# SEO audit report template: what to include, with a sample you can copy > An SEO audit template that turns findings into decisions: the sections an SEO audit report needs, a Markdown template to copy, a filled-in sample, and how a shareable getReport link fits in. Updated 2026-09-26 · Technical SEO · HTML version: https://getreport.app/guides/seo-audit-report-template An SEO audit template is the fixed structure you write an audit into: a short summary, the scope, the findings with evidence and a fix for each, and a prioritised plan. It exists so every audit answers the same questions in the same order, and so the person paying for it can act on it without reading 40 pages. This guide gives you the sections an SEO audit report needs, a Markdown template to copy, a filled-in sample, and an honest account of where a getReport report link can stand in for part of it. The checks themselves are in the [SEO audit checklist](https://getreport.app/guides/seo-audit-checklist); the reasons behind them are in the [technical SEO guide](https://getreport.app/guides/technical-seo). ## Quick answer - **Lead with three sentences:** the state of the site, the biggest risk, and the three things to do first. - **State the scope:** which URLs and templates, which device, which date and which tools. An audit without a date cannot be compared with the next one. - **Write every finding the same way:** what is wrong, where (URLs), the evidence, why it matters, the fix, who owns it and how much effort it takes. - **Sort findings by impact,** not by tool category. Anything that stops indexing goes first. - **Link the evidence** instead of pasting screenshots of scores: a report link shows the exact finding, and it can be re-run after the fix. - **End with a plan and a re-check date,** or the report becomes a document nobody opens again. ## What an SEO audit report is for An SEO audit report has two readers with different questions. The decision-maker (the owner, the client, the marketing lead) wants to know how bad it is, what it costs to fix and what happens if nobody does. The person doing the work (the developer, the content editor) wants a list of specific changes, each with a URL and a way to confirm it is done. Most weak audit reports fail one of the two. A 60-page export of every metric a tool can produce serves neither. A score in an email serves only the first, and badly: "we got 71" invites the question "why is it not 100?" and nothing else. The template below gives each reader their own section. ## The sections of an SEO audit report | Section | For whom | What goes in it | Length | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1. Summary | Decision-maker | State of the site, biggest risk, top three actions | 3 sentences | | 2. Scope and method | Both | URLs and templates checked, device, date, tools, what was not checked | 5–10 lines | | 3. Scorecard | Decision-maker | A few numbers that will be compared next time | One table | | 4. Findings | Developer, editor | One block per finding, sorted by priority | Most of the report | | 5. Plan | Both | Who does what, in which order, by when | One table | | 6. Appendix | Anyone checking | Report links, Search Console exports, raw data | As needed | ### 1. Summary Three sentences, written last. "The site can be indexed, but 38 product pages point their canonical at the home page and are missing from Google. Mobile pages load their main image in 4.1 s, above Google's 2.5 s threshold. Fix the canonical template first, then the image, then the titles." ### 2. Scope and method Say exactly what you looked at, so nobody assumes more. List the template URLs, the date, whether you tested mobile or desktop, the tools and data sources, and what is out of scope (for example: backlinks, content quality, local SEO). This section is what makes next quarter's audit comparable. ### 3. Scorecard Pick a few numbers you will measure the same way next time: indexed pages against pages in the sitemap, the number of "Not indexed" reasons in Search Console, Core Web Vitals status per template, the count of open findings by priority. Tool scores can go in, but label them with the tool; different tools score differently. ### 4. Findings This is the working part of the report. Each finding gets the same fields: - **Title:** the problem in plain words, such as "Product pages point their canonical at the home page". - **Where:** the URLs or the template, and how many pages it affects. - **Evidence:** what you saw and where, such as the source line or a report link that shows it. - **Why it matters:** one sentence on the consequence, such as "Google is asked to index the home page instead of these products." - **Fix:** the concrete change, in the CMS or code, with the setting or file. - **Priority, effort and owner:** high, medium or low; small, medium or large; a name. - **Status:** open, in progress, done, verified. "Verified" is separate from "done" on purpose: a fix counts when a re-check confirms it, not when someone says they deployed it. ### 5. Plan A short table of the order of work. Blockers this week, site-wide fixes this month, template and speed projects scheduled with a date. Add the date of the re-check. ## The template to copy Paste this into a document, a wiki page or a README and fill it in: ```markdown # SEO audit: example-shop.hr, 26 September 2026 ## Summary ## Scope and method - Templates checked: home, category, product, blog post, contact - URLs: (one per template, plus the 10 pages with most organic clicks) - Device: mobile first, desktop for comparison - Data: getReport report per URL, Google Search Console (last 3 months) - Not checked: backlinks, content quality, local listings ## Scorecard | Measure | Now | Target | Next check | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Pages indexed / pages in sitemap | | | | | "Not indexed" reasons for important URLs | | 0 | | | Core Web Vitals (mobile), templates passing | | all | | | Open high-priority findings | | 0 | | ## Findings ### F1. - Where: