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 7 of 7 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 site-authored console error(s) and 0 uncaught page error(s) during render. Samples: AxiosError: Request failed with status code 401
- What needs attention: The rendered page produced console or uncaught JavaScript errors.
- Why it matters: Runtime errors can break forms, CTAs, animations, tracking, or responsive behavior even when the static HTML looks fine.
- 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: browser console errors, uncaught page errors, missing assets, hydration issues, and third-party script failures; 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: Open the page in a browser, reproduce the console errors, and fix missing assets, hydration problems, client-side exceptions, or failing third-party scripts.
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:
- Reproduce the runtime error and fix the source rather than hiding console output.
- Handle missing data, failed requests, and client-only APIs safely.
- 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 page renders without the reported console or uncaught page errors.
- No key interaction, analytics, or rendering flow breaks after the fix.
- 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: 3145px. 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 3145px. 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.

90/100 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

The exact scanned URL was not found in the fetched sitemap.

Structured data

Detected 4 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite.

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 772 visible words and 12 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.

Authorship and accountability

No author meta value or structured-data author was detected.

Published or updated date

No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.

Supporting-source links

Detected 12 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.

Rendered content availability

Rendered audit completed with 125 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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

OpenAIOpenAI model training

GPTBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude model training

ClaudeBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude search

Claude-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

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

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

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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

PerplexityPerplexity search

PerplexityBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAmazon model training

Amazonbot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

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

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

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

salonevamichelle.com website audit report

Needs fixes before launch: 67/100 overall, with prioritized fixes for SEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Public report link

Markdown report

# salonevamichelle.com Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://www.salonevamichelle.com](https://www.salonevamichelle.com)
Report URL: /scan/salonevamichelle-com-67-launch-readiness-report-e1719c42
Created: 2026-08-08T18:03:14.101Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 67/100
- SEO / AEO: 91/100
- Security: 70/100
- Accessibility: 47/100
- Design: 61/100

## Launch Readiness

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes).

Passed: 25. Failed: 12. Unknown: 1.
Strongest area: SEO / AEO. 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 matching robots.txt rule blocks OAI-SearchBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **OpenAI — OpenAI model training** (GPTBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks GPTBot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **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.
- **Anthropic — Claude model training** (ClaudeBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks ClaudeBot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Anthropic — Claude search** (Claude-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Claude-SearchBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Anthropic — Claude user fetches** (Claude-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Claude-User from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Google — Google Search and AI features** (Googlebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Googlebot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Google — Gemini data use and grounding** (Google-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks Google-Extended from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Microsoft — Bing and Copilot** (Bingbot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Bingbot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Perplexity — Perplexity search** (PerplexityBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks PerplexityBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **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.
- **Apple — Siri, Spotlight, and Safari search** (Applebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Applebot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Apple — Apple foundation-model training** (Applebot-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks Applebot-Extended from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral search** (MistralAI-Index): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks MistralAI-Index from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral user fetches** (MistralAI-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks MistralAI-User from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Meta — Meta AI model and product data** (meta-externalagent): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks meta-externalagent from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Meta — Meta AI user fetches** (meta-externalfetcher): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks meta-externalfetcher from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Amazon — Amazon model training** (Amazonbot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks Amazonbot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Amazon — Alexa and Rufus search** (Amzn-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Amzn-SearchBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Amazon — Alexa user fetches** (Amzn-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Amzn-User from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Common Crawl — Open web datasets** (CCBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks CCBot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.

## Page-level AEO Readiness

Readiness: 90/100

- **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 — The exact scanned URL was not found in the fetched sitemap.
- **Structured data**: PASS — Detected 4 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite.
- **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 772 visible words and 12 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.
- **Authorship and accountability**: UNKNOWN — No author meta value or structured-data author was detected.
- **Published or updated date**: UNKNOWN — No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.
- **Supporting-source links**: PASS — Detected 12 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.
- **Rendered content availability**: PASS — Rendered audit completed with 125 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. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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.

