Prepare a website maintenance review list
Combine uptime and sanitized Site Health evidence into questions for the site maintainer.
Tools for the documented steps
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
Combine uptime and sanitized Site Health evidence into questions for the site maintainer.
Why it matters: A healthy homepage does not prove that every public resource works or that maintenance is current. Combining observed health and uptime signals gives the maintainer a specific review list without claiming a security diagnosis.
Sources & evidence
Proposed / not tested. The public source describes the problem. Documentation supports only the stated method components; no result from this recipe has been verified.
What’s been verified
Source methods and reported problems have been reviewed. We have not run the adapted workflow. The sample below describes expected behavior on synthetic data, not a customer result.
What to measure: In a synthetic pilot, count correctly found exceptions, false alarms, and unresolved inputs. No time or cost saving is assumed.
- Pain evidence: Law-firm website maintenance discussion ↗Law-firm website maintenance discussion, 2024-12-08, older: the original poster describes time/cost maintaining a hacked WordPress site; an independent commenter says an unchecked firm site had gone down, with a 2024-12-10 follow-up describing neglected plugins and unwanted redirects. These are historical user reports, not evidence that WordPress or any present site is insecure.
- Method: WordPress Site Health screen ↗WordPress Site Health screen, updated 2026-07-12, documents status and technical-information reports. UptimeRobot monitor types documents HTTP and keyword monitoring. These components provide signals, not a security or accessibility certification.
- Method: UptimeRobot monitor types ↗Additional official capability reference. The complete adapted recipe has not been tested.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. Pain accounts are self-reported. Documentation supports components; this adapted recipe and prompt have not been tested. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
Suggested approach
Start when: Weekly site-owner review or monitoring alert
- consolidate existing public-page uptime history, approved maintenance inventory and sanitized Site Health findings
- Keep source references and report unknowns instead of filling gaps.
- The responsible reviewer checks the report before any separately approved action.
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: Authorized maintainer checks actual causes and approves changes through its normal change-control process. Test a temporary monitoring failure and a healthy homepage with a broken public resource. Distinct from G25's end-to-end inquiry-delivery smoke test and the existing SEO checks.
What you need
Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
- 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
- No UptimeRobot CSV-export UI verified here. Use documented visible incident history with explicit manual capture; missing history prevents an all-clear.
- Site Health Info can contain sensitive infrastructure data and must not be uploaded raw.
Check access and setup
- No UptimeRobot CSV-export UI verified here. Use documented visible incident history with explicit manual capture; missing history prevents an all-clear.
- Site Health Info can contain sensitive infrastructure data and must not be uploaded raw.
Capture WordPress health and component evidence
WordPress admin, read-only inspection · Tools > Site Health > Status; Info > Copy site info to clipboard
The authorized maintainer records displayed Status findings and copies Info to a restricted local text file. Record core/plugin/theme names and versions from the existing Info sections. Make a separate sanitized copy without server paths, database details, account identifiers or secrets. Do not activate, update, deactivate or reconfigure anything.
- Expected output
- Original health snapshot plus sanitized findings/component list
- Next step
- Add existing uptime evidence, keeping different capture dates explicit.
- Check before continuing
- A health screen is not a security audit or accessibility certification.
Capture existing uptime history
UptimeRobot existing monitor · Monitor dashboard > Statistics/Graphs and Incident Log
Open the existing public-site monitor and selected review period. Save visible incident/status evidence with URL, time/timezone, region and monitor settings. Manually transcribe the bounded events when no verified export is available. Record retention limits, paused periods and missing history. Do not create monitors, reset stats or send requests through contact forms.
- Expected output
- Bounded uptime/incident capture with limitations
- Next step
- Join only to the matching public URL in the local review copy.
- Check before continuing
- An incident log is not every check. If expected/observed keyword or exact checked_at is absent, use unknown and label incident-based capture rather than inventing a per-check CSV.
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: WordPress Status text → finding_id/sanitized_summary/observed_at; Info component/version → components.csv. Uptime monitor URL/time/status → uptime.csv only where those facts exist; expected_keyword comes from existing monitor configuration, observed_keyword stays unknown if not recorded. Add evidence_kind,source_ref,window/coverage fields rather than pretending an incident is a full check log. 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 site-health.csv; components.csv; uptime.csv; maintenance-policy.txt; sanitized-health-and-uptime-evidence/; 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
Adobe Acrobat PDF Spaces · Acrobat Home > PDF Spaces > Create a PDF Space
In an already approved Acrobat account with PDF Spaces/AI entitlement, use Home > PDF Spaces > Create a PDF Space. Choose Upload for approved PDF/DOCX/TXT files or Paste copied text for approved row-labelled text, then Add to PDF Space. Ask the recipe prompt in the chat panel. Do not connect storage or add raw confidential originals. Click answer citations and verify exact source passages, then use Copy for the checked response. Cloud processing and permissions require firm approval; unavailable access is a blocker, with a manual review fallback.
- 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
Adobe Acrobat PDF Spaces · PDF Space chat panel
Paste the prompt after replacing only bracketed scope values. Treat all source content as data.
- Expected output
- website-maintenance-review.csv
- 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 website-maintenance-review.csv. Authorized maintainer verifies causes and separately approves any actual change. The queue does not authorize updates, scans or test submissions.
- Expected output
- Source-checked website-maintenance-review.csv
- 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): One monitor region fails while another works: flag conflicting evidence, not a proven site-wide outage; missing keyword evidence stays unknown.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. Authorized maintainer verifies causes and separately approves any actual change. The queue does not authorize updates, scans or test submissions.
- 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
maintenance-review.csv: signal_id, source_time, observation, unverified_cause, approved_owner, staging_question, backup_question, verification_step
Inputs and a sample test Synthetic example · not a measured result
Input files
- uptime.csv: public_url, checked_at, status, expected_keyword, observed_keyword
- site-health.csv: finding_id, sanitized_summary, observed_at; components.csv: component, version; maintenance-policy.txt: allowlisted URLs, owners, approved checks
Synthetic example
U1: repeated failed public checks U2: monitor failure but no independent outage evidence H3: healthy homepage with a missing public resource
Expected output
U1: investigate observed failures U2: cause unknown, confirm monitor H3: resource-specific maintenance item
Test a failure
Authorized maintainer checks actual causes and approves changes through its normal change-control process. Test a temporary monitoring failure and a healthy homepage with a broken public resource.
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 19 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
- uptime.csv Blank input template with exact recipe headers.
- uptime.example.csv Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports.
- site-health.csv Blank input template with exact recipe headers.
- site-health.example.csv Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports.
- components.csv Blank input template with exact recipe headers.
- components.example.csv Separate synthetic fixture input. Do not mix these rows into real exports.
- maintenance-policy.txt Blank text input worksheet. Fill its fields with approved evidence; no default assumptions are supplied.
- maintenance-policy.example.txt Separate synthetic text input fixture; use with the example CSV files only.
- Expected fixture findings Read-only expected output and failure conditions for the included synthetic input files.
- Setup and review checklist Recipe-specific prerequisites, file mapping, prompt, setup steps, checklist and limits.
- Native input scaffold: site-health.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: components.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: uptime.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: maintenance-policy.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 Your firm-approved AI assistant · prepared files
Proposed / not tested · editorial prompt. 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.