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.
Really interesting approach, especially the focus on actionable fixes rather than just giving an SEO score.
I’m building SitePulse, a website health checker that checks performance, SEO, security, accessibility and technical health. I’d love to compare the results on the same website.
If you’re open to it, I’d appreciate your honest feedback on SitePulse too.
Thanks! Really appreciate that.
Yes, I'd definitely be up for comparing them on the same website. I think comparing the results side-by-side could be really useful — especially around how each tool prioritizes issues and turns the audit into actionable fixes.
I'll take a look at SitePulse and share some honest feedback as well. 👍
Thanks! 🙌 I’d really appreciate it. If you get a chance, try running the same website through both tools and let me know where you think SitePulse could improve. Especially the issue prioritization and recommendations. Looking forward to your feedback!
One thing I’d be curious about is how you’re thinking about the gap between identifying an issue and actually getting it fixed.
The audit can tell a founder exactly what’s wrong, but for many non-technical founders the next step is still “okay, but how do I implement this?” A clear fix path with the technical steps or implementation guidance could make the report even more valuable.
Especially interested in how you’re thinking about that part of the product.
That’s a really important gap. Identifying the issue is only half the value—many founders also need practical guidance to implement the fix.
I’m exploring ways to make each recommendation include clear steps, examples, expected effort, and a way to verify whether the fix worked. For more technical issues, the guidance could also include implementation details or examples for common platforms.
The goal is to make SiteSense useful not just for diagnosing problems, but for helping non-technical founders move from “what’s wrong?” to “how do I fix it?” Thanks for raising this!
I can turn SiteSense into a decision-first paid offer with a commercial-impact ranking, proof requirements, before-and-after examples, and a conversion path from the free check to paid implementation. The focused 20-minute session is $75. Book the Startup Advisory call here: https://calendly.com/dontae-threeum-nsuo/startup-advisory-call-20-min
Thanks for the thoughtful offer and for explaining how you’d approach SiteSense. The decision-first direction is very relevant to what I’m exploring.
I’m not in a position to invest in advisory sessions at the moment, so I’ll pass for now. I’m going to continue validating the product through user feedback and early usage data first. I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.
A diagnostic becomes valuable when every finding points to a specific decision and a measurable fix. I would rank the output by likely commercial impact, then show one before-and-after example so users can see how the score translates into action.
That’s a great point. I want SiteSense to connect every finding to a clear decision, practical fix, and measurable outcome. Ranking issues by commercial impact and showing before-and-after examples could make the report much more actionable. Thanks for the thoughtful feedback!
"No email, no funnel" is your actual wedge, the thing every other free audit fails, so lead with it harder than the feature list. It's a trust position, not a feature.
On your real question (one-time vs tracker), the answer's in your own four checks. SEO and accessibility are mostly fix-once-and-done, a one-time audit. But AI Search Visibility drifts constantly, the AI systems keep changing what they surface. That's the piece with a real reason to re-scan monthly, and your most novel check (nobody's doing AI-surfaceability well yet). So the tracker isn't the whole product, it's an "AI visibility over time" tracker. Lead the paid tier with the thing that changes.
Which check do people re-run most in your logs? That's the tracker.
Great framing — thank you.
You're right: "No email, no funnel" is the trust wedge and the single thing that differentiates SiteSense from most free audits. I've been burying that message under the feature list, so I'm going to make it much more prominent.
The static-vs-dynamic distinction is also incredibly helpful. SEO and accessibility are largely fix-and-verify problems, while AI Search Visibility shifts constantly as models update, content ages, and surfaces evolve.
Our early logs already show AI visibility as the most frequently re-run check — which supports your point exactly. I'm now planning to position the paid tier specifically around AI visibility over time, tracking how a site's AI-readiness changes, rather than bundling it as generic website monitoring.
The tracker isn't just a bolt-on — it becomes the recurring layer built around the most dynamic and differentiated part of the audit.
Really appreciate the sharp thinking. This directly influences where I'm taking the product.
Your logs confirming AI visibility as the most re-run check is the whole validation, you now have data saying "this is the recurring-value layer," which most founders never get before committing to a paid tier. Build on that hard.
One thing to nail: give the AI-visibility score a reason to feel urgent, not just trackable. "Track your AI-readiness over time" is a vitamin. "Your site dropped in AI-surfaceability this week, here's why" is a painkiller. The re-runs tell you people already care, so make the tracker alert-driven (tell them when it moves) not dashboard-driven (make them go look). The alert is what turns a monthly re-scan habit into a subscription.
That "vitamin dashboard vs painkiller alert" distinction is what I spend my time on, part of the team building Hivemind, an AI strategy copilot. If you want to pressure-test the tracker positioning: https://hivemind.myosin.xyz
Great distinction—“vitamin dashboard vs painkiller alert” makes the recurring value much clearer. Instead of simply showing that a score changed, SiteSense should tell users when AI visibility drops, what caused it, and what they can do next. That creates a real reason to return rather than another dashboard users have to remember to check. I’ll pressure-test the tracker around alert-driven AI visibility monitoring. Thanks for the sharp feedback—I’ll check out Hivemind.
The one-time audit vs ongoing tracker question feels like the biggest thing to figure out here. If someone runs it, fixes the issues, and has no reason to return, the recurring model gets difficult pretty quickly. I’d be curious whether the people testing it actually want to rescan their sites without being prompted.
Yeah, that’s exactly the question I’m trying to answer. The monitoring piece is already built into SiteLens — users can choose weekly or monthly rescans and get notified when their score changes significantly.
The goal isn’t to give people another reason to manually run an audit. It’s to make SiteLens useful in the background: SEO issues can reappear, content can change, and AI search visibility can shift over time.
I don’t have enough real-user data yet to know whether that creates enough ongoing value, so that’s one of the main things I’m looking to validate now. If people keep monitoring enabled after fixing their initial issues, that’ll be a much stronger signal that the recurring model makes sense.
That’s a useful distinction. The real signal will probably be whether users keep monitoring enabled after the obvious issues are fixed, rather than whether they use the initial audit.
I'd be interested in hearing what you learn from that. What's the best email to reach you on?
Thanks — you nailed the core tension.
To clarify: monitoring is built into our application. Users can opt into weekly or monthly rescans with score-change alerts. I'm leaning toward a freemium model: free initial audit, paid monitoring + history.
Have you run a site through it yet? I'm curious if the AI Search Visibility score felt useful or too abstract — that's the piece I'm least sure about. You can reach me at prasannabv@gmail.com.
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.