Blog · · Benatar Brands
How to get a weekly website link check from an AI assistant
A broken link report is useful when it tells an owner exactly what a visitor could not reach. A long list of URLs without context creates another sorting job. An AI assistant can turn a small, verified website check into a review note with the affected page, the destination, and the next decision.
This walkthrough uses an anonymous hypothetical service business with a homepage, several service pages, a booking page, and a blog. It describes a proposed workflow. It does not claim that a real business ran the check or achieved a measured result.
Define the pages that matter first
Start with the paths a prospective customer actually follows. For the hypothetical business, those are the homepage to a service, the service to booking, and an article to the relevant service. These paths deserve attention even when the site contains many older articles.
Create a list of exact starting URLs and the links to inspect on each. Include the link's visible text. “Book a consultation” is more informative in a report than an unexplained address because it tells the reviewer what the visitor expected to happen.
Keep the first scope small enough to review manually. You can broaden it after the output proves useful. A report that accurately covers the main customer journey is easier to act on than an incomplete crawl presented as a full audit.
Use the sitemap as an inventory input
Google's sitemap documentation explains that a sitemap provides information about important pages and files. It can help assemble a website inventory, but it does not replace checking links on the pages themselves.
Ask the assistant to compare the selected page list with the sitemap. Mark which URLs appear in both and which appear in only one. A missing sitemap entry is a question to investigate, rather than automatic proof that a visitor cannot reach the page.
If the site uses several sitemaps, record which ones were inspected. Keep draft, account, and private URLs out of a public-page review. The assistant should report the boundary of the check alongside the findings.
Give the assistant evidence it can inspect
The workflow needs an assistant with web retrieval, an authorized browsing connection, or a supplied export from a link checker. A text-only assistant cannot establish a current response status by reading a list of addresses.
For each attempted request, capture the starting URL, destination URL, final URL after redirects, response status, and time checked. If a tool exposes only page text, say that status-code verification was unavailable. Do not translate “I could not open it” into a confirmed missing page.
This distinction matters with sites that block automated access. A blocked request can coexist with a working page in an ordinary browser. Put those cases in an access-limited section so they do not get mixed into confirmed errors.
Keep the permissions read-only
Allow the assistant to inspect public pages and summarize the results. Do not give this routine permission to change links, create redirects, edit navigation, delete articles, or publish repairs. Those actions can affect visitors in ways that need an owner's decision.
If a connected system offers both reading and editing, choose the narrowest available access for the check. Where permission controls cannot separate them, make the task boundary explicit and review the available actions before enabling a recurring workflow.
The output should be a proposed repair list. A person can approve and implement each change later. Keep the checked URLs in the report so the person making a repair does not have to reproduce the entire investigation.
Use a prompt with a bounded output
A practical instruction can read:
Review the supplied public website pages and their booking, service, and article links. Work read-only. For every suspected problem, record the source page, visible anchor text, requested destination, final destination, observed status, and check time. Separate confirmed failures from access restrictions and uncertain results.
Then add the delivery rule:
Return a short summary followed by a table of findings. State how many supplied pages were checked and which were skipped. Suggest the next verification step for each uncertain result. Do not edit the site, submit forms, send messages, or create redirects.
The prompt defines a useful report without claiming that any particular assistant has access to every website. Test it on a known working link and a deliberately supplied missing test URL before trusting the routine.
Review redirects with the visitor's intent
A redirect is not automatically a problem. The useful question is whether the final destination still fulfills the link's promise. An old service URL that reaches the current service page may be fine. A booking link that lands on a generic homepage deserves attention.
For the hypothetical business, imagine an article links to a retired service page. The report should show the destination it actually reached. It should not invent a replacement service or rewrite the article's offer.
Ask the owner whether a suitable replacement exists. If it does, the repair can be reviewed against that destination. If it does not, removing or revising the reference may be more accurate than redirecting every retired page to the homepage.
Separate accessibility from indexing
A page that loads successfully is not necessarily indexed by Google. Google's Page indexing report guidance distinguishes indexing issues from ordinary page access and points to URL Inspection for individual URLs.
Keep that investigation separate from the link check. If an owner supplies an authorized Search Console export, the assistant can summarize its reported categories and dates. It should not claim to know Google's current indexing state from an HTTP response alone.
For a small business, start by making sure the important visitor paths work. Add search visibility questions when there is a specific reason to investigate them, with the appropriate evidence attached.
Make the next report smaller
Save a dated record of confirmed findings and the decisions made about them. On the next check, compare the same paths and identify new, resolved, and unchanged issues. A repeated access restriction should remain labeled as uncertain until somebody verifies it.
After a person implements a repair, check the original source link again. Opening the replacement URL alone does not prove the source page was updated. This final step connects the report to what a visitor will actually experience.
The goal is a manageable decision list with traceable evidence. Keep the assistant reading and organizing, and keep ownership of site changes explicit.
Book a free session to design a website check that fits your workflow.
Related service: Embedded AI partnership.
Get our notes on AI and how businesses run in your inbox: subscribe to The Beyond Brief.