completed

HTTP 200

1 redirects

38 checks

Website audit scorecard for serviceinvoice.site

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

Submitted

https://serviceinvoice.site/

Final URL

https://www.serviceinvoice.site

Created

Jul 21, 2026, 12:44 PM

Safe fetch

172 ms

Four-score result

Close to ready (Needs polish): 33 passed, 5 failed, and 0 unknown. Strongest area: SEO / AEO. Weakest area: Security.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

100

out of 100

114/114 rule points

Security

out of 100

46/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

68/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

101/110 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 / AEO114/114

Security46/76

Accessibility68/94

Design101/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), landmark-unique (1).

critical

Security

Sensitive file probes

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

high

Security

Common security headers

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

medium

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

Recommendations

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

5 fixes

5 opportunities

9 insights

fail

critical

Security

Priority 1

Remove exposed sensitive files

-16 rule pts

What failed

A small public allowlist probe found a sensitive-looking file path.

Evidence

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

Priority

Priority 1: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.

How to fix it

Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Remove exposed sensitive files.
- Scanner check: Sensitive file probes.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: critical.
- Priority: 1; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 16 rule points lost.
- Evidence: A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.
- What needs attention: A small public allowlist probe found a sensitive-looking file path.
- Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.
- 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.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

-14 rule pts

What failed

Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.

Evidence

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

Priority

Priority 5: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

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

How to fix it

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

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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: 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Accessibility

Priority 5

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

What failed

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

Evidence

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

Priority 13

Fix rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

What failed

The browser-rendered page has layout or tap-target issues.

Evidence

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

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.

How to fix it

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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

Priority 20

Improve detectable color contrast

-8 rule pts

What failed

The scanner found text/background color pairs that may be hard to read, or could not verify contrast.

Evidence

1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.

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.

How to fix it

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

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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 rule points lost.
- Evidence: 1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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.

100/100

13 pass, 0 fail, 0 unknown

SEO / AEO

Severity mix: 1 critical, 7 high, 3 medium, 2 low.

No failed checks in this category.

61/100

4 pass, 2 fail, 0 unknown

Security

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

critical

Sensitive file probes

-16 rule pts

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

high

Common security headers

-14 rule pts

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

72/100

6 pass, 2 fail, 0 unknown

Accessibility

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

high

Rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), landmark-unique (1).

medium

Basic contrast

-8 rule pts

1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.

92/100

10 pass, 1 fail, 0 unknown

Design

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

medium

Rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

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

Security

Common security headers

4/18

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

Failed: earned 4 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: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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: 14 of 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

critical

Security

Sensitive file probes

0/16

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

Failed: earned 0 of 16 points.

Priority: Priority 1: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.

Fix: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Remove exposed sensitive files.
- Scanner check: Sensitive file probes.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: critical.
- Priority: 1; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 16 of 16 rule points lost.
- Evidence: A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.
- What needs attention: A small public allowlist probe found a sensitive-looking file path.
- Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.
- 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.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.

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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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: 1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

0/18

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 18 of 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

medium

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

0/9

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Fix rendered layout ergonomics.
- Scanner check: Rendered layout ergonomics.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 13; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 9 of 9 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

Public report link

Markdown export

Share the website audit report

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

Share preview

serviceinvoice.site website audit report

Close to ready: 81/100 overall, with prioritized fixes for SEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Public report link

Markdown report

# serviceinvoice.site Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://www.serviceinvoice.site](https://www.serviceinvoice.site)
Report URL: /scan/serviceinvoice-site-81-launch-readiness-report-99d93a90
Created: 2026-07-21T12:44:23.393Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 81/100
- SEO / AEO: 100/100
- Security: 61/100
- Accessibility: 72/100
- Design: 92/100

## Launch Readiness

Close to ready (Needs polish).

Passed: 33. Failed: 5. Unknown: 0.
Strongest area: SEO / AEO. Weakest area: Security.

## Prioritized Fixes

### 1. Remove exposed sensitive files

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: critical
- Rule points lost: 16
- Evidence: A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.
- Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.
- Fix: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.

### 2. Add common public security headers

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 14
- Evidence: Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Fix: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.

### 3. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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.

### 4. Fix rendered layout ergonomics

- Category: Design
- Status: fail
- Severity: medium
- Rule points lost: 9
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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.

### 5. Improve detectable color contrast

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: medium
- Rule points lost: 8
- Evidence: 1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.
- 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.