### 2. Remove insecure page resources

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 12
- Evidence: Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).
- Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.
- Fix: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports it.

### 3. Add common public security headers

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 11
- Evidence: Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, 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.

### 4. Add meaningful image alt text

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 14
- Evidence: Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.
- Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.
- Fix: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.

### 5. Write a clear page title

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 10
- Evidence: Title is 75 characters.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Fix: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.

## Opportunities

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

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 0. 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.

### Review snippet and preview controls

- Impact: low
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Open Graph image was detected. Preview controls detected: 0.
- Why it matters: Preview controls can clarify how much text, image, and video content search systems may show from the page.
- Next step: Only add robots preview controls when you intentionally want to limit snippets or image/video previews; otherwise leave previews open.

### Speed up the rendered first impression

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Scripts: 59. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.
- Why it matters: Visitors judge quality before reading much copy; a slow first render makes the product feel heavier and less trustworthy.
- Next step: Compress hero media, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party scripts, and keep the first viewport visually complete without waiting on heavy client work.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 11 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: 3145px. 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.

### Measure search performance with first-party data

- Impact: medium
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: robots.txt and a sitemap were reachable, so the site has the basics needed for Search Console verification and monitoring.
- Why it matters: A scan can identify technical readiness, but Search Console and analytics reveal impressions, queries, clicks, pages, and conversions over time.
- Next step: Verify the domain in Search Console, submit the sitemap, and pair query/page data with analytics events for signups, demo requests, and purchases.

## Insights

### The page appears basically crawlable

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: HTTP 200. robots.txt: HTTP 200. sitemap.xml: HTTP 200. noindex check: clear.
- Interpretation: The public page satisfies the basic crawl/index path the scan can verify.
- 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: 772. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 12. CTA labels: BOOK AN APPOINTMENT NOW!.
- 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: Salon Eva Michelle - Best Hair Salon in Boston | Award-Winning Color & Cuts. H1: Salon Eva Michelle. Schema types: GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite.
- 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.

### Structured data is present

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: JSON-LD blocks: 4. Types: GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite. Parse errors: 0.
- Interpretation: The page exposes machine-readable facts, but quality still depends on whether those facts match visible content.
- 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: 91/100. Security: 70/100. Accessibility: 47/100. Design: 61/100
- 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: 11. Console errors: 1. Horizontal overflow: 3145px.
- 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: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. 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: 4. Critical: 1. Serious: 2. Top rules: image-alt, link-name, scrollable-region-focusable, landmark-unique.
- 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 salonevamichelle.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

38 checks

Website audit scorecard for salonevamichelle.com

The scanner fetched the public page, extracted deterministic facts, and stored scored results across SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Submitted

https://www.salonevamichelle.com/

Final URL

https://www.salonevamichelle.com

Created

Aug 8, 2026, 6:03 PM

Safe fetch

55 ms

Four-score result

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes): 25 passed, 12 failed, and 1 unknown. Strongest area: SEO / AEO. Weakest area: Accessibility.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

out of 100

101/111 rule points

Security

out of 100

53/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

44/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

67/110 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 / AEO101/111

Security53/76

Accessibility44/94

Design67/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (1).

high

Accessibility

Image alt text

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

high

Security

Mixed content indicators

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

high

Security

Common security headers

Recommendations

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

5 fixes

8 opportunities

9 insights

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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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

Security

Priority 4

Remove insecure page resources

-12 rule pts

What failed

The page references insecure HTTP assets or links from an HTTPS page.

Evidence

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

Priority

Priority 4: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.

How to fix it

Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: security_mixed_content.
- Fix title: Remove insecure page resources.
- Scanner check: Mixed content indicators.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 4; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 12 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).
- What needs attention: The page references insecure HTTP assets or links from an HTTPS page.
- Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.
- 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: asset URLs, scripts, stylesheets, images, links, embeds, forms, CMS fields, and third-party snippets; 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: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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:
- Replace insecure http:// resources with https:// equivalents where supported.
- Remove or proxy resources that cannot be served securely.
- 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:
- The HTTPS page no longer references insecure HTTP assets, links, or form actions in public markup.
- No important assets break after the URL 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.
- 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

Priority 5

Add common public security headers

-11 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 11 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, 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 11

Add meaningful image alt text

-14 rule pts

What failed

One or more images are missing alt text.

