Audit overview
3 categories need attention: Security, and 2 others.
Fix Priority Matrix
5 findingsQuick Wins
3High impact, low effort — start here.
Strategic
2High impact, requires investment.
Easy Improvements
0Small gains, minimal effort.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Deprioritize
0Low impact, high effort — do last.
Nothing in this quadrant — good news.
Screenshots
Top Priorities (5)
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything your users type — including credentials.
HSTS header is missing
Without HSTS, a network attacker can downgrade the very first connection to HTTP and steal the user's session.
No Content-Security-Policy header found
Without a CSP, a single XSS bug can exfiltrate everything users type — credentials, payment data, session tokens.
No <main> landmark found
Without a <main> landmark, screen-reader users can't skip past the navigation to the page content — every page starts with re-reading the menu.
Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
Soft 404s (HTTP 200 for missing pages) confuse Google — it indexes the 'not found' page as real content and ranks it.
Business case
What fixing the audit's findings is worth -- and what ignoring them keeps costing.
Return on investment
¥55,333 investment → ¥1,334,648/month returns + JPY 100,000,000 risk avoided
Figures combine localized regulatory fine ceilings, search/conversion value priced against local CPC, and bandwidth waste estimates. Results depend on implementation quality and audience composition. Not legal or financial advice.
Conversion barriers
8 barrier(s) likely increasing bounce by ~30%.
- Page takes 6.2s to loadUsers abandon at ~3s — you're 3.7s over the 2.5s threshold→ Optimize render-blocking resources, preload the hero image, and compress images
- Page feels frozen for 877msClicks on the primary CTA are ignored while JavaScript runs→ Break up long tasks; defer non-critical JavaScript to post-hydration
- No HSTS headerReturning visitors are briefly exposed to downgrade attacks on first request→ Set Strict-Transport-Security: max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains
- No Content-Security-Policy headerHigher XSS blast radius — one compromised script can exfiltrate the checkout form→ Ship a reporting-only CSP first, then enforce once violations are clean
- Layout shifts during page loadContent movement causes mis-clicks on CTAs and form fields→ Add width/height to images; reserve space for late-loading embeds
Preliminary CRO audit — each barrier links to the tab with detailed analysis.
Remediation cost
Start here for the best return on investment
Cost by category
Cost by effort level
Adjust assumptions
Team composition
Multiplier applied to dev hours to reflect QA, design, and PM overhead. Use Dev only for solo work; Full team for projects with formal review processes.
Rates reflect fully-loaded developer cost including overhead
Warning:Cost of inaction
Compliance Risk
¥100,000,000
- No privacy policy link detectedAPPI: JPY 100,000 – JPY 100,000,000
- Trackers detected but no cookie policy foundAPPI: JPY 100,000 – JPY 100,000,000
- Trackers detected but no privacy policy foundAPPI: JPY 100,000 – JPY 100,000,000
Bounce-Rate Cost
¥849,463 /mo
+30.3pp bounce · ~3,034 lost visitors/mo
CPC: JPY 280.00
Bandwidth Waste
¥27 /mo
2271.9 MB/mo × 11.940 JPY/GB
- Optimize transfer: save ~227 KB per page loadSaves ¥27/mo
Compliance figures represent the statutory maximum fine for the most severe triggered category, capped per regulation — not the sum of per-finding penalties. Based on published regulatory fine ranges. This is not legal advice.
Unique monthly visitors from your analytics
Purchases, signups, or key actions
Optional — for revenue estimation
more engaged visitors from reduced bounce
Fix 5 critical issues to capture this value
How this is calculated
Based on Google/Deloitte research ("Milliseconds Make Millions") showing a ~7% bounce rate increase per additional second of LCP above the 2.5s "Good" threshold.
Your site's LCP: → estimated after fixes.
These are estimates based on industry research — actual results vary
Your data stays in your browser — nothing is sent to our servers
Lighthouse
Mobile
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
1.75 s
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
6.19 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
877 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.152
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
2.73 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
6.53 s
Desktop
First Contentful Paint First Contentful Paint — how long until the browser renders the first piece of content. Under 1.8s is good.
