Account audits

Audit your site's trust signals: company, authors, contact, policies, dates and sources

Checks page by page the signals that affect whether Google and AI systems trust a source: who the business is, authors, contact details, legal pages, visible dates and the sources behind claims. Gives a task list that closes the gaps with real information from you, never invented details.

When to use it

Your content is good but you feel Google and AI answers do not treat your site as a trusted source, or you publish in a sensitive field such as health, law or finance.

What you get

A page-by-page table of company, contact, author, date, source and policy signals, a list of unsourced claims and a task list that names the real information needed from you for each item. Nothing on the site changes.

Does it change anything in my account?

No. The assistant only reads your data and reports back.

Works with

SEO Intelligence, Search Console

Fill in before sending

[site URL][industry][Search Console property]

Audit the trust signals (E-E-A-T: experience, expertise, authoritativeness, trustworthiness) on my site [site URL]. My industry: [industry]. My Search Console property: [Search Console property]. This is read-only, do not change anything. For topics that affect people's health or money, such as health, law, finance and safety, Google's quality guidelines put more weight on trust signals. If my industry is one of these, say so up front and apply stricter thresholds. 1. Pick the pages. Use get_report with platform='search_console', breakdown='page by impressions' for the last 90 days. Pick the homepage, the about, contact, privacy and terms pages, the 3 service pages with the most impressions and the 3 blog posts with the most impressions. Show me the list. 2. Read every page. Read it with site_read_url using text=true (if truncated is true, again with max_bytes=1000000) and outline=true. For JSON-LD, read with max_bytes=1000000 and extract author, publisher, datePublished and dateModified. 3. Check: 1. Company: does the about page say concretely who the business is, where it is, how long it has operated and how it works, or is it made of generic sentences. Run the about text through seo_content_lint and note the human_score. 2. Contact: are an address, phone or email in the visible text, and can they be reached from every page through a static footer link. If there is only a contact form, flag it as a weak signal. 3. Author: do blog posts show an author or publisher, does the author name link to an author page, and does that page state the person's real expertise (profession, experience, a licence or registration where relevant). If the JSON-LD author is a Person, does it have url or sameAs, or only a name. 4. Dates: are the publish and update dates visible on the page, does dateModified in the JSON-LD match the visible date, and do all posts have dateModified equal to datePublished. 5. Sources: do sentences with figures, statistics, legal or health claims link to a source. Quote the 5 most important unsourced claims. 6. Policies: does the site have the legal pages that fit the business type (privacy, cookies, terms, refunds and so on), and are they reachable from the footer through static links. Flag them if those links are built only by JavaScript. 7. Reviews: if the site shows reviews or ratings, is the source (Google profile, an independent platform) stated. Copying a third-party rating into the site's own schema as aggregateRating is against Google's policy, so flag it if present. 8. Industry specific: do health, legal or finance pages promise certainty ("guaranteed", "100%", "definite results"). Format the output like this. First a three-sentence summary. Then a signal table: page, company, contact, author, dates, sources, policies, status (present, weak, missing). Then an unsourced claims table: page, sentence, suggested source type. Then a task list in order of importance. For each task, say which real information you need from me (for example the expert's name and profession, the founding year, a registration number). Do not invent author names, titles, certificates, awards, customer counts or reviews; if the information is missing, say that leaving the field empty is better than making it up.

For topics that affect people's health or money, such as health, law, finance and safety, Google's quality guidelines put more weight on trust signals. If my industry is one of these, say so up front and apply stricter thresholds.

1. Pick the pages. Use get_report with platform='search_console', breakdown='page by impressions' for the last 90 days. Pick the homepage, the about, contact, privacy and terms pages, the 3 service pages with the most impressions and the 3 blog posts with the most impressions. Show me the list.
2. Read every page. Read it with site_read_url using text=true (if truncated is true, again with max_bytes=1000000) and outline=true. For JSON-LD, read with max_bytes=1000000 and extract author, publisher, datePublished and dateModified.
3. Check:
   1. Company: does the about page say concretely who the business is, where it is, how long it has operated and how it works, or is it made of generic sentences. Run the about text through seo_content_lint and note the human_score.
   2. Contact: are an address, phone or email in the visible text, and can they be reached from every page through a static footer link. If there is only a contact form, flag it as a weak signal.
   3. Author: do blog posts show an author or publisher, does the author name link to an author page, and does that page state the person's real expertise (profession, experience, a licence or registration where relevant). If the JSON-LD author is a Person, does it have url or sameAs, or only a name.
   4. Dates: are the publish and update dates visible on the page, does dateModified in the JSON-LD match the visible date, and do all posts have dateModified equal to datePublished.
   5. Sources: do sentences with figures, statistics, legal or health claims link to a source. Quote the 5 most important unsourced claims.
   6. Policies: does the site have the legal pages that fit the business type (privacy, cookies, terms, refunds and so on), and are they reachable from the footer through static links. Flag them if those links are built only by JavaScript.
   7. Reviews: if the site shows reviews or ratings, is the source (Google profile, an independent platform) stated. Copying a third-party rating into the site's own schema as aggregateRating is against Google's policy, so flag it if present.
   8. Industry specific: do health, legal or finance pages promise certainty ("guaranteed", "100%", "definite results").

Format the output like this. First a three-sentence summary. Then a signal table: page, company, contact, author, dates, sources, policies, status (present, weak, missing). Then an unsourced claims table: page, sentence, suggested source type. Then a task list in order of importance. For each task, say which real information you need from me (for example the expert's name and profession, the founding year, a registration number). Do not invent author names, titles, certificates, awards, customer counts or reviews; if the information is missing, say that leaving the field empty is better than making it up.

Open in Claude Open in ChatGPT Discuss in the forum

Example result

An example of the output this prompt produces. Its structure comes from the tools' real output; numbers and names are fictional.

Example output (based on a fictional site, not real customer data)

Summary. Pearl Nutrition publishes in a health field, so stricter thresholds were applied. Contact and legal pages are strong, but none of the blog posts names an author and the JSON-LD author is only the organisation "Pearl Nutrition". Four posts make unsourced health claims and two service pages say "guaranteed weight loss".

Page	Company	Contact	Author	Dates	Sources	Policies
/about/	Weak (human_score 61, generic sentences)	Present	Missing	Missing	Missing	Present
/blog/intermittent-fasting/	Present	Present	Missing	Publish date only	Weak	Present
/services/weight-loss/	Present	Present	Not needed	Missing	Missing	Present

Page	Sentence	Suggested source type
/blog/intermittent-fasting/	"Intermittent fasting speeds up metabolism by 20%."	A peer-reviewed study or an official health body
/services/weight-loss/	"Guaranteed weight loss"	No source possible, remove the phrase

Task list
1. Remove "guaranteed" from the two service pages. Needed from you: nothing.
2. Add an author name and author page to the blog posts. Needed from you: the name and title of the dietitian who writes them. Without it, the author should stay the organisation.
3. Make the about page concrete. Needed from you: founding year, clinic address, how you work.
4. Every post has dateModified equal to datePublished; leave it that way unless the content is really updated.

More prompts

Account auditsRead-only

Full Google Ads account audit with the three fixes to make first

Reviews the whole account in one pass, from measurement and bidding to structure and landing pages. Ranks the findings by impact and names the first three fixes without changing anything.

When to use itWhen you inherit or doubt a Google Ads account and want to know what is actually wrong and where to start fixing it.

Audit my Google Ads account [account name] end to end. If the account is younger than 90 days use every day available, otherwise use the last 90 days. This is a read-only review, do not change anything.

Start with account_snapshot to get each campaign's status, budget, bidding strategy, age and results since it started. Separate the campaigns that bring results from the ones that spend without converting. Then work through these areas in order:

1. Measurement. List the primary conversion actions with list_conversion_actions. Flag any primary action that recorded nothing in the last 30 days. Look for setups that can count the same person twice, for example a phone click and a WhatsApp click on the site set up as two separate primary actions, or the Google Ads tag and an imported GA4 event both primary for the same form. Check how many clicks went to the call button in the ads and whether those calls were actually recorded, using google_ads_query on call_view.
2. Bidding and budget. Use impression_share_analysis to show, per campaign, the impression share lost to budget and to rank. Use keyword_quality_report to find keywords below the first page bid or rarely shown because of low quality. For campaigns on Smart Bidding, say whether the last 30 days hold enough conversions for the target they use.
3. Structure. Check whether brand searches share a campaign with generic searches, whether every ad group sends people to the page for its own service, and whether the same keyword sits in more than one ad group.
4. Search terms. Use search_terms_report to separate terms that spend without converting, competitor brands and informational searches. Never count a term with at least one conversion as waste.
5. Ads and assets. Review ad strength, disapproved assets and whether sitelinks point to the right page. Flag separately any copy or asset that describes a service the business does not offer: [services not offered, or write "none"].
6. Landing pages. Pull clicks, cost and conversion rate per page from landing_page_view with google_ads_query. On the pages that take the most spend, check that a phone and a WhatsApp button exist and check mobile speed with core_web_vitals.
7. Location, schedule and device. Show whether the location option is set to "Presence", how much spend goes outside the target area, and the spend and conversions outside [business hours].

Format the output like this: first a five-sentence summary of where the account stands. Then a findings table ranked by importance: problem, evidence, estimated impact, recommendation. At the end, the three fixes to make first and why each one comes first. Where the data is not enough for a conclusion, do not guess, say what is missing.

Account auditsRead-only

Full Meta Ads account audit with the three fixes to make first

Reviews measurement, delivery issues, the learning phase, targeting, placements and creative fatigue in one pass. Ranks the findings and names the first three fixes without changing anything.

When to use itWhen your Meta ads results have slipped or stalled and you need to know what is wrong in the account before touching anything.

Audit my Meta ad account [ad account] end to end. Use the last 30 days as the main period and the 30 days before that as the comparison. This is a read-only review, do not change anything.

Start with account_snapshot for platform meta to get each campaign's status, budget, objective, age and results since it started. Meta has no single conversion count, so use the result each campaign actually optimizes for (leads, messaging conversations started, purchases). Then work through these areas in order:

1. Measurement. Check the pixel's last event time with list_meta_pixels. Confirm that the event each campaign optimizes for is actually recording. Flag setups that can count the same result twice, for example leads collected by both the pixel and an instant form.
2. Delivery. List ad sets that are rejected, stuck in review, have no active ad left, or spend less than half of their budget. Give Meta's stated reason for each.
3. Learning phase. Find ad sets split so thin that they cannot reach 50 results a week. Use meta_change_history to show edits in the last 14 days that reset learning.
4. Targeting and audiences. Flag ad sets that target the same audience and ad sets whose frequency is above [maximum frequency].
5. Placements and devices. With get_report, compare cost per result by publisher_platform and by device against the account average. Do not decide on segments with fewer than 20 results.
6. Creatives. Treat an ad as fatigued when frequency rises while click-through rate falls and cost per result climbs. Briefly describe the angle the winning ads share.
7. Destination. Check that the page or WhatsApp link the ads send people to works and matches the objective.

Account auditsChanges after your approval

Merge phone and WhatsApp enquiries into one reliable conversion

Stops one person being counted twice when they both call and message. Ties the two buttons on the site to a single conversion and checks whether the call button in the ads is measured at all.

When to use itWhen people call and message you from the same site and you suspect one visitor is being counted as two conversions, making your cost per conversion look better than it is.

In my Google Ads account [account name], prospects reach us through the phone and WhatsApp buttons on the site. If one person pressing both buttons counts as two conversions, my cost per conversion looks cheaper than it is and the bidding algorithm learns the wrong thing. Fix this.

1. Map the current setup. List the primary actions, their categories and counting types with list_conversion_actions. In my Tag Manager container [GTM container ID], use list_gtm_tags to show which tag fires which conversion label. Estimate with numbers how often one ad click may have produced more than one contact conversion in the last 30 days.
2. The call button in the ads. With google_ads_query, check how many clicks and how much spend went to the call button in the ads, and use call_view to check whether those calls were recorded. If there are clicks but no records, say so clearly and offer two options: remove the call asset, or accept those clicks as unmeasured traffic.
3. Show the plan. Propose a single conversion action named "Contact click (Phone + WhatsApp)" with counting set to one. Tie it to one tag that fires on both the phone and the WhatsApp trigger. Make the two old actions secondary. Say whether campaigns on Smart Bidding need their target reviewed, because the conversion count will drop.
4. Apply after my approval. Create the conversion action, set counting to one, update the tag in Tag Manager and show me the list of changes before publishing. After publishing, write down which version can be restored.

Finish with a short test plan: how to see in preview mode that only the new tag fires when both buttons are pressed, and how many days it takes for the fix to show in real data.

Account auditsRead-only

Run a full SEO, AEO and GEO audit and get an evidence-backed scorecard

Scores access, technical health, structured data, quotability of content, trust signals and measured AI visibility in six areas of five concrete checks each. Shows the evidence for every point and orders the fixes by impact and effort, without changing anything.

When to use itYou want one evidence-backed report showing where your site stands in Google and in AI search, and a clear task list to hand to an agency or developer.

Audit my site [site URL] end to end for classic search, answer engines (AEO) and AI search (GEO). My Search Console property: [Search Console property]. Main competitor: [competitor domain, or "none"]. Market: [country], language: [language code]. The 3 searches that bring me the most business: [3 commercial queries]. My most important page templates: [homepage, one service page, one blog post URL]. This is read-only.

Credit rule: before starting, check earlier runs with seo_history and call the reusable ones again with the same arguments. Show me once the list of new calls that will spend credits and get my approval.

Data collection:
1. Run the bundled analysis with seo_full_analysis, passing domain, competitor, location and language. Its AI visibility section measures the single keyword the site ranks for most, which may have nothing to do with my business; do not use that section for scoring, and instead measure my 3 commercial queries with seo_ai_overview and target=[domain]. If references is empty, count the domains of the links inside ai_answer.
2. Run seo_site_crawl with max_pages close to the site's page count (at most [page limit]). It returns a task_id; call it again with the same task_id after 60 to 90 seconds and wait until the summary arrives. Pull the full URL list of an issue with the issue parameter when needed. If the crawl limit does not cover the whole site, say the results are a sample.
3. Read robots.txt, sitemap.xml and llms.txt with site_read_url. Read my template pages with text=true (if truncated is true, again with max_bytes=1000000) and with outline=true. For JSON-LD, read the same pages with max_bytes=1000000 and extract the blocks.
4. Measure the homepage and the service page with seo_audit and strategy='mobile'. For Core Web Vitals use real-user (field) data where it exists, otherwise the lab value, and say which one you used.
5. Use get_report with platform='search_console' and breakdown 'query by impressions' and 'page by impressions' for the last 90 days. Inspect the 10 pages with the most impressions with gsc_inspect_urls. Get the sitemap status with gsc_sitemaps.
6. Remember that different tools can see different versions of the same page: if seo_technical_audit or seo_site_crawl measures a title in a different language from what site_read_url shows, record it as a finding, because the site may be redirecting visitors by country.

Scorecard: six areas, five checks each, each check pass (1) or fail (0). If a check has no data, write "not measured" and drop it from the denominator; never score by guessing.
1. Access and crawlability: robots.txt is open to search-role AI crawlers; key pages return 200 with at most one redirect; no noindex on key pages; the sitemap has no errors and contains the key pages; the main content is visible without JavaScript.
2. Technical health and speed: mobile LCP under 2.5 seconds; CLS under 0.1; INP under 200 ms; no broken pages or broken internal links in the crawl; no duplicate titles or descriptions.
3. Structured data and entity: an Organization or LocalBusiness node exists; nodes are linked by @id; the schema fits the page type (Service, Article, Product); schema facts match the visible text; sameAs URLs work.
4. Quotability of content: the first paragraph of key pages answers the question directly; headings name the topic or question clearly; comparable facts are in a table; a page-specific FAQ exists; there are concrete numbers and dates.
5. Trust signals: the about page is concrete (who, where, since when); contact details are on the site and consistent; posts show an author or publisher; publish and update dates are visible; legal pages are reachable from the footer through static links.
6. Measured AI visibility: cited in Google's AI answer for at least one of the 3 commercial queries; cited for the brand query; llms.txt exists and is accurate; Search Console shows clicks from non-brand queries; if the main competitor is cited on these queries, there is at least one where I am cited too.

Format the output like this. First a five-sentence executive summary. Then the score table: area, score (e.g. 3/5), failed checks. Then the evidence table: area, check, result, evidence (tool name and returned value), affected URLs. Then the fix list: for each item the impact (high, medium, low), the effort (hours, days, weeks) and who does it; high impact and low effort first. At the end, the first three fixes and why they come first. Do not pass judgement on anything that was not measured.