Evidence

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

Priority

Priority 11: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.

How to fix it

Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_alt_text.
- Fix title: Add meaningful image alt text.
- Scanner check: Image alt text.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 11; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.
- What needs attention: One or more images are missing alt text.
- Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.
- 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: image components, CMS image fields, markdown/MDX images, icon-only graphics, logos, badges, and decorative media; 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: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.
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 concise alt text for informative images and empty alt text for decorative images.
- Do not duplicate adjacent visible text in alt text unless needed for meaning.
- 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:
- Informative public images have meaningful accessible names.
- Decorative images are ignored by assistive technology.
- 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 8

Write a clear page title

-10 rule pts

What failed

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

Evidence

Title is 75 characters.

Priority

Priority 8: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters

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

How to fix it

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

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_title_present.
- Fix title: Write a clear page title.
- Scanner check: Page title.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Title is 75 characters.
- What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome.
- Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering.
- Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts.
- Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters.
- The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity.
- The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files.
- The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

Score aggregation details

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

91/100

11 pass, 1 fail, 1 unknown

SEO / AEO

Severity mix: 1 critical, 7 high, 3 medium, 1 low.

high

Page title

-10 rule pts

Title is 75 characters.

70/100

4 pass, 2 fail, 0 unknown

Security

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

high

Mixed content indicators

-12 rule pts

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

high

Common security headers

-11 rule pts

47/100

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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (1).

high

Image alt text

-14 rule pts

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

medium

Semantic buttons and links

-10 rule pts

Detected 6 semantic control(s) out of 20.

61/100

6 pass, 5 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 speed signals

-10 rule pts

DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.

medium

Rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

Horizontal overflow: 3145px. Small tap targets: 14.

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

high

SEO / AEO

Page title

0/10

Title is 75 characters.

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 8: fix during launch polish.

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

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

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: seo_title_present.
- Fix title: Write a clear page title.
- Scanner check: Page title.
- Category: SEO / AEO.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 8; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Title is 75 characters.
- What needs attention: The browser title is missing, too short, or too long for a reliable search result headline.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: page title source in metadata config, document head, CMS SEO fields, layout defaults, or server-rendered template; metadata/head configuration, canonical URL logic, robots and sitemap routes, structured data blocks, page copy, headings, and internal navigation; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Write one specific title that names the product, page, or offer and its main outcome.
- Avoid duplicated title tags, keyword stuffing, vague words like Home, and titles that depend only on client-side rendering.
- Keep all metadata, headings, schema, canonical URLs, and visible copy consistent with the same public facts.
- Use accurate, crawlable, human-visible content as the source for search and answer-engine improvements.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- The public HTML has exactly one useful title between roughly 10 and 70 characters.
- The title matches the visible page promise and brand/product identity.
- The public URL exposes the corrected crawl/search/answer signal in rendered HTML or reachable public files.
- The change should be visible to a fresh unauthenticated request and likely improve the related FreeScan SEO / AEO check on rescan.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Security

Mixed content indicators

0/12

Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).

Failed: earned 0 of 12 points.

Priority: Priority 4: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.

Fix: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: security_mixed_content.
- Fix title: Remove insecure page resources.
- Scanner check: Mixed content indicators.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 4; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 12 of 12 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).
- What needs attention: The page references insecure HTTP assets or links from an HTTPS page.
- Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.
- 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: asset URLs, scripts, stylesheets, images, links, embeds, forms, CMS fields, and third-party snippets; 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: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports 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:
- Replace insecure http:// resources with https:// equivalents where supported.
- Remove or proxy resources that cannot be served securely.
- 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:
- The HTTPS page no longer references insecure HTTP assets, links, or form actions in public markup.
- No important assets break after the URL 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.
- 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

7/18

Failed: earned 7 of 18 points from partial coverage.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 11 of 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, 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

Image alt text

0/14

Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.