964 ms
Largest Contentful Paint Largest Contentful Paint — how long until the largest visible element loads. Under 2.5s is good.
2.24 s
Total Blocking Time Total Blocking Time — total time the main thread was blocked, preventing user input. Under 200ms is good.
70 ms
Cumulative Layout Shift Cumulative Layout Shift — measures visual stability. How much the page layout shifts during loading. Under 0.1 is good.
0.078
Speed Index Speed Index — how quickly content is visually displayed during load. Under 3.4s is good.
1.31 s
Time to Interactive Time to Interactive — how long until the page is fully interactive and responds to user input. Under 3.8s is good.
3.14 s
Categories
8Performance
All checks pass
Security
Content-Security-Policy header is missing
Accessibility
No <main> landmark found
SEO
All checks pass
Infrastructure
All checks pass
Compliance
All checks pass
Content
All checks pass
Sustainability
All checks pass
How you compare
Where this site stands against peers running the same stack.
Top 10% of core-js sites score 85+ on Compliance; you're at 69 — closing this gap is the highest-leverage improvement.
Technology stack
Apollo local, on GraphQL, hosted on Next.js
Stack Architecture
Google Analytics 
Google Tag Manager 
Apollo local
Open Graph 
React 
Sentry 
Webpack 
core-js 2.6.9
GraphQL 
styled-components 5.3.3
Next.js 9.1.1All Detected Technologies (11)
Next.js is a React framework for developing single page Javascript applications.
GraphQL is a query language for APIs and a runtime for fulfilling those queries with your existing data.
Styled components is a CSS-in-JS styling framework that uses tagged template literals in JavaScript.
Apollo is a fully-featured caching GraphQL client with integrations for React, Angular, and more.
Open Graph is a protocol that is used to integrate any web page into the social graph.
React is an open-source JavaScript library for building user interfaces or UI components.
Sentry is an open-source platform for workflow productivity, aggregating errors from across the stack in real time.
Webpack is an open-source JavaScript module bundler.
core-js is a modular standard library for JavaScript, with polyfills for cutting-edge ECMAScript features.
Google Analytics is a free web analytics service that tracks and reports website traffic.
Google Tag Manager is a tag management system (TMS) that allows you to quickly and easily update measurement codes and related code fragments collectively known as tags on your website or mobile app.
Observations (4)
Runtime exposed via X-Powered-By header
The X-Powered-By header reveals 'styled-components 5.3.3'. Remove this header in production to reduce information leakage.
No build tool detected
A framework (Apollo) was detected but no bundler was identified. The build tool may not be detectable from output patterns, or the site may use the framework's built-in bundler.
Next.js version may be outdated
Detected Next.js 9.1.1. The current major version is 14. Consider updating for security patches and new features.
Complex technology stack detected
11 technologies identified. A complex stack increases maintenance burden and attack surface. Consider whether all components are actively needed.
Show your score
Drop this badge on your README, marketing site, or status page. It auto-updates every time the audit re-runs and links back to this report.
This badge auto-updates with your latest scan result.
[](https://beavercheck.com/results/88653b63-78e6-43b6-89aa-ab37d5a051d7)<a href="https://beavercheck.com/results/88653b63-78e6-43b6-89aa-ab37d5a051d7"><img src="https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd.hatena.ne.jp" alt="BeaverCheck Score"></a>https://beavercheck.com/badge?url=https%3A%2F%2Fd.hatena.ne.jpExport & share
Download the audit, share with your team, or grab a fix plan ready to copy into your tracker.
Copies markdown to clipboard
Fix Plan
Three-week roadmap to ship the audit's findings, with one-click copy targets for your tracker.
Three-week fix plan
2 sprints · 7h total → projected B (81)
Sprint 1: Quick Wins
+6Highest ROI — low effort, high impact
- · No <main> landmark found
- · HSTS header is missing
- · Soft 404: server returns HTTP 200 for non-existent pages
Sprint 2: Core Fixes
+3Medium effort, high structural impact
- · Content-Security-Policy header is missing
- · No Content-Security-Policy header found