Vibecode Oncrawl

You are building a lean indie version of Oncrawl.

Create the following project files first, then implement the application by following them. Keep the files updated as decisions change. Do not collapse this into a single README or prompt.

===== README.md =====
# Oncrawl indie build

## Goal

Build the smallest trustworthy replacement for the core Oncrawl workflow for one developer or a tiny team.

## Scope

Crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.

## Quick start

1. Install the documented dependencies.
2. Copy `.env.example` to `.env`.
3. Run the development command chosen during implementation.
4. Complete the acceptance checks in `BUILD_PLAN.md`.

## Honest limits

This build deliberately does not replace:
- large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support
- massive hosted crawl capacity
- proprietary scoring
- continuous monitoring
- agency reporting and support

If those capabilities are essential, use SEOnaut instead of pretending the gap is solved.

===== AGENTS.md =====
# Agent instructions

- Optimize for a working, understandable weekend build.
- Prefer the fewest moving parts that satisfy the brief.
- Do not invent cryptography, security guarantees, APIs, or compliance claims.
- Keep secrets out of source control and logs.
- Add focused tests for destructive, security-sensitive, and data-loss paths.
- Run the project checks before declaring the build complete.
- Record any deliberate shortcut in the README under "Tradeoffs".

===== BUILD_PLAN.md =====
# Build plan

## Original build brief

Build a closest honest personal substitute for Oncrawl in an empty repository.
Use Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLite, Playwright, and an HTMX interface; do not offer alternative stacks.
The core loop is: crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.
Make the first run work locally with one documented command.
Store all user data locally by default and make export straightforward.
Put secrets in .env, ship .env.example, and never commit credentials.
Require an explicit ownership or permission acknowledgement before a crawl starts.
Respect robots.txt, rate limits, canonical URLs, nofollow, redirects, and a configurable URL cap.
Collect status, title, description, headings, canonical, robots, links, images, structured data, and rendered text.
Detect duplicates, orphan candidates, broken links, redirect chains, missing metadata, and indexability conflicts.
Show every issue with affected URLs, evidence, severity, and a concrete remediation note.
Export crawl data and issues to CSV plus a self-contained HTML report.
Include clear empty, loading, success, and recoverable error states.
Add input validation, safe filenames, and graceful handling of unavailable APIs.
Write focused tests for the core transformation and one end-to-end happy path.
Create a README with setup, architecture, permissions, data location, and backup steps.
Do not add accounts, billing, telemetry, analytics, or a hosted control plane.
Do not claim to reproduce proprietary data, network liquidity, regulated access, or frontier infrastructure.
Deliberately leave out crawling sites without permission.
Deliberately leave out web-scale backlink or keyword datasets.
Deliberately leave out automated changes to production websites.
Finish by running the tests and listing the exact commands used.

## Required capabilities

- Python 3.12
- Playwright browsers
- permission to crawl the target site
- local disk space

## Delivery order

1. Scaffold the smallest runnable application and document its commands.
2. Implement the primary data model and core workflow.
3. Add validation, safe failure states, and persistence.
4. Cover the critical path with automated tests.
5. Exercise a clean install from the README and fix every missing step.

## Done when

- A new user can go from clone to first successful workflow using only the README.
- The core workflow works without paid infrastructure unless the brief requires it.
- Tests cover the highest-risk behavior.
- Known limitations are explicit rather than hidden.

===== .env.example =====
# Copy to .env and document every variable when it is introduced.
# Never put real credentials in this file.

APP_ENV=development
# Add only values required by the selected implementation.

You are building a lean indie version of Oncrawl.

Create the following project files first, then implement the application by following them. Keep the files updated as decisions change. Do not collapse this into a single README or prompt.

===== README.md =====
# Oncrawl indie build

## Goal

Build the smallest trustworthy replacement for the core Oncrawl workflow for one developer or a tiny team.

## Scope

Crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.

## Quick start

1. Install the documented dependencies.
2. Copy `.env.example` to `.env`.
3. Run the development command chosen during implementation.
4. Complete the acceptance checks in `BUILD_PLAN.md`.