Failed: earned 0 of 14 points.

Priority: Priority 11: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.

Fix: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_alt_text.
- Fix title: Add meaningful image alt text.
- Scanner check: Image alt text.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 11; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 14 of 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.
- What needs attention: One or more images are missing alt text.
- Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.
- 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: image components, CMS image fields, markdown/MDX images, icon-only graphics, logos, badges, and decorative media; 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: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.
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 concise alt text for informative images and empty alt text for decorative images.
- Do not duplicate adjacent visible text in alt text unless needed for meaning.
- 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:
- Informative public images have meaningful accessible names.
- Decorative images are ignored by assistive technology.
- 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

Semantic buttons and links

0/10

Detected 6 semantic control(s) out of 20.

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 17: lower-risk cleanup after urgent launch blockers.

Why it matters: Non-semantic controls can be hard to use with keyboards and screen readers.

Fix: Use button for actions and anchor links for navigation, with clear accessible names.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: accessibility_semantic_controls.
- Fix title: Use semantic buttons and links.
- Scanner check: Semantic buttons and links.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 17; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 6 semantic control(s) out of 20.
- What needs attention: Interactive controls are not consistently represented as semantic buttons or links.
- Why it matters: Non-semantic controls can be hard to use with keyboards and screen readers.
- 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: clickable divs/spans, custom buttons, menus, tabs, cards, links, and keyboard event handlers; 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 button for actions and anchor links for navigation, with clear accessible names.
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:
- Use real buttons for actions and real links for navigation.
- Add keyboard support and accessible state only when native elements are not enough.
- 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:
- Interactive controls are keyboard operable and expose correct roles/names/states.
- The change preserves click, keyboard, hover, focus, and disabled states.
- 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

11 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 11 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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 3 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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 3 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 speed signals

0/10

DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.

Failed: earned 0 of 10 points.

Priority: Priority 14: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Slow pages lose impatient visitors and make every SEO, social, and paid-traffic visit work harder.

Fix: Reduce render-blocking scripts/styles, compress and size images, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party tags, and keep above-the-fold content quick to paint.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_rendered_performance.
- Fix title: Improve rendered speed signals.
- Scanner check: Rendered speed signals.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 14; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 10 of 10 rule points lost.
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.
- What needs attention: The browser-rendered page shows slow or heavy speed signals.
- Why it matters: Slow pages lose impatient visitors and make every SEO, social, and paid-traffic visit work harder.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
- Likely places to inspect: rendered performance metrics, image/video weight, third-party scripts, fonts, blocking resources, and hydration behavior; page layout, responsive CSS, component states, copy hierarchy, CTA placement, spacing tokens, rendered console output, and performance-sensitive assets; the route, template, component, CMS entry, theme file, or static page that renders the scanned URL; shared layout, metadata, routing, middleware, server, CDN, or hosting configuration if the issue is not in page content; existing tests, build scripts, preview commands, and deployment notes before choosing verification steps.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Reduce render-blocking scripts/styles, compress and size images, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party tags, and keep above-the-fold content quick to paint.
First reproduce or verify the issue from the public page and available implementation source. Then make the smallest stack-appropriate change that fixes the scanner signal and improves the real user experience.
Use this check-specific implementation guide:
- Reduce obvious performance bottlenecks with targeted asset, script, font, or loading changes.
- Avoid removing required analytics, auth, payment, or product functionality without approval.
- Improve the actual rendered page at mobile and desktop sizes, not only the source code shape.
- Preserve core conversion flows while making layout, hierarchy, readability, or runtime health better.
- Keep the implementation stack-appropriate: use the existing framework, CMS, hosting provider, design system, and deployment workflow already in the project.
Acceptance criteria for this fix:
- Rendered performance metrics improve or the bottleneck is clearly documented.
- The page still renders complete content and key interactions.
- The rendered page is visually stable and usable on mobile and desktop viewports.
- The fix does not hide content, break CTAs, introduce console errors, or reduce clarity for visitors.
- A fresh FreeScan rescan should show this check improved or passing after deployment.
## Output
Return a structured response with these headings: Findings, Changes Made, Verification Results, Rescan Expectation, Rollback Notes, Assumptions.
## Rules
- Ask a clarifying question when required context is missing.
- Preserve the user's intent and avoid inventing facts.
- Verify the issue exists before changing code or content. If the issue is not reproducible, explain what you checked and recommend no code change.
- If the live URL and implementation source disagree, trust the implementation source for edits and use the live URL only to understand current public behavior.
- Keep the change narrowly scoped to this fix unless another change is required to avoid a regression.
- Match the existing framework, style, design system, routing patterns, and content conventions.
- Preserve existing URLs, forms, analytics, SEO metadata, accessibility semantics, and conversion flows unless the fix explicitly requires changing them.
- Do not perform broad refactors, dependency upgrades, redesigns, rewrites, migrations, file deletions, route changes, or destructive commands unless they are explicitly required and approved.
- Make changes that are easy to review and roll back.
- Prefer editing the canonical source of the page over patching built output, generated files, CDN-cached HTML, or minified assets.
- Do not make a cosmetic or placeholder change just to satisfy the scanner; the public page should be materially better for visitors, crawlers, or assistive technology.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

