Catch discoverability issues early. Fix critical gaps fast. Protect AI visibility at scale.

Smart Audit keeps two separate scores: an LLM readiness score for how well AI engines can interpret and cite a page, and an SEO score for classic search readiness. They move independently.

Separating them avoids a common failure, where a technically clean page that ranks perfectly well is still unusable as a citation source.

• Both scores charted over time from the same audit runs
• Issues grouped into LLM and SEO lanes instead of one merged list
• Critical and high-priority issue counts visible per lane
• A baseline snapshot to measure later remediation against

Most teams pick the weaker lane, fix that first, and use the next scheduled run as the before-and-after.

Yes. Every Smart Audit rule opens into a detail view listing the pages that failed it, and that list can be searched, filtered, and prioritized by severity and by how many pages are affected.

Grouping by rule rather than by URL means a single fix pattern can be applied across every page that shares the problem.

• Pass, partial, and fail status per rule, with the affected page count
• Search across impacted pages from inside the rule detail
• Issue groups filtered by severity and by LLM or SEO lane
• A suggested patch summary attached to the rule, such as a JSON-LD correction

Audit depth follows the plan: Basic audits up to 800 pages, Pro audits all pages, and Enterprise is scoped to a custom range.

Yes. Smart Audit produces AI-generated fix recommendations for the rules it flags, each with the rationale for why the change matters and a summarized patch an editor or developer can apply.

The guidance is written to be implementation-ready rather than a restatement of the problem in different words.

• What to change on the page, and why it affects AI interpretation
• Suggested patch summaries, including structured-data corrections
• Rewrites for issues such as meta descriptions that do not match intent
• Guidance scoped to the rule and delivered inside the audit flow

Nothing is applied to your site automatically. Recommendations are reviewed and shipped by your team.

Smart Audit works on pages that already exist, detecting and prioritizing quality issues, while the Seerly content workflow creates new assets. One repairs the site you have, the other extends it.

They draw on different inputs, which is why the two modules stay separate rather than being folded into one list of tasks.

• Smart Audit: rule diagnostics, severity triage, and fix recommendations
• Content: briefs and drafts built from keyword and citation gaps
• Audit findings identify pages to repair before new pages are added
• Content gaps identify pages that do not exist yet

Sequence usually matters here, because repairing a structurally broken page is cheaper than publishing a new one to replace it.

Yes. Smart Audit findings route into a remediation workflow where every issue carries an owner, a status, an implementation action, and a re-check scheduled against a later audit run.

That closes the loop between detection and verification, which is the point where most audit tooling stops.

• Open, in-progress, and fixed states visible in a single remediation view
• A named owner and an explicit implementation action per issue
• Re-check status, from queued through validating to passed
• Recurring analysis runs, twice a week on Basic and more frequently on Pro

Re-checks confirm a fix against the next crawl rather than trusting that an issue marked done was actually resolved.