Website Analyzer

Given URL, produces compact analysis in docs/ANALYSIS.md covering: structure + SEO, technologies, visual design, target audience. Closes with strengths, weaknesses, fixes.

Reader should grok site build, audience, next steps in minutes. File short, to the point: ten good lines beat fifty padded. Unverifiable → declared, not guessed.

Workflow

1. Prepare the URL

If scheme missing, add https://. If no link given, ask for it.

2. Collect raw data with the script

python3 <skill-path>/scripts/fetch_site.py <url>

Script uses stdlib only, prints JSON with: HTTP headers, home page SEO (title, meta description, H1/H2, canonical, hreflang, Open Graph, JSON-LD, images without alt), internal links, robots.txt, sitemap, technology signals, most used colors, CSS variables, fonts. Use --css-files N to read more stylesheets (default 6).

If JSON contains "error", network blocked from shell: switch to WebFetch to read pages (see step 3) and mark "not verifiable" everything needing HTML source (framework versions, CSS classes, loaded scripts). Don't retry with curl or other commands — same filter blocks all.

3. Read the pages that matter

With WebFetch, open home page then 3-4 pages from internal links: about, services/products, contact, blog/pricing. Don't crawl everything. Look for:

• what site sells/offers, one sentence
• tone of voice (formal, technical, ironic, institutional)
• main CTAs (quote, purchase, signup, booking)
• prices shown, language, geographic market, reviews/case studies

Page near-empty (likely_client_rendered: true in JSON) → site client-rendered: say so — affects SEO too.

4. Interpret, don't just list

Script gives clues, you draw conclusions. Criteria:

Structure and SEO

• Rebuild site map from internal_paths + sitemap: main sections, depth, rough page count.
• Check essentials: title (~50-60 chars), meta description (~120-160), single sensible H1, canonical, language, viewport, structured data, Open Graph, robots.txt + sitemap present, alt text on images.
• Flag only problems you see, with count ("12 of 14 images without alt").

Technologies

• Separate CMS, framework, CSS library, hosting/CDN, analytics, payments. Source the clue when non-obvious ("/_next/ in scripts, so Next.js").
• Tech from single weak clue = "likely". Tailwind shows in utility classes, but minified build hides it.
• Page builder (Elementor, Divi) or well-known theme present → say so: explains look + perf.

Visual design

• Palette: from most frequent CSS colors + variables (--primary etc.), identify primary, secondary, accent, neutrals. Report hex values. Ignore colors from bundled libraries (plugins, widgets), not site's own design.
• Fonts: separate headings vs body if possible, note source (Google Fonts, Adobe Fonts, self-hosted).
• One line on overall style (minimal, corporate, editorial, playful), based on content + visuals, not generic adjectives.

Target audience

• Derive from content: who pays (B2B/B2C, industry, typical customer size), who uses it, arrival context. Consider vocabulary, prices, CTAs, language, market.
• One-two sharp sentences beat invented persona list. Weak signals → say so.

5. Strengths, weaknesses and fixes

Only use findings from above. Every point needs evidence, every weakness needs fix.

Strengths: 3-5 real differentiators (clear value prop, fast/clean stack, solid SEO basics, coherent branding, strong CTAs), not generic praise.

Weaknesses: gaps + risks observed, ordered by impact (traffic, conversions, trust, maintainability). Look for: missing/weak SEO elements, accessibility (alt text, contrast, skip links), client-side rendering hiding content from crawlers, heavy page builders or too many third-party scripts, unclear/buried CTAs, missing privacy/cookie handling, inconsistent branding, thin content, missing social proof. Don't pad: two real problems → write two.

Solutions: one concrete fix per weakness. Says what to do + with what, tailored to detected stack (WordPress → plugin/setting, Next.js → metadata/rendering option, Webflow → built-in setting). Avoid generic advice ("improve your SEO"). Per fix: effort (low/medium/high) + priority (high/medium/low). Keep realistic for site size + audience. Mark "to verify" any suggestion depending on data you can't see from outside (traffic, conversion rate, real perf scores).

6. Write docs/ANALYSIS.md

• Create docs/ folder in working dir if needed.
• If docs/ANALYSIS.md exists, rename to docs/ANALYSIS.prev.md before writing.
• Use template below. Keep sections, drop rows with no data.

ANALYSIS.md template

# Analysis of <domain>

**URL:** <final url>  
**Analysis date:** <YYYY-MM-DD>  
**In one sentence:** <what the site is and what it offers>

## Structure and SEO

**Main pages:** <home, sections, depth, rough number of pages>

| Element | Status |
|---|---|
| Title | <short text> (<n> chars) |
| Meta description | ok / missing / too long |
| H1 | <text> |
| Canonical / language / viewport | ... |
| Sitemap and robots.txt | ... |
| Structured data and Open Graph | ... |
| Image alt text | <x of y without alt> |

**Worth noting:** <at most 3 points, only the ones that matter>

## Technologies

| Area | Detected | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| CMS / framework | ... | certain / likely |
| CSS / UI | ... | ... |
| Hosting / CDN | ... | ... |
| Analytics and marketing | ... | ... |
| Other (payments, cookies, etc.) | ... | ... |

**Rendering:** <static, server-side, client-side>. <One line on the impact on SEO and performance if relevant.>

## Visual design

**Palette**

| Role | Color |
|---|---|
| Primary | #xxxxxx |
| Secondary | #xxxxxx |
| Accent | #xxxxxx |
| Background / text | #xxxxxx / #xxxxxx |

**Fonts:** headings <font>, body <font> (<source>)  
**Style:** <one or two lines>

## Target audience

**Audience:** <who, industry, B2B/B2C, market>  
**Tone and proposition:** <how it speaks and what it promises>  
**Main CTAs:** <short list>

## Strengths

- <3-5 points, each with the evidence behind it>

## Weaknesses and how to fix them

| Weakness | Evidence | Proposed fix | Priority | Effort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| <what is wrong> | <what you saw> | <concrete action, adapted to the detected stack> | high / medium / low | low / medium / high |

## Key takeaways

- <3-5 points: what a hurried reader must take away, including the limits of the analysis>

Style rules for the file

• English, short direct sentences, colleague-over-coffee tone, not press release.
• No em/en dashes: use commas, colons, parentheses.
• No buzzwords or corporate speak ("end-to-end solution", "best-in-class").
• Weaknesses listed with evidence, always paired with fix. Never problem without fix, never fix without problem.
• Every claim rests on something seen. What can't be known from outside (traffic, conversions, backend, exact versions) written as "not detectable".
• Site in another language → report stays English, quoted text left in original.

Wrapping up

When file ready, reply with two-three sentences: file path + most interesting finding. Don't repeat report content in chat.