low

Design

Runtime console health

0/7

Detected 1 site-authored console error(s) and 0 uncaught page error(s) during render. Samples: AxiosError: Request failed with status code 401

Failed: earned 0 of 7 points.

Priority: Priority 15: fix during launch polish.

Why it matters: Runtime errors can break forms, CTAs, animations, tracking, or responsive behavior even when the static HTML looks fine.

Fix: Open the page in a browser, reproduce the console errors, and fix missing assets, hydration problems, client-side exceptions, or failing third-party scripts.

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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.com.
- Scanner check ID: design_runtime_health.
- Fix title: Fix runtime browser errors.
- Scanner check: Runtime console health.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: low.
- Priority: 15; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 7 of 7 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 site-authored console error(s) and 0 uncaught page error(s) during render. Samples: AxiosError: Request failed with status code 401
- What needs attention: The rendered page produced console or uncaught JavaScript errors.
- Why it matters: Runtime errors can break forms, CTAs, animations, tracking, or responsive behavior even when the static HTML looks fine.
- 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: browser console errors, uncaught page errors, missing assets, hydration issues, and third-party script failures; 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: Open the page in a browser, reproduce the console errors, and fix missing assets, hydration problems, client-side exceptions, or failing third-party scripts.
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:
- Reproduce the runtime error and fix the source rather than hiding console output.
- Handle missing data, failed requests, and client-only APIs safely.
- 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 page renders without the reported console or uncaught page errors.
- No key interaction, analytics, or rendering flow breaks after the fix.
- 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: 3145px. 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 salonevamichelle.com at https://www.salonevamichelle.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: 3145px. 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.

90/100 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

The exact scanned URL was not found in the fetched sitemap.

Structured data

Detected 4 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite.

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 772 visible words and 12 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.

Authorship and accountability

No author meta value or structured-data author was detected.

Published or updated date

No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.

Supporting-source links

Detected 12 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.

Rendered content availability

Rendered audit completed with 125 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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

OpenAIOpenAI model training

GPTBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude model training

ClaudeBot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AnthropicClaude search

Claude-SearchBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

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

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

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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

PerplexityPerplexity search

PerplexityBot

PASS · ALLOWED

AI search

Robots: allowed

Probe: reachable · HTTP 200 · 100% parity

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vendor documentationDefinition checked 2026-07-30

AmazonAmazon model training

Amazonbot

POLICY ALLOWED

Model training

Robots: allowed

Probe: not tested for this control

IndexSnippetsSitemapPublic content

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

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

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

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

salonevamichelle.com website audit report

Needs fixes before launch: 67/100 overall, with prioritized fixes for SEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Public report link

Markdown report

# salonevamichelle.com Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://www.salonevamichelle.com](https://www.salonevamichelle.com)
Report URL: /scan/salonevamichelle-com-67-launch-readiness-report-e1719c42
Created: 2026-08-08T18:03:14.101Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 67/100
- SEO / AEO: 91/100
- Security: 70/100
- Accessibility: 47/100
- Design: 61/100

## Launch Readiness

Needs fixes before launch (Needs focused fixes).

