Why do website audit tools stop at telling you what's wrong?

I've always found something frustrating about website audit tools.

You run an audit, wait for the crawl to finish, and get a huge list of problems:

• Missing meta descriptions

• Broken links

• Missing alt text

• Accessibility issues

• Poor performance

• Bad structured data

• Security headers

• Duplicate content

Great. Now you have 137 things to fix manually.

That got me thinking: what if the audit didn't end with the report?

That's the idea behind OptiQra.

Instead of treating auditing and optimization as two completely separate steps, I'm building it around a simple loop:

Find → Fix → Verify

Some issues can be fixed deterministically. Others need actual content generation, where OptiQra can use your own AI provider/API key to generate and apply the fix.

I've also been experimenting with something that traditional website auditors don't really cover: AI search visibility.

As people increasingly use ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini, and other AI systems to discover information, I think website optimization is going to become more than just optimizing for traditional search engines.

That's where the GEO/AEO side of OptiQra comes in.

The project is open source, free to use, requires no account, and can also audit actual codebases through the desktop app.

I'm still actively building it, so I'm curious:

Do you actually want website audit tools to fix issues automatically, or do you prefer audits to remain purely diagnostic?

And if you've built or maintained websites professionally, what's the most annoying part of the current audit → fix workflow?