Case study
We pointed fixlist at a stranger's landing page and let an agent fix it blind.
To test the whole loop end to end, we built a small SaaS landing page (loopline-demo.vercel.app), ran fixlist on it cold, and handed the downloaded .md report straight to an AI coding agent with no extra context beyond "fix these tasks." First score: 43/100 — CTAs with no dominance, no viewport tag, a six-field form, trust signals that actively hurt credibility. One pass later: 79/100 — mobile +55, trust +38. Both raw reports are linked below, unedited.
Raw, unedited reports: before (43) · after (79) · the page itself: loopline-demo.vercel.app
What the audit caught
16 UX findings, 11 SEO fixes, 7 performance fixes. The verdict, verbatim:
"Loopline has a polished, minimal aesthetic but fails the fundamentals: the headline is a generic slogan, the CTAs are low-contrast and don't stand out, and the hero image is decorative space stock that says nothing about the product. Trust proof is thin, the conversion form asks for far too much, and the missing viewport meta means mobile is likely broken."
What the agent shipped
“A better way to run your team” fails the 5-second test — it doesn't say what the product does. Swapped for a specific, benefit-led line naming the actual feature.
Two identical outlined buttons meant no primary action. One became a solid high-contrast fill; the other, a subordinate text link.
No <meta name="viewport"> meant mobile browsers rendered the page at desktop width and zoomed out — the single highest-leverage fix on the list. Mobile: 30 → 85.
First name, last name, company, job title, phone, email — gone down to name and work email. Every extra field was pure signup friction.
A stock space photo said nothing about the product and cost 14.3s of LCP. Swapped for an HTML/CSS mock of the actual product feed — on-brief and weightless.
A row of plain-text “company” wordmarks read as fabricated and actively hurt credibility. Replaced with named testimonials, faces, and a real usage number.
The only conversion path used to be a form buried at the very bottom. The primary action now appears after the how-it-works section and after the proof section too.
Generic “Home” title, no meta description, no canonical, no OG tags, no structured data — all added. SEO: 48 → 88.
What moved
| Score | Before | After | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 43 | 79 | +36 |
| Trust | 40 | 78 | +38 |
| Mobile | 30 | 85 | +55 |
| Call to action | 38 | 74 | +36 |
| First impression | 42 | 82 | +40 |
| Hierarchy | 55 | 80 | +25 |
| Readability | 58 | 68 | +10 |
| SEO | 48 | 88 | +40 |
What it still isn't happy about
The re-run scored readability the lowest gain of the batch (58 → 68) and, verbatim: "the biggest weaknesses are low text contrast throughout, friction reducers stranded at the very bottom instead of next to the CTA, and a header 'Get started' button competing with the hero email capture." No hand-holding, no grading on a curve — the same rubric that graded a stranger's page graded the fix.