Passed: 25. Failed: 12. Unknown: 1.
Strongest area: SEO / AEO. 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 matching robots.txt rule blocks OAI-SearchBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **OpenAI — OpenAI model training** (GPTBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks GPTBot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **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.
- **Anthropic — Claude model training** (ClaudeBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks ClaudeBot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Anthropic — Claude search** (Claude-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Claude-SearchBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Anthropic — Claude user fetches** (Claude-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Claude-User from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Google — Google Search and AI features** (Googlebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Googlebot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Google — Gemini data use and grounding** (Google-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks Google-Extended from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Microsoft — Bing and Copilot** (Bingbot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Bingbot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Perplexity — Perplexity search** (PerplexityBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks PerplexityBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **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.
- **Apple — Siri, Spotlight, and Safari search** (Applebot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Applebot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Apple — Apple foundation-model training** (Applebot-Extended): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks Applebot-Extended from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral search** (MistralAI-Index): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks MistralAI-Index from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Mistral AI — Mistral user fetches** (MistralAI-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks MistralAI-User from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Meta — Meta AI model and product data** (meta-externalagent): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks meta-externalagent from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Meta — Meta AI user fetches** (meta-externalfetcher): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks meta-externalfetcher from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Amazon — Amazon model training** (Amazonbot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks Amazonbot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.
- **Amazon — Alexa and Rufus search** (Amzn-SearchBot): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Amzn-SearchBot from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Amazon — Alexa user fetches** (Amzn-User): PASS — robots allowed; synthetic probe reachable (HTTP 200). No matching robots.txt rule blocks Amzn-User from /. Synthetic User-Agent probe returned HTTP 200 with 100% sampled-content parity.
- **Common Crawl — Open web datasets** (CCBot): PREFERENCE — robots allowed; synthetic probe not_tested. No matching robots.txt rule blocks CCBot from /. No synthetic fetch is appropriate for this policy or training control.

## Page-level AEO Readiness

Readiness: 90/100

- **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 — The exact scanned URL was not found in the fetched sitemap.
- **Structured data**: PASS — Detected 4 JSON-LD block(s), 0 parse error(s), and types GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite.
- **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 772 visible words and 12 audience, use-case, pricing, or integration signals.
- **Authorship and accountability**: UNKNOWN — No author meta value or structured-data author was detected.
- **Published or updated date**: UNKNOWN — No datePublished or dateModified value was detected in structured data.
- **Supporting-source links**: PASS — Detected 12 external source or reference link(s); link quality still requires editorial review.
- **Rendered content availability**: PASS — Rendered audit completed with 125 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. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 4 violation rule(s), including 3 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: image-alt (1), link-name (2), scrollable-region-focusable (1), landmark-unique (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.

### 2. Remove insecure page resources

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 12
- Evidence: Detected 4 insecure asset or link reference(s).
- Why it matters: Mixed content can cause browser warnings, broken assets, and lower visitor trust.
- Fix: Change public asset, link, and form URLs from http:// to https:// where the destination supports it.

### 3. Add common public security headers

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 11
- Evidence: Detected 2 of 5 common public security controls. Present: strict-transport-security, x-content-type-options. Missing: content-security-policy, 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.

### 4. Add meaningful image alt text

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 14
- Evidence: Detected 4 image(s) missing alt text out of 42.
- Why it matters: People using screen readers may miss product context, trust signals, or calls to action.
- Fix: Add concise alt text for informative images and use empty alt text only for decorative images.

