Review redirects before a website migration
Use the Screaming Frog guide shared by Aleyda Solis to review where each old URL should redirect.
Suggested toolset
Practice relevance
Cross-practice idea · A general operational method. Review the stated tool and jurisdiction limits before use.
The problem
A replacement page with similar wording may still cover the wrong practice, jurisdiction, or office.
Why it matters: A website move can leave useful old URLs broken or point them to unrelated pages. Reviewing the mapping before launch helps the site owner catch gaps without assuming every proposed redirect is correct.
Sources & evidence
An original public X source and linked method were checked. Tool capabilities are documented; the law-firm adaptation and prompt are untested.
What’s been verified
The X post points to a documented vendor method; it establishes no performance result. Screaming Frog says this is not a purpose-built redirect feature and all matches require review. Our law-firm adaptation is untested.
What to measure: Mappings reviewed, unresolved old URLs, and successful live redirect/status/canonical checks after an approved launch.
- Aleyda Solis (@aleyda): original X commentary ↗July 17, 2025 · Highlights the vendor’s redirect-mapping tutorial; not implementation or performance proof by itself.
- Screaming Frog: vector embeddings for redirect mapping ↗Original vendor method with paid-license, staging, cross-site matching, and manual-review requirements.
- Claude Code: supported file workflows ↗Official tool documentation: local file access, commands, and account setup. This does not validate our SEO prompt.
Source checked: October 15, 2026. The problem framing and law-firm prompt are editorial adaptations of the linked public method. X commentary and source-reported outcomes are not independent validation. We wrote these prompts. The adapted workflow hasn’t been tested.
The source method
Start when: An approved migration has old and new inventories, page content, and an explicit production URL map.
- Solis links to Screaming Frog’s method for comparing embeddings between old and new sites.
- The vendor guide matches pages across the two sites, runs semantic analysis, and exports the closest match plus alternatives.
- The guide requires manual checks. Our proposed review also checks legal meaning, offices, and jurisdictions before any redirect is deployed.
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 developer and SEO owner approve the final mapping, backup, rollback plan, and launch tests. An attorney checks ambiguous legal/topic or office equivalence.
What you need
Claude Code · prepared local 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
- The full old URL inventory and actual proposed map are required. Unavailable target/staging content blocks target validation.
- No rule deployment, credential access or new crawler installation is included.
- Native map-review route consumes owner-supplied proposed mappings; earlier semantic-matches input is optional candidate evidence, not approved redirect intent or observed routing. The bridge preserves staging-to-production and content/jurisdiction checks.
Check access and setup
- The full old URL inventory and actual proposed map are required. Unavailable target/staging content blocks target validation.
- No rule deployment, credential access or new crawler installation is included.
- Native map-review route consumes owner-supplied proposed mappings; earlier semantic-matches input is optional candidate evidence, not approved redirect intent or observed routing. The bridge preserves staging-to-production and content/jurisdiction checks.
Acquire old/new inventories and the proposed map
Existing CMS/crawler exports and approved migration owner · Existing approved old-site crawl; approved new-site URL inventory and redirect proposal
Preserve the old crawl, current approved target inventory and owner’s proposed source→target map as separate originals. If old content is no longer available, use the retained pre-migration capture. No universal CMS map export is assumed; the owner manually supplies intended mappings and migration scope.
- Expected output
- Old URLs, proposed targets and actual target evidence
- Next step
- Exact-match and review source/target rows before testing any route.
- Check before continuing
- Do not invent a replacement from similar slugs or send every removed page to the homepage.
Capture observed redirect behavior without deploying it
Screaming Frog SEO Spider · Mode > List > Upload/Paste URLs; Config > Spider > Advanced > Always Follow Redirects; Reports > Redirects > All Redirects
For an already authorized public/staging route test, use the old-URL list with Always Follow Redirects; record the redirect-follow limit and any access restrictions. Export All Redirects and final-target status/canonical evidence. Otherwise use existing authorized test exports. Keep observed routes separate from proposed mappings. Do not bypass authentication/robots or change redirect rules.
- Expected output
- Observed chains/final targets for tested URLs, with untested rows explicit
- Next step
- Map the exact original chain column headings to source, hops, statuses and terminal target.
- Check before continuing
- A proposed redirect that is not installed has no observed passing test. Redirect limits, inaccessible staging and partial URL coverage remain blockers.
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: Owner’s old_url→proposed_target is editorial input; crawl Address/status/canonical → verified inventory. All Redirects source and successive URL/status fields → chain sequence/final_url/final_status; retain original headers and row pointers. Add test_time,environment and tested flag from actual captures. Do not strip meaningful URL paths/query parameters during normalization without owner approval. 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 old-url-inventory.csv; new-url-inventory.csv; proposed-redirects.csv; observed-redirects.csv; approved-page-text/; scope-manifest.txt; firm-brief.md; 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
- redirect-map-review.csv and launch-review.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 redirect-map-review.csv and launch-review.md. Technical owner verifies every high-priority route and approves deployment separately; content/lawyer reviewer confirms legitimate replacements. Recheck actual final URLs after any authorized deployment.
- Expected output
- Source-checked redirect-map-review.csv and launch-review.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): Two conflicting targets for one old URL are flagged; an uninstalled proposal never receives tested-pass status.
Approve the internal next action
Final human reviewResponsible human owner · Existing internal work queue / approved source system
Record the reviewer, decision and unresolved blockers. Technical owner verifies every high-priority route and approves deployment separately; content/lawyer reviewer confirms legitimate replacements. Recheck actual final URLs after any authorized deployment.
- 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
redirect-review.csv classifying each pair as reviewable, needing an alternative, or no equivalent; plus launch-checklist.md. No redirects are deployed.
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 15 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
- Launch review checklist Editable recipe-specific setup input
- Setup and review checklist Use the original recipe with the provided preparation files
- Native input scaffold: old-url-inventory.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: new-url-inventory.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: proposed-redirects.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: observed-redirects.csv Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: scope-manifest.txt Blank editorial review input; acquire and check the stated source evidence before use; not a native export
- Native input scaffold: firm-brief.md 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 local 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.