I built a no‑lead‑gen websitehealth & AI search visibility checker
Most “free SEO audits” I tried fell into two buckets:
Agency platforms at 140+ USD/month built for teams with budgets.
“Free” tools where pasting your URL just feeds an SEO agency’s sales funnel and gives you a generic PDF report.
I wanted something different: a tool that actually tells you what’s wrong with your site, shows what to fix first, and doesn’t ask for your email.
So I built SiteSense AI — Website health & AI search visibility.
🔗 Try it: https://sitesense-ai-nine.vercel.app/
What SiteSense AI does
You paste any URL and get back a structured website health report that covers:
SEO fundamentals – technical and on‑page signals.
Performance – Core Web Vitals and key Lighthouse metrics.
Accessibility – deterministic checks against WCAG 2.2.
AI Search Visibility – how understandable and “surfaceable” your content is for AI systems (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini, etc.).
Instead of a vague “overall score,” the report highlights a few high‑impact issues and explains:
Why each issue matters.
How it affects search, UX, or AI visibility.
Concrete steps you can take to fix it.
How it works (data, not vibes)
I’ve tried to make the scoring as transparent and reproducible as possible:
Performance data: pulled from Google Lighthouse.
Accessibility: uses axe-core with WCAG 2.2 rules, so checks like missing alt text, contrast, and ARIA misuse are deterministic.
SEO & technical health: based on page‑level signals from the scan.
AI Search Visibility: live AI analysis that looks at structure, metadata, and content clarity to estimate how easy it is for AI systems to understand and reference the page.
Accessibility is not scored by a language model. It’s rules‑based, so you can re‑scan and expect the same result after fixes.
Current status
Live and working.
Free tier: 5 scans per month, no signup required.
No paid plan yet.
Still early — I’m trying to figure out whether this is more useful as a one‑time audit or an ongoing “vitals” tracker.
I’d really value feedback from SEO folks
If you’re doing SEO, technical audits, or site optimization, I’d love your honest take after you run it on a site you know well:
Does the score feel directionally accurate?
Does it line up with what you already know about that site?
Are the findings clear and actionable?
Do the explanations actually help you decide what to fix first?
Is anything important missing or misleading?
Any signals you’d want to see that are absent right now?
Would you use this more than once?
Would you ever rescan to track improvements over 30–60 days?
Would this be worth paying for, and in what form?
More scans, history over time, exportable reports, alerts, something else?
I’m happy to trade feedback or dig into specific URLs if that’s useful.
Thanks in advance for any honest criticism — especially from people who live in SEO and auditing every day.
The harder product question seems to be whether the audit is valuable because it finds issues, or because it helps someone decide which issues are actually worth fixing first. That distinction could determine whether SiteSense becomes another audit tool or something people return to.
That’s exactly the product question I’m trying to answer. Finding issues is useful, but helping users decide what to fix first is probably where the stronger value lies. I’m exploring prioritizing recommendations by impact, effort, and confidence, then using tracking to show whether those fixes improved the site. That could make SiteSense more than a one-time checklist. Thanks for highlighting this distinction.
That’s a useful distinction, especially since you’re still figuring out what makes the product worth returning to. I’d be interested to hear what you learn from the first users — if you’re open to continuing the conversation, feel free to share your email.