### 5. Write a clear page title

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 10
- Evidence: Title is 75 characters.
- Why it matters: Search engines, social previews, and saved browser tabs use the title to tell people what your product is.
- Fix: Set one concise title tag, ideally 10 to 70 characters, that includes the product name and the main promise.

## Opportunities

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

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 0. 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.

### Review snippet and preview controls

- Impact: low
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Open Graph image was detected. Preview controls detected: 0.
- Why it matters: Preview controls can clarify how much text, image, and video content search systems may show from the page.
- Next step: Only add robots preview controls when you intentionally want to limit snippets or image/video previews; otherwise leave previews open.

### Speed up the rendered first impression

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 1739ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Scripts: 59. Third-party origins: 8. Transfer: not available.
- Why it matters: Visitors judge quality before reading much copy; a slow first render makes the product feel heavier and less trustworthy.
- Next step: Compress hero media, defer non-critical JavaScript, reduce third-party scripts, and keep the first viewport visually complete without waiting on heavy client work.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 11 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: 3145px. 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.

### Measure search performance with first-party data

- Impact: medium
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: robots.txt and a sitemap were reachable, so the site has the basics needed for Search Console verification and monitoring.
- Why it matters: A scan can identify technical readiness, but Search Console and analytics reveal impressions, queries, clicks, pages, and conversions over time.
- Next step: Verify the domain in Search Console, submit the sitemap, and pair query/page data with analytics events for signups, demo requests, and purchases.

## Insights

### The page appears basically crawlable

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: HTTP 200. robots.txt: HTTP 200. sitemap.xml: HTTP 200. noindex check: clear.
- Interpretation: The public page satisfies the basic crawl/index path the scan can verify.
- 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: 772. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 12. CTA labels: BOOK AN APPOINTMENT NOW!.
- 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: Salon Eva Michelle - Best Hair Salon in Boston | Award-Winning Color & Cuts. H1: Salon Eva Michelle. Schema types: GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite.
- 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.

### Structured data is present

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: JSON-LD blocks: 4. Types: GeoCoordinates, HairSalon, LocalBusiness, OpeningHoursSpecification, Organization, PostalAddress, WebSite. Parse errors: 0.
- Interpretation: The page exposes machine-readable facts, but quality still depends on whether those facts match visible content.
- 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: 91/100. Security: 70/100. Accessibility: 47/100. Design: 61/100
- 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: 11. Console errors: 1. Horizontal overflow: 3145px.
- 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: 1739ms. Load complete: 2455ms. First contentful paint: 544ms. Resources: 122. Scripts: 59. Images: 30. Third-party origins: 8. 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: 4. Critical: 1. Serious: 2. Top rules: image-alt, link-name, scrollable-region-focusable, landmark-unique.
- 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 salonevamichelle.com without re-entering the URL. The previous report stays saved so the next result can be compared against it.

Website audit scorecard for salonevamichelle.com

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Remove insecure page resources

Copyable agent prompt

Add common public security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Add meaningful image alt text

Copyable agent prompt

Write a clear page title

Copyable agent prompt

SEO / AEO

Page title

Security

Mixed content indicators

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Image alt text

Semantic buttons and links

Design

Trust signals

Rendered speed signals

Rendered layout ergonomics

Failed checks

Page title

Copyable agent prompt

Mixed content indicators

Copyable agent prompt

Common security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Image alt text

Copyable agent prompt

Semantic buttons and links

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 speed signals

Copyable agent prompt

Runtime console health

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 salonevamichelle.com

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Remove insecure page resources

Copyable agent prompt

Add common public security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Add meaningful image alt text

Copyable agent prompt

Write a clear page title

Copyable agent prompt

SEO / AEO

Page title

Security

Mixed content indicators

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Image alt text

Semantic buttons and links

Design

Trust signals

Rendered speed signals

Rendered layout ergonomics

Failed checks

Page title

Copyable agent prompt

Mixed content indicators