## Opportunities

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

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 3. 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.

### 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.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 1 of 100 rendered contrast sample(s) missed target. Worst ratio: 2.54.
- Why it matters: Computed contrast catches the actual colors visitors see after CSS, themes, and overlays are applied.
- Next step: Audit foreground/background token pairs for body text, muted text, links, buttons, inputs, and badges, then raise weak pairs to WCAG AA contrast targets.

### Polish rendered responsive ergonomics

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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 sitemap.xml 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: 566. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 13. CTA labels: Get started, Start for free, How to start a handyman business The steps that matter, from registering to your first invoice. Read more, Get started, Start free, upgrade later, How to start a handyman business.
- 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: ServiceInvoice | Invoicing & job management for handyman businesses. H1: Run your service business without the paperwork. Schema types: Organization, SoftwareApplication, 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: 3. Types: Organization, SoftwareApplication, 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: Security
- Evidence: SEO / AEO: 100/100. Security: 61/100. Accessibility: 72/100. Design: 92/100
- Interpretation: The weakest area is Security, 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 found

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: https://www.serviceinvoice.site/llms.txt returned HTTP 200.
- 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: 1. Console errors: 0. Horizontal overflow: 0px.
- Interpretation: The scan inspected the browser-rendered page, so contrast, runtime, layout, and timing signals are more representative than static markup alone.
- Recommended use: Use rendered checks to prioritize issues that visitors actually experience after JavaScript and CSS load.

### Rendered speed snapshot

- Category: Design
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 361ms. Load complete: 364ms. First contentful paint: 388ms. Resources: 7. Scripts: 2. Images: 1. Third-party origins: 5. Transfer: not available.
- Interpretation: These are lightweight browser timings from one rendered scan, so they are useful directional signals rather than real-user performance proof.
- Recommended use: Use slow timings, high script counts, heavy transfer size, and many third-party origins to choose focused speed work, then verify important changes with analytics or field data when available.

### Rendered axe accessibility snapshot

- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: axe violations: 2. Critical: 0. Serious: 1. Top rules: color-contrast, 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 serviceinvoice.site 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

1 redirects

38 checks

Website audit scorecard for serviceinvoice.site

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

Submitted

https://serviceinvoice.site/

Final URL

https://www.serviceinvoice.site

Created

Jul 21, 2026, 12:44 PM

Safe fetch

172 ms

Four-score result

Close to ready (Needs polish): 33 passed, 5 failed, and 0 unknown. Strongest area: SEO / AEO. Weakest area: Security.

Overall

out of 100

SEO / AEO

100

out of 100

114/114 rule points

Security

out of 100

46/76 rule points

Accessibility

out of 100

68/94 rule points

Design

out of 100

101/110 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 / AEO114/114

Security46/76

Accessibility68/94

Design101/110

Biggest score-losing checks

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), landmark-unique (1).

critical

Security

Sensitive file probes

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

high

Security

Common security headers

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

medium

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

Recommendations

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

5 fixes

5 opportunities

9 insights

fail

critical

Security

Priority 1

Remove exposed sensitive files

-16 rule pts

What failed

A small public allowlist probe found a sensitive-looking file path.

Evidence

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

Priority

Priority 1: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.

How to fix it

Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Remove exposed sensitive files.
- Scanner check: Sensitive file probes.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: critical.
- Priority: 1; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 16 rule points lost.
- Evidence: A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.
- What needs attention: A small public allowlist probe found a sensitive-looking file path.
- Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.
- 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.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

-14 rule pts

What failed

Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.

Evidence

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

Priority

Priority 5: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters

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

How to fix it

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

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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: 14 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Accessibility

Priority 5

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

What failed

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

Evidence

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

Priority 13

Fix rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

What failed

The browser-rendered page has layout or tap-target issues.

Evidence

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

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.

How to fix it

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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

Priority 20

Improve detectable color contrast

-8 rule pts

What failed

The scanner found text/background color pairs that may be hard to read, or could not verify contrast.

Evidence

1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.

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.

How to fix it

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

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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 rule points lost.
- Evidence: 1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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.

100/100

13 pass, 0 fail, 0 unknown

SEO / AEO

Severity mix: 1 critical, 7 high, 3 medium, 2 low.

No failed checks in this category.

