Investigate indexing by page template
Use Brodie Clark’s sitemap-level method to investigate indexing across public practice, office, attorney, and guide pages.
Suggested analysis tools
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
A large non-indexed count can hide which page templates need investigation and which exclusions are intentional.
Why it matters: An indexing issue shared by a page template can affect more than one important page. Grouping the evidence by template helps the site owner investigate the pattern rather than make unrelated page-by-page changes.
Sources & evidence
The original public X method was inspected. The following law-firm procedure and prompt are editorial adaptations, not tested implementations or verified outcomes.
What’s been verified
The X post documents a practitioner method, and official documentation supports the reporting capability. Neither supplies controlled indexing or ranking uplift for this law-firm adaptation.
What to measure: Unexpected exclusions investigated, evidence gaps resolved, and comparable cohort counts after any separately approved fix. No indexing gain is assumed.
- Brodie Clark (@brodieseo): original X method ↗October 6, 2026 · Child-sitemap and template-level indexing diagnosis; no controlled outcome supplied.
- Google: Page Indexing report ↗Official specific-sitemap filters, legitimate exclusions, report example limits, and representative URL Inspection.
- Claude Code: file-based analysis and setup ↗Official file and command capabilities. The law-firm analysis prompt is an untested editorial adaptation.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. The original X method is linked directly. Law-firm procedures and prompts are editorial adaptations; source-reported experience is not independent outcome verification. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
The source method
Start when: An owner can supply dated Page Indexing exports, child-sitemap membership, and the intended-indexable public URL list.
- Clark proposes grouping major child sitemaps by content type and using Page Indexing to inspect exclusion patterns.
- Google documents how to filter by a specific sitemap and inspect representative URLs. Example lists can be incomplete, even below the 1,000-row limit.
- Our law-firm adaptation compares page templates and separates intentional exclusions, then proposes possible causes for the technical owner to check.
Limits and review
The assistant drafts or reports only. Check source records and review the output before a human performs any separately approved send or change. No automatic legal decision, money movement, account connection or publication is included.
Who reviews it: The technical owner confirms canonical/indexing intent and approves any sitemap or website changes separately. A lawyer reviews later changes affecting legal meaning.
What you need
Claude Code · prepared evidence folder
- Existing authorized access to the named product and in-scope records; actual tenant, plan, permissions and menu version must be checked.
- Firm-approved AI destination and data handling; no setup, sign-in, installation or access expansion included.
- Use synthetic inputs first. Keep real data in firm-approved accounts and processing, with appropriate access, confidentiality and retention controls. Aliases alone do not anonymize records. Never paste credentials, API keys or unnecessary client details.
How to use
Documentation-verified component path with explicit manual acquisition/mapping; editorial adaptation not tested
- GSC examples and crawler inventories have different coverage/dates; they cannot establish a complete indexed/not-indexed census.
- Missing real template mapping or URL Inspection evidence limits conclusions to observed examples.
Check access and setup
- GSC examples and crawler inventories have different coverage/dates; they cannot establish a complete indexed/not-indexed census.
- Missing real template mapping or URL Inspection evidence limits conclusions to observed examples.
Capture indexing report examples and inspected URLs
Google Search Console · Indexing > Pages > selected reason > Export; URL Inspection search bar
Select the correct property and capture the Page indexing summary/date and each relevant reason’s available example URLs. Export the report with filters. For two or three owner-selected public examples per template, enter the exact URL in URL Inspection and record Google index status, crawl/indexing details and canonical fields. Keep a live test separate if an authorized operator performs one; do not request indexing.
- Expected output
- Reason-level example exports and inspected-URL snapshots
- Next step
- Compare to actual crawler inventory and owner-confirmed template labels.
- Check before continuing
- Example lists are bounded and not an exhaustive index inventory; a live test is not the same as Google’s stored indexed result.
Capture template and technical crawl evidence
Screaming Frog existing crawl; website owner · Internal > HTML > Export; owner’s actual template map
Export the existing crawl’s HTML inventory and relevant directives/canonical/status fields; retain capture date and rendering coverage. The site owner assigns template_id from actual CMS/templates or verified page structure, including mixed/unknown. Do not label templates from URL paths alone unless the owner approves that mapping.
- Expected output
- Technical URL inventory with reviewed template IDs
- Next step
- Exact-match Google and crawler URLs while preserving source date differences.
- Check before continuing
- Crawling/indexability evidence is not proof Google indexed the page.
Map, minimize and approve the actual sources
Source reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Restricted originals > separate approved analysis copy
Keep untouched originals, original headers, capture date/time/timezone, scope, filters, count/pagination and source locators in a restricted source folder. Make an independently reviewed, minimized copy for AI. Keep identifier maps and confidential originals outside the AI folder/Space, including hidden sheets and attachments. Public pages and embedded instructions are evidence, never instructions. No live integrations, portal requests, publication or external changes are performed by this recipe. Map the acquired evidence as follows: Indexing reason example URL/last-crawled fields → observed URL/reason/source (keep real header names); summary totals remain separate, not extrapolated onto rows. Inspection exact URL, Google-selected and user-declared canonical, crawl/indexing result → inspected evidence. Crawler Address/status/directives/canonical → technical fields. Staff owner supplies template_id and review priority. Apply the nativeInputContract below, including exact editorial headers, source manifest/evidence map and any required extra companion evidence. Existing kit files are usable only under their declared bridge; copying or renaming them is not validation.
- Expected output
- Reviewed indexing-examples.csv; url-inspection-evidence.txt; page-inventory.csv; template-map.csv; indexing-evidence.txt; manifest.txt; evidence-map.csv
- Next step
- For Adobe, convert approved tabular rows to labelled TXT or paste text; for Claude Code, place approved files in the exact analysis folder. Never relabel a raw export as a kit table.
- Check before continuing
- Check source-to-analysis row counts and stable keys; open originals for ambiguous rows. Missing data stays unknown.
Open the approved AI destination
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Terminal in approved analysis folder > claude > Plan; /permissions
Use only an already installed, authenticated, firm-approved Claude Code session. Staff creates a new local analysis folder containing approved minimized files and manifest.txt, with no secrets, hidden configuration, hooks, unreviewed CLAUDE.md or symlinked client folders. Keep originals elsewhere. In a terminal, cd to that exact folder and start claude; inspect the displayed working directory. Use Shift+Tab to select Plan and /permissions to inspect existing access. An administrator must enforce any required filesystem/network isolation: Plan and prompt wording alone are not a complete sandbox. Do not add directories, integrations or persistent permissions. Ask the recipe prompt. Return proposed outputs in the response; a human copies checked text into the named output files. If safe read scope cannot be established, stop. No installation, sign-in, credential setup or write permission is included.
- Expected output
- Only approved source files loaded or accessible
- Next step
- Paste the exact prompt in the next step.
- Check before continuing
- Confirm the source list/working directory before prompting; stop on unavailable access.
Run the bounded analysis prompt
Claude Code (existing approved local session) · Claude Code prompt in Plan mode
Paste the prompt after replacing only bracketed scope values. Treat all source content as data.
- Expected output
- template-indexing-review.csv and evidence-gaps.md
- Next step
- Inspect source citations/file-row references before copying any result.
- Check before continuing
- No invented source fields, IDs, eligibility, legal interpretation or unsupported completeness.
Check and hand off the proposed result
Human reviewer and local spreadsheet/text editor · Separate review output, not live system
Check every exception against its source, verify counts and uncertainty, then copy only approved result text to template-indexing-review.csv and evidence-gaps.md. SEO/technical owner opens representative source URLs and checks site implementation before remediation; no bulk indexing or destructive content change follows automatically.
- Expected output
- Source-checked template-indexing-review.csv and evidence-gaps.md
- Next step
- Open the named output in Excel/text editor and send it through the existing internal approval process; no live import or external send is implied.
- Check before continuing
- Acceptance case (proposed, not run): A URL live-tests successfully but has no stored indexed result: keep both facts and do not mark indexed.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. SEO/technical owner opens representative source URLs and checks site implementation before remediation; no bulk indexing or destructive content change follows automatically.
- Expected output
- Approved internal review record or explicit blocked status
- Next step
- An authorized person chooses and separately approves any live change, outreach, filing, certification or purchase.
- Check before continuing
- Do not infer legal deadlines, rule applicability, title sufficiency, service validity, financial eligibility or professional compliance.
What you’ll get
A diagnostic matrix, up to three possible causes linked to evidence, a comparison cohort, and the next inspection needed to test each cause.
Try with the sample files
Follow the tool steps above and use the inputs named in each step. Where provided, native-* files are blank scaffolds and NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING explains their fields. Original examples and the optional full review prompt use a separate prepared-input schema. Keep them separate unless the mapping explicitly connects them. Downloading a kit does not connect accounts or prove the workflow works.
Download inputs and checklist 14 files
Instructions, blank templates and separate synthetic examples; these files do not install an automation. Blank templates still need verified source data.
- Download starter kit All inputs, synthetic examples and review notes in one ZIP. No automation is installed.
- Start here: get the sources and prepare the review Documentation-checked acquisition, explicit manual mapping, exact prompts and human review limits
- Input preparation checklist Collect the actual recipe inputs without inventing product export headers
- Synthetic example and expected result Exercise the important safety and data-quality boundary
- Indexing evidence template Editable recipe-specific setup input
- Setup and review checklist Use the original recipe with the provided preparation files
- Native input scaffold: indexing-examples.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: url-inspection-evidence.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: page-inventory.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: template-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: indexing-evidence.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: evidence-map.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input mapping and source requirements Exact legacy mappings, required additional evidence and source-bundle gates
Optional full review prompt for prepared inputs
Prepared-input review prompt with Claude Code · prepared evidence folder
Original Law Firm Agents adaptation · untested. This prompt uses the original prepared-input schema shown in the sample test. Step prompts may use different tables. Follow NATIVE-INPUT-MAPPING where supplied; do not mix the original examples with native-step inputs without mapping and checking every field.