Completed website audit

Your website audit report.

https://tarotai.chat

Anyone with this link can view the report.

Completed website audit

Your audit findings, prioritized.

This report reflects automated checks of tarotai.chat at the time of the audit.

Automated website health

Mixed foundations
76/100
76 out of 100

High confidence38 of 41 applicable checks completed · 90% evidence coverage

The completed checks found mixed foundations, with meaningful improvements needed in measured areas.

This score reflects automated technical and structural checks. It does not grade visual design, branding, copy quality, or overall persuasiveness.

Category influence is scaled by evidence coverage. Unavailable checks do not count as failures.

Critical issues
0
Improvements
7
Opportunity
1
Passed checks
30
  • Some rendered mobile checks have reduced confidence because the site could not be fully reproduced within the audit's secure rendering limits.
  • Automated accessibility checks identify detectable issues but do not certify WCAG conformance or legal compliance.
  • Conversion foundations checks assess detectable customer paths, form labels, and rendered action geometry. They do not grade design, messaging, persuasion, or completed transactions.
  • Mobile experience was partially evaluated (69% evidence coverage). Its score uses completed checks only; confidence is lower.
  • Conversion foundations was partially evaluated (59% evidence coverage). Its score uses completed checks only; confidence is lower.
  • Technical health was partially evaluated (98% evidence coverage). Its score uses completed checks only; confidence is lower.

Health by category

Measured strengths and issues.

SEO

Strong measurable foundations with only minor issues detected.

Full evidence

100/100

100 out of 100Strong automated foundations

Performance

Several measurable issues are limiting this area.

Full evidence

60/100

60 out of 100Needs attention

Mobile experience

69% of this category was evaluated. This rating describes completed checks only.

Partial · 69% evidence

98/100

98 out of 100Strong results in completed checks · Limited evidence

Accessibility

Several measurable issues are limiting this area.

Full evidence

63/100

63 out of 100Needs attention

Conversion foundations

59% of this category was evaluated. This rating describes completed checks only.

Partial · 59% evidence

100/100

100 out of 100Strong results in completed checks · Limited evidence

Technical health

Strong measurable foundations with only minor issues detected.

Partial · 98% evidence

100/100

100 out of 100Strong automated foundations

Prioritized findings

Fix the issues with the greatest impact first.

High priorityPerformance

Mobile page performance needs attention

Google's mobile Lighthouse performance score was 45 out of 100.

Why it matters

Slow or unresponsive pages create friction before a visitor can understand the offer or take action.

Recommended fix

Start with the largest measured loading or responsiveness issue below and retest after each focused change.

Lighthouse performance score
45/100Lab measurements can vary between runs.
High priorityPerformance

Your main content loads slowly on mobile

The largest visible content took longer than the recommended range to appear in the mobile lab test.

Why it matters

Visitors may leave before they can understand the page when its main content is slow to appear.

Recommended fix

Optimize the largest above-the-fold image or content block, reduce blocking resources, and retest the page.

Largest Contentful Paint
7.5 sGoogle PageSpeed Insights mobile lab measurement. Values can vary between runs.
High priorityPerformance

The page stays busy before it can respond

The mobile lab test found a meaningful amount of main-thread blocking during page load.

Why it matters

A busy main thread can delay taps, typing, navigation, and other interactions.

Recommended fix

Reduce or defer nonessential JavaScript, split long tasks, and remove scripts the page does not need.

Total Blocking Time
990 msGoogle PageSpeed Insights mobile lab measurement. Values can vary between runs.
High priorityAccessibility

Some form fields do not have detectable labels

1 of 1 relevant form controls do not have an associated label or accessible name detectable from the HTML.

Why it matters

A field label explains what information is expected and gives assistive technology essential context.

Recommended fix

Connect each visible label to its field or provide an accurate accessible name where a visible label is not appropriate.

High priorityAccessibility

Some text does not have enough color contrast

Google's automated mobile test detected text/background combinations that failed its contrast audit.

Why it matters

Low contrast can make content difficult or impossible to read for many visitors.

Recommended fix

Increase contrast for the affected text while preserving visible hover, focus, and disabled states.

High priorityPerformance

Visitors wait too long for the first visible content

The mobile lab test took longer than the recommended range to display the first text or image.

Why it matters

Early visual feedback reassures visitors that the page is loading and usable.

Recommended fix

Reduce render-blocking styles and scripts, improve server response time, and prioritize above-the-fold content.

First Contentful Paint
3.8 sGoogle PageSpeed Insights mobile lab measurement. Values can vary between runs.
Medium priorityMobile experience

Potential small text in the restricted mobile render

The restricted mobile render showed a potential issue, but reproduction fidelity is insufficient to confirm it as a user-facing defect. Render fidelity: moderate.

Why it matters

Very small text can be difficult to read without zooming on a phone.

Recommended fix

Check this measurement on the live page at common phone widths before deciding whether a layout fix is needed.

Observed
69 of 221 sampled text elements rendered below 12px.
OpportunityTechnical health

Image layout space could not be verified reliably

The restricted mobile render showed a potential issue, but reproduction fidelity is insufficient to confirm it as a user-facing defect. Render fidelity: moderate.

Why it matters

Browsers need intrinsic dimensions, a CSS aspect ratio, or another stable container to reserve space before image content loads.

Recommended fix

Check this measurement on the live page at common phone widths before deciding whether a layout fix is needed.

Observed
3 of 30 images omit intrinsic dimensions; 3 visible images also lacked a detectable CSS aspect ratio or other reserved dimensions in the rendered sample.

Keep the report

Send this report to your inbox.

We’ll email a direct link so you can return to these scores, findings, and recommended next steps when you are ready.

We use your name and email only to send this report. We retain a pseudonymous delivery receipt, not the raw values. No mailing list. See our privacy policy.

Book a CallBook a call20-minute intro