TLDR:
Most SEO audits only check surface stuff like meta titles. The real wins are deeper:
crawl budget waste, rendering gaps, canonical conflicts, hreflang errors.
I built 10 niche technical SEO prompts to find them, then rebuilt them so the AI flags weak data, returns clean tables, and gives developer-ready fixes with a way to verify each one worked.
They cover crawl budget, indexation, Core Web Vitals, architecture, rendering, schema, canonicalization, hreflang, migrations, and log files.
Grab the pack here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qAqyH16IOhlW40oidVZvf_x74W6gpR7o/view?usp=drive_link
Long Version 👇
The real wins in SEO happen underneath the hood
- Crawl budget waste
- JavaScript rendering gaps
- Conflicting canonical signals
- Hreflang errors that quietly split the ranking equity across the wrong pages
These are some of the issues that decide whether Google can actually find, understand, and trust your site (Makes sense?)
See generally, almost every website has a few structural problems dragging down its performance
The frustrating part is that they rarely show up in standard tools
Your traffic just plateaus, or slowly leaks, and the reason remains ambiguous
Here is what usually hides in the dark:
A site submits 5,000 pages and only 800 get indexed
The owner assumes Google "just needs more time."
The truth is Google looked, decided most of those pages weren't worth keeping, and moved on
Or Googlebot burns most of its crawl visits on filter pages, search results, and tracking parameters...
While the pages that actually make money get crawled once a month
Or the homepage loads beautifully on your laptop, but the rendered version Google sees is missing half the links because they load through JavaScript a fraction too late
None of this is visible from the front end
You have to go look
So I put together 10 technical SEO prompts to audit sites at a senior level
Each one is built to give you specific, actionable output instead of vague advice you can't act on
because they cover
- Honesty guardrails
- A defined output format
- An input checklist
- Developer-ready fixes
- A verification step at the end of every prompt
---
What the prompts cover:
1) Crawl budget and server log file analysis
2) Indexation diagnosis (why submitted pages don't get indexed)
3) Core Web Vitals at the template level, not page by page
4) Site architecture and internal link equity flow
5) JavaScript rendering and content that depends on it
6) Structured data gaps and schema validation errors
7) Duplicate content and canonicalization conflicts
8) International SEO and hreflang validation
9) Migration risk assessment and post-launch monitoring
10) Bot behavior analysis and where to redirect crawler attention
You can run these on a client site or your own
Either way, they may surface problems that a normal checklist walks right past
A word of caution, though...
Technical SEO is not a one time fix.
Sites change, Templates get updated, Developers push code, New issues appear
The teams that win treat this as an ongoing discipline, not a project they finish once and forget
If you only do one thing this week, pull your log files and look at how Google actually crawls your site, not how you think it does
The gap between those two things is usually where the opportunity lives
---
Reply if you found this useful, or tell me which of these areas trips you up the most
Happy to go deeper on any of them.
The detailed prompts are available from the link https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qAqyH16IOhlW40oidVZvf_x74W6gpR7o/view?usp=drive_link
