AI builders got the site live fast. We turn what's there into something that ranks, converts, holds up to scrutiny, and someone other than the founder can maintain.
Why teams call us
Generating a website is now close to free, which means the site is no longer the achievement. What separates you from every competitor who also generated one is everything the generator didn't do.
Generated output converges on the same handful of layouts. So does your competitor's. Nobody is differentiated by a template.
Bloated markup, unoptimised images, blocking scripts, and no performance budget anyone is accountable for.
Metadata duplicated across pages, no internal linking strategy, no schema, headings used as styling. Nothing is structurally wrong. Nothing is structurally right either.
Every page was generated separately, so brand consistency erodes with each page added and nothing composes.
No component structure, no CMS. Changing a headline means re-prompting and hoping the rest of the page survives.
Contrast, semantics, focus order, and keyboard paths: a real problem the moment you sell to anyone with a procurement process.
Honest assessment
If the AI-generated site is doing its job, leave it alone. It's a genuinely good answer for a pre-revenue landing page, and we'll say so.
The content and the structure are usually worth keeping. They're a decent first draft of what you wanted to say. The implementation rarely is.
We treat the generated site as a brief: it tells us the pages you think you need and the story you're trying to tell, both of which we'll then interrogate.
The actual work
A full crawl of the generated site: pages, duplicate metadata, heading structure, broken links, orphan pages, and what is actually indexed.
A real visual identity and a component system, so the site stops looking like the default output of a tool everyone has access to.
The generated copy edited into something with a point of view, and the page structure rebuilt around what people actually search for.
Unique metadata, deliberate heading hierarchy, internal linking, schema, sitemaps, and canonicals, designed rather than emitted.
Rebuilt on a stack that ships almost no JavaScript, with image optimisation and a performance budget that holds after launch.
A visual CMS so your team edits pages instead of re-prompting, with components that keep new pages on-brand.
WCAG 2.2 AA: semantics, contrast, focus management, and keyboard paths, checked rather than assumed.
Analytics, consent, and conversion tracking implemented and verified, then the whole site tested against a written checklist.
Architecture
We use AI heavily in this work too. It's what makes a rescue economical. The difference is that a designer decides what the site should be, and an engineer is accountable for what ships.
Process
Crawl the existing site, pull Search Console and analytics, and produce a written list of what's broken and what's worth keeping.
IA, content model, platform recommendation, redirect plan, and the SEO foundation the generated site never had.
Brand-led visual system built as real components, designed against your actual content.
Rebuild on Astro or Framer with a visual CMS, migrating the content that earned its place.
Accessibility audit, Core Web Vitals, redirect testing, analytics verification, and content QA.
Staged cutover, then Search Console, crawl errors, and vitals watched closely for the first weeks.
Starting points
Full-stack output with a real data layer, usually the closest to viable and the most tempting to leave as-is.
Good component-level output that needs a design system, a CMS, and an SEO foundation around it.
Capable, clean code that still needs brand, content strategy, and someone accountable for performance and search.
Working software in a hosted sandbox that needs a real deployment story and publishing workflow.
Fast scaffolding that needs the architecture, accessibility, and edge cases filled in properly.
Agentic site builders that get you live quickly and then cap what the site can become.
SEO & redirects
Every URL the generated site produced, including the ones it created and forgot, pulled from a crawl plus Search Console.
Generated sites accumulate thin and duplicate pages. A lot of this work is deciding what should stop existing.
301s for anything with traffic, links, or rankings; deliberate removal for everything else.
Unique metadata, heading hierarchy, internal linking, schema, and sitemaps, which is usually the first time the site has had any of it.
Crawl errors, indexation, rankings, and vitals monitored for the first weeks, with fixes shipped fast.
The details
Relevant work
Move marketing pages out of the product's Next.js repo and release process onto Astro and a headless CMS, so marketing can publish on its own.
View migration pathMove from Webflow to Astro and a headless CMS without giving up marketing autonomy, keeping your content, SEO equity, and integrations.
View migration pathMove off plugin-heavy WordPress onto a fast Astro frontend with a visual CMS marketing can still run, with content, SEO equity, and integrations intact.
View migration pathFAQs
No. They're a good answer to a real problem, and we use the same class of tooling ourselves. They're just not a substitute for deciding what your site should be, and that gap is what this page is about.
Usually, as a first draft. Generated copy tends to be structurally reasonable and strategically empty, so it gets edited hard rather than thrown away.
There usually aren't many to lose, which makes this lower risk than a typical migration. What rankings exist are protected with a proper redirect map.
Often less, because the content and page structure already exist. The saving is in discovery and copywriting, not in design or build.
Astro with a visual CMS, or Framer for simpler marketing sites. We recommend after the audit, based on your team and content volume.
Four to eight weeks for a typical marketing site, including a real design pass. Faster if you're happy to keep more of the existing content.