61/100

4 pass, 2 fail, 0 unknown

Security

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

critical

Sensitive file probes

-16 rule pts

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

high

Common security headers

-14 rule pts

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

72/100

6 pass, 2 fail, 0 unknown

Accessibility

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

high

Rendered axe accessibility violations

-18 rule pts

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), landmark-unique (1).

medium

Basic contrast

-8 rule pts

1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.

92/100

10 pass, 1 fail, 0 unknown

Design

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

medium

Rendered layout ergonomics

-9 rule pts

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

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

Security

Common security headers

4/18

Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.

Failed: earned 4 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: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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: 14 of 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- What needs attention: Several basic browser protection headers were not visible.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Status-specific guidance: A public check reported a failure. Reproduce or inspect the issue first, then make the smallest safe fix.
- Audience or recipient: The site owner, builder, or marketing team responsible for improving this public page.
- Constraints, examples, or source material: Treat the live URL as the public target to inspect, not as the only source of truth. When repository, CMS, or hosting access is available, use that implementation context before changing anything.
- Target outcome: After the fix is deployed and the public page is rescanned, this specific check should improve or pass without lowering other SEO / AEO, security, accessibility, or design signals.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

critical

Security

Sensitive file probes

0/16

A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.

Failed: earned 0 of 16 points.

Priority: Priority 1: fix before sharing the page publicly.

Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.

Fix: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.

Copyable agent prompt

## Role
Act as a focused expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Remove exposed sensitive files.
- Scanner check: Sensitive file probes.
- Category: Security.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: critical.
- Priority: 1; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 16 of 16 rule points lost.
- Evidence: A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.
- What needs attention: A small public allowlist probe found a sensitive-looking file path.
- Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.
- 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.
## Task
Use the provided context to safely complete this workflow: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- 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

1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.

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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- 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: 1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

high

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

0/18

axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Fix rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Scanner check: Rendered axe accessibility violations.
- Category: Accessibility.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: high.
- Priority: 5; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 18 of 18 rule points lost.
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

fail

medium

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

0/9

Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.

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 expert website launch remediation agent for this workflow.
## Inputs
- Primary context: Improve serviceinvoice.site at https://www.serviceinvoice.site.
- Fix title: Fix rendered layout ergonomics.
- Scanner check: Rendered layout ergonomics.
- Category: Design.
- Status: fail.
- Severity: medium.
- Priority: 13; lower numbers are more urgent.
- Score impact: 9 of 9 rule points lost.
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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.
## 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.
Before editing, identify the likely source of the issue, the smallest change that can fix it, and any user-visible behavior that must be preserved.
## Output
Return a structured response with headings, prioritized recommendations, changed files or page areas, verification results, rollback notes, and stated 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.
- Verify the result with the smallest reliable test, build, browser check, or manual inspection available.
## Safety
- Do not request, expose, or reproduce sensitive data.
- Redact private details from examples unless the user explicitly says they are safe to include.
- Do not use credentials, cookies, authenticated data, hidden form values, or private response bodies.
- Do not weaken security headers, authentication, authorization, privacy controls, accessibility, or error handling to make the scan pass.

Public report link

Markdown export

Share the website audit report

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

Share preview

serviceinvoice.site website audit report

Close to ready: 81/100 overall, with prioritized fixes for SEO, security, accessibility, and design.

Public report link

Markdown report

# serviceinvoice.site Website Scan

Scanned URL: [https://www.serviceinvoice.site](https://www.serviceinvoice.site)
Report URL: /scan/serviceinvoice-site-81-launch-readiness-report-99d93a90
Created: 2026-07-21T12:44:23.393Z

## Score Summary

- Overall: 81/100
- SEO / AEO: 100/100
- Security: 61/100
- Accessibility: 72/100
- Design: 92/100

## Launch Readiness

Close to ready (Needs polish).

Passed: 33. Failed: 5. Unknown: 0.
Strongest area: SEO / AEO. Weakest area: Security.

## Prioritized Fixes

### 1. Remove exposed sensitive files

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: critical
- Rule points lost: 16
- Evidence: A small allowlist probe returned a public success response.
- Why it matters: Publicly exposed config or backup files can leak implementation details or secrets.
- Fix: Remove the exposed file, block public access to that path, and rotate any secrets that may have been exposed.

### 2. Add common public security headers

- Category: Security
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 14
- Evidence: Detected 1 of 5 common public security headers. Present: strict-transport-security. Missing: content-security-policy, x-content-type-options, x-frame-options, referrer-policy.
- Why it matters: These headers reduce avoidable browser-side risk and show a baseline of care before launch.
- Fix: Configure headers such as Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options, X-Frame-Options, and Referrer-Policy.

