Web Analyzer

Read a website and write a disciplined, evidence-based analysis note that names why the site looks and behaves the way it does. The note is the shared contract for the rest of the pipeline.

When to use

• The user gives a URL (or a set of pages) and wants a design teardown, or needs an analysis to feed web-template-creator / web-design-auditor.
• Get permission before fetching; fetch read-only. Do not submit forms, log in, or trigger purchases.

Procedure

1. Read across the site, not just the home page. Sample the landing page, a main index/shop/gallery, the "about"/editorial page, a detail/product/post page, the FAQ/contact, and the 404. Note the exact pages read.
2. Gather evidence before interpreting. Inspect rendered markup, CSS (fonts, color values), image filenames/alt, OG/meta, and the platform fingerprint (CDN, runtime). Mark anything you infer from markup-only vs. visually confirmed.
3. For each artistic decision, record three things: the Evidence, the Decision it implies, and the Alternative rejected (the default the site refused). This is what separates analysis from description.
4. Name the "one move." The single structural idea that, if removed, collapses the site into its generic category. State it plainly and explain why it's load-bearing.
5. Name the texture in one phrase (e.g. "Photocopied metal reliquary"). It anchors the whole note.
6. Be honest about tensions and negative space — what the site refuses to do, and any judgement it dodged (contested content, accessibility, dark patterns). Include a short "what I'd push back on."

Output

A single markdown note with this shape (omit nothing material):

---
type: website-analysis
url: <url>
domain: <domain>
brand: <brand>
analyzed: <YYYY-MM-DD>
platform: <Wix | Shopify | Webflow | custom | ...>
mode: <full | quick>
verdict: "<one-sentence judgment>"
one-move: "<the defining structural move>"
texture: "<the look in one phrase>"
visual-confirmed: <yes | partial | no>
tags: [website-analysis, ...]
---

# <Brand> — Website Analysis
**URL** · **Read on** · **Pages read** · **Method**

## TL;DR

## 1. The site in one paragraph

## 2. Artistic decisions
### 2.1 Typography  (Evidence / Decision / Alternative rejected)
### 2.2 Color
### 2.3 Layout & grid
### 2.4 Imagery & art direction
### 2.5 Motion & interaction
### 2.6 Iconography & recurring marks
### 2.7 Naming systems
### 2.8 Texture, in one phrase
### 2.9 Reference lineage
### 2.10 Technical envelope

## 3. Philosophical decisions
### 3.1 Stated mission   ### 3.2 Revealed values   ### 3.3 Assumed reader
### 3.4 Voice & tone     ### 3.5 Theory of commerce
### 3.6 Posture toward imperfection, time, place
### 3.7 Community vs. customer   ### 3.8 Posture toward the broader internet

## 4. Tensions and negative space

## 5. The one move

## 6. What a competitor could learn

## 7. What I'd push back on (if asked)

*Pages read, in order:*

Rules

• Evidence over assertion. Quote CSS values, filenames, copy, meta. Flag [inferred from markup only] where you couldn't confirm visually.
• Decisions, not features. Always pair an observation with the alternative the site rejected.
• One move is mandatory. If you can't name it, keep reading.
• Name the texture in one phrase.
• Don't fabricate. Missing data is a finding ("no size guide, no reviews, no newsletter"), not a blank to fill.
• Stay read-only and respectful of the source's IP — this is analysis, not reproduction.

Reference

See reference.md for the worked re-animators.net note as a model of depth and the Evidence/Decision/Alternative rhythm.