Website Audit Report — https://drint.io

Prepared for: Website owner

Prepared by: AUDIT_BRAND

Report date: 2026-10-26 06:06

Scope: 16 checks — availability, TLS, performance, security headers, SEO, accessibility, crawlability

Overall score: 80/100 (grade B) — 3 issue(s) found

---

1. Scorecard

#	Check	Weight	Result	Evidence
1	Site reachable and serving 2xx/3xx	15	PASS	HTTP 200 in 766 ms, 12388 bytes transferred
2	HTTPS enabled	10	PASS	Served over HTTPS
3	TLS certificate valid > 14 days	8	PASS	expires 2027-01-18 (83 days left)
4	Mobile viewport declared	10	PASS	viewport meta present
5	Page title length 8-60 chars	8	FAIL	"Drint — Packaging design software: dielines, 3D mockups, print files" — 68 chars (target 15-35)
6	Meta description 40-160 chars	7	FAIL	185 chars (target 120-155)
7	Exactly one H1 heading	5	PASS	1 H1 element(s) found
8	Every image has alt text	5	PASS	all images have alt
9	Compression enabled (gzip/br)	6	PASS	HTML Content-Encoding: gzip
10	Cache-Control policy set	5	PASS	Cache-Control: no-cache
11	Core security headers (4)	5	FAIL	present: x-content-type-options, referrer-policy, content-security-policy; missing: x-frame-options
12	HSTS header present	4	PASS	Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=63072000; includeSubDomains
13	JSON-LD structured data	4	PASS	schema.org JSON-LD present
14	robots.txt served (200)	5	PASS	HTTP 200, 594 bytes
15	sitemap.xml served (200)	5	PASS	HTTP 200, 58728 bytes
16	Time to first byte (informational, not scored)	0	INFO	766 ms (target < 1500 ms)

Score is the weighted pass ratio: 82 of 102 points = 80/100. Informational rows (weight 0) are reported but not scored, because network latency differs run to run.

2. Executive summary

3 of 15 scored checks failed. Fixing the three items below recovers the majority of the lost score:

1. Page title length 8-60 chars (8 pts, HIGH)
2. Meta description 40-160 chars (7 pts, HIGH)
3. Core security headers (4) (5 pts, MEDIUM)

3. What is failing

Each item below is a real failure with the evidence that produced it. The remediation steps for each one are in the paid report.

3.1 Page title length 8-60 chars — HIGH (weight 8, 8 points recoverable)

What we found: "Drint — Packaging design software: dielines, 3D mockups, print files" — 68 chars (target 15-35)

Why it matters: The title is the clickable blue line in Google results and the browser tab label. Too short wastes ranking keywords, too long gets truncated at ~60 characters.

3.2 Meta description 40-160 chars — HIGH (weight 7, 7 points recoverable)

What we found: 185 chars (target 120-155)

Why it matters: The meta description is the grey snippet under the title. Google uses it about 70% of the time and it drives click-through, not ranking directly.

3.3 Core security headers (4) — MEDIUM (weight 5, 5 points recoverable)

What we found: present: x-content-type-options, referrer-policy, content-security-policy; missing: x-frame-options

Why it matters: Missing security headers leave clickjacking, MIME-sniffing and cross-site scripting attacks open. They are also checked by every buyer's security questionnaire.

4. Method

Each site is fetched with a Chrome user agent and Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, following redirects, with a 2 MB body cap. Headers come from the live response; the certificate is read from a real TLS handshake; robots.txt and sitemap.xml are requested at the site root. Every check carries a weight; the score is the weighted pass ratio, rounded to an integer. Reports are reproducible: the same site audited twice yields the same score apart from the informational latency row.

5. Next steps

1. Work top-down through section 3 — highest weight first, it is the cheapest score to recover.
2. Re-run the audit after each batch of fixes; the score should move on the checks you touched.
3. Anything marked CRITICAL should ship this week — those items are actively costing traffic or exposing the site.

_Report generated by AUDIT_BRAND audit pipeline — 2026-10-26 06:06._