### 3. Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: high
- Rule points lost: 18
- Evidence: axe found 2 violation rule(s), including 1 serious or critical rule(s). Top rules: color-contrast (6), 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.

### 4. Fix rendered layout ergonomics

- Category: Design
- Status: fail
- Severity: medium
- Rule points lost: 9
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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.

### 5. Improve detectable color contrast

- Category: Accessibility
- Status: fail
- Severity: medium
- Rule points lost: 8
- Evidence: 1 of 100 rendered text color sample(s) missed WCAG contrast targets. Worst rendered ratio: 2.54.
- 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.

## Opportunities

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

- Impact: high
- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: Pricing signals: 3. 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.

### 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.

### Tighten the live color system

- Impact: high
- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: 1 of 100 rendered contrast sample(s) missed target. Worst ratio: 2.54.
- Why it matters: Computed contrast catches the actual colors visitors see after CSS, themes, and overlays are applied.
- Next step: Audit foreground/background token pairs for body text, muted text, links, buttons, inputs, and badges, then raise weak pairs to WCAG AA contrast targets.

### Polish rendered responsive ergonomics

- Impact: medium
- Category: Design
- Evidence: Horizontal overflow: 0px. Small tap targets: 20.
- 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 sitemap.xml 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: 566. H1 count: 1. Audience signals: 13. CTA labels: Get started, Start for free, How to start a handyman business The steps that matter, from registering to your first invoice. Read more, Get started, Start free, upgrade later, How to start a handyman business.
- 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: ServiceInvoice | Invoicing & job management for handyman businesses. H1: Run your service business without the paperwork. Schema types: Organization, SoftwareApplication, 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: 3. Types: Organization, SoftwareApplication, 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: Security
- Evidence: SEO / AEO: 100/100. Security: 61/100. Accessibility: 72/100. Design: 92/100
- Interpretation: The weakest area is Security, 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 found

- Category: SEO / AEO
- Evidence: https://www.serviceinvoice.site/llms.txt returned HTTP 200.
- 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: 1. Console errors: 0. Horizontal overflow: 0px.
- Interpretation: The scan inspected the browser-rendered page, so contrast, runtime, layout, and timing signals are more representative than static markup alone.
- Recommended use: Use rendered checks to prioritize issues that visitors actually experience after JavaScript and CSS load.

### Rendered speed snapshot

- Category: Design
- Evidence: DOMContentLoaded: 361ms. Load complete: 364ms. First contentful paint: 388ms. Resources: 7. Scripts: 2. Images: 1. Third-party origins: 5. Transfer: not available.
- Interpretation: These are lightweight browser timings from one rendered scan, so they are useful directional signals rather than real-user performance proof.
- Recommended use: Use slow timings, high script counts, heavy transfer size, and many third-party origins to choose focused speed work, then verify important changes with analytics or field data when available.

### Rendered axe accessibility snapshot

- Category: Accessibility
- Evidence: axe violations: 2. Critical: 0. Serious: 1. Top rules: color-contrast, 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 serviceinvoice.site without re-entering the URL. The previous report stays saved so the next result can be compared against it.

Website audit scorecard for serviceinvoice.site

Remove exposed sensitive files

Copyable agent prompt

Add common public security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Fix rendered layout ergonomics

Copyable agent prompt

Improve detectable color contrast

Copyable agent prompt

SEO / AEO

Security

Sensitive file probes

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Basic contrast

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

Failed checks

Common security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Sensitive file probes

Copyable agent prompt

Basic contrast

Copyable agent prompt

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Rendered layout ergonomics

Copyable agent prompt

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

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

Website audit scorecard for serviceinvoice.site

Remove exposed sensitive files

Copyable agent prompt

Add common public security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Fix rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Fix rendered layout ergonomics

Copyable agent prompt

Improve detectable color contrast

Copyable agent prompt

SEO / AEO

Security

Sensitive file probes

Common security headers

Accessibility

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Basic contrast

Design

Rendered layout ergonomics

Failed checks

Common security headers

Copyable agent prompt

Sensitive file probes

Copyable agent prompt

Basic contrast

Copyable agent prompt

Rendered axe accessibility violations

Copyable agent prompt

Rendered layout ergonomics

Copyable agent prompt

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

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