## Honest limits

This build deliberately does not replace:
- large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support
- massive hosted crawl capacity
- proprietary scoring
- continuous monitoring
- agency reporting and support

If those capabilities are essential, use SEOnaut instead of pretending the gap is solved.

===== AGENTS.md =====
# Agent instructions

- Optimize for a working, understandable weekend build.
- Prefer the fewest moving parts that satisfy the brief.
- Do not invent cryptography, security guarantees, APIs, or compliance claims.
- Keep secrets out of source control and logs.
- Add focused tests for destructive, security-sensitive, and data-loss paths.
- Run the project checks before declaring the build complete.
- Record any deliberate shortcut in the README under "Tradeoffs".

===== BUILD_PLAN.md =====
# Build plan

## Original build brief

Build a closest honest personal substitute for Oncrawl in an empty repository.
Use Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLite, Playwright, and an HTMX interface; do not offer alternative stacks.
The core loop is: crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.
Make the first run work locally with one documented command.
Store all user data locally by default and make export straightforward.
Put secrets in .env, ship .env.example, and never commit credentials.
Require an explicit ownership or permission acknowledgement before a crawl starts.
Respect robots.txt, rate limits, canonical URLs, nofollow, redirects, and a configurable URL cap.
Collect status, title, description, headings, canonical, robots, links, images, structured data, and rendered text.
Detect duplicates, orphan candidates, broken links, redirect chains, missing metadata, and indexability conflicts.
Show every issue with affected URLs, evidence, severity, and a concrete remediation note.
Export crawl data and issues to CSV plus a self-contained HTML report.
Include clear empty, loading, success, and recoverable error states.
Add input validation, safe filenames, and graceful handling of unavailable APIs.
Write focused tests for the core transformation and one end-to-end happy path.
Create a README with setup, architecture, permissions, data location, and backup steps.
Do not add accounts, billing, telemetry, analytics, or a hosted control plane.
Do not claim to reproduce proprietary data, network liquidity, regulated access, or frontier infrastructure.
Deliberately leave out crawling sites without permission.
Deliberately leave out web-scale backlink or keyword datasets.
Deliberately leave out automated changes to production websites.
Finish by running the tests and listing the exact commands used.

## Required capabilities

- Python 3.12
- Playwright browsers
- permission to crawl the target site
- local disk space

## Delivery order

1. Scaffold the smallest runnable application and document its commands.
2. Implement the primary data model and core workflow.
3. Add validation, safe failure states, and persistence.
4. Cover the critical path with automated tests.
5. Exercise a clean install from the README and fix every missing step.

## Done when

- A new user can go from clone to first successful workflow using only the README.
- The core workflow works without paid infrastructure unless the brief requires it.
- Tests cover the highest-risk behavior.
- Known limitations are explicit rather than hidden.

===== .env.example =====
# Copy to .env and document every variable when it is introduced.
# Never put real credentials in this file.

APP_ENV=development
# Add only values required by the selected implementation.

You are building a production product version of Oncrawl.

Create the following project files first, then implement the application by following them. Keep the files updated as decisions change. Do not collapse this into a single README or prompt.

===== PRODUCT.md =====
# Oncrawl product brief

## Problem

A consolation build is possible, but the paid product's decisive value sits outside a solo rebuild. For Oncrawl, crawl one owned site locally and join pages to user-supplied analytics exports. The hard boundary is large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support, plus crawl scale, rule depth, and operational polish.

## Product outcome

Crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.

## Target user

A serious builder who needs a maintainable product foundation rather than a one-off demo.

## Required capabilities

- Python 3.12
- Playwright browsers
- permission to crawl the target site
- local disk space

## Explicit non-goals for v1

- large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support
- massive hosted crawl capacity
- proprietary scoring
- continuous monitoring
- agency reporting and support

## Success criteria

- The primary workflow is measurable end to end.
- Setup is reproducible in a clean environment.
- Failure, recovery, and support paths are documented.
- Product claims match what the implementation actually guarantees.

===== