An audit tells you what is broken. This is the retainer that fixes it.
We already publish an SEO audit. It ends with a document. Technical SEO is the standing engagement that works through that document, ships the changes with your developers or ours, and keeps the site from drifting back. Most sites we inherit were audited once, two years ago, and the file is still open.
Request a technical review-
Crawl and index
- What Google can reach, what it chooses to keep, and the gap between the two. Log files where the server gives us them.
-
Rendering
- What the crawler sees after JavaScript runs, which on most modern stacks is not what your developer sees.
-
Core Web Vitals
- LCP, INP and CLS from field data rather than a lab score, because the lab score is not what ranks.
-
Structured data
- Machine-readable facts that match the human ones. This is also what AI engines read before they answer.
Audit against retainer
One ends with a document. The other ends with a deploy.
Both are useful. Buying the wrong one is the most common mistake in this category.
If you have never had an audit, start there. If you have one sitting unactioned, this is the page you need.
How a technical engagement runs
-
Baseline
Weeks 1 to 3
- Full crawl, plus a rendered-DOM comparison on the main templates
- Index coverage read against what is actually reachable
- Field Core Web Vitals by template, not a single site score
- Server log sample where the host provides it
-
Triage
Week 3 to 4
- Every finding scored by expected impact against engineering cost
- Written as tickets with the file, the change and the acceptance test
- Anything not worth fixing marked as such, with the reasoning
- Agreed release order with your engineering team
-
Implementation
Ongoing
- We ship what we can and specify what we cannot
- Each release re-checked against the acceptance test
- Schema re-validated after any template change
- New Search Console errors triaged within the month they appear
-
Regression watch
Monthly
- Crawl diff against the previous month
- Vitals by template, with the change highlighted
- Sitemap and canonical drift
- Reported in the portal beside the rest of the program
The engagement
What the retainer covers
Standing scope. Larger projects like a replatform or a domain move are quoted separately.
Crawl and index management
Reachability, coverage, crawl budget and the routing decisions behind them.
Rendering checks
Raw response against rendered DOM on every main template, re-run after releases.
Core Web Vitals
Field data by template, with the specific fix rather than a generic score.
Structured data
Schema written, validated and kept in sync with what the page actually says.
International plumbing
Hreflang, canonicals, URL structure, and the Arabic and RTL issues most audits skip.
Monthly regression report
A crawl diff and a vitals diff, so a bad release is caught in weeks rather than at the next audit.
Have an audit you never actioned?
Send it to us. We will tell you which findings still apply, which are now irrelevant, and what it would take to close the file.
How we report it
The clients behind the claims on this page
Technical work removes obstacles. These are the engagements where it did, with the numbers published in full and the per-engine citation split beside them.
Delta Medical Labs
5,570 pages cited across AI assistants, July 2026
Eduverse
171 pages cited across AI assistants, August 2026
- 89.1%of the sites ChatGPT cites, Perplexity never touches for the same questionWellows, 804,058 answers, Sept 2025 to May 2026
- 79.6%of sources appear on one engine only22.7M citations across 1,146,483 questions, 2026
- 46xgap in brand citation rate between ChatGPT at 0.59% and Perplexity at 13.05%Study of 34,234 AI responses, 2026
Delta’s AI Overview count is 27 times its ChatGPT count. Eduverse’s top and bottom engines sit 18 pages apart. Same agency, same method, opposite shapes. Any single score we quoted you would have described neither.
Request a technical reviewClient reviews
All reviewsWhy audits get filed
Three reasons a technical audit never gets implemented
We have inherited enough unactioned audits to know the pattern is structural, not a discipline problem.
Findings written for an SEO, handed to a developer
The document says what is wrong, not which file to change or how to tell it worked.
Every finding written as a ticket with the file, the change and the acceptance test.
No owner for the regression
A fix ships, a later release undoes it, and nobody notices until the next audit twelve months on.
A monthly crawl diff and vitals diff, so a bad release is caught in weeks.
Everything scored as high priority
A hundred findings with no cost estimate is a list nobody can start.
Scored by expected effect against engineering cost, with anything not worth fixing marked as such.
Plain definitions
The terms that come up in every technical conversation
Defined the way we use them, so nothing in our reporting is ambiguous.
Related
Where technical work connects
Questions we get about technical SEO
If the audit is actioned and the site has not changed since, no. If it is sitting in a folder, this is the engagement that closes it. Send us the audit and we will tell you which findings still apply before you commit to anything.
Both, depending on your setup. We have developers and we work inside WordPress directly. On custom stacks we write the spec and the acceptance test and work alongside your engineers.
Technical work removes obstacles. It does not create authority. On a site with real technical problems the effect can be large. On a technically healthy site it will be small, and we will tell you that rather than sell you a retainer.
Directly. Structured data, crawl access and rendering all decide what AI engines can read about you. A site that renders content only in JavaScript is invisible to crawlers that do not render, which is several of them.
Not required, and it helps. Server logs are the only place you can see what crawlers actually did. Without them we work from crawl data and Search Console, which is a good approximation rather than the record.
Covered, and they are the ones most audits skip. Percent-encoded Arabic URLs, RTL layouts that break at specific breakpoints, and duplicate content between an Arabic page and its English twin.
