The playbook
Broken Links: Review Process
A useful broken links review ends with a supported decision for each item examined. Define the evidence required before opening the report: source URL, broken target, response, repair. These fields give reviewers a shared basis for agreeing what is working, what needs attention, and who should act.
Put the task in context
Separate an incorrect link in a shared menu from an obsolete external reference in one article. The menu repair belongs in the common component. The article may need a current replacement source or a rewritten recommendation rather than a redirect you do not control.
Set the review boundary
Choose the records or journeys that matter to the current question. Include a normal case, a recently changed case, and an exception where available. This is a diagnostic sample, not a claim that every item has been checked. Record how the sample was selected and what would justify expanding it.
Use explicit review criteria
| Criterion | Review question |
|---|---|
| Collect broken internal and external destinations | Is the supporting source URL current and traceable? |
| Identify the pages and components that link to them | Does broken target support the decision being made? |
| Replace remove or redirect links based on relevance | Can the next owner verify repair? |
Inspect the evidence before assigning a result
For each item, compare the intended behavior with the observed behavior. Pay particular attention to redirecting a missing resource to an unrelated sales page. If it appears, record where it occurs and which assumption it contradicts. Distinguish a verified defect from an unanswered question and from a preference about how the work should look.
Where the evidence supports the known correction, restore the expected resource or update the surrounding recommendation. Give that action to an accountable owner with a description of the expected result. If you cannot yet identify the cause, assign a diagnostic action rather than prescribing a speculative repair.
Record a decision that can be acted on
| Decision | When to use it |
|---|---|
| Keep | The current state serves the intended task and the evidence is adequate. |
| Revise | A specific gap is confirmed and the proposed action addresses it. |
| Investigate | Important information is missing or conflicting. |
| Retire or combine | The item has no distinct useful purpose in the current scope. |
Verify corrections and expand selectively
Recheck the affected page or query record after the owner completes the action. Then inspect other items sharing the relevant cause. A shared template, process rule, or data source may justify expanding the review. Similar wording or appearance alone is a weaker reason.
Turn the review into a decision summary
Summarize the affected scope, confirmed findings, actions, and open questions. Connect the findings to broken links on priority pages using the same definition as the baseline. A good summary lets the responsible person decide what happens next without reading every working note.
Keep page purpose visible throughout the work. A technically valid page can still fail to answer the reader’s question. Separate access and discovery problems from content problems so that the assigned action matches the cause.
Skip the manual steps. Let AgentixSEO run this for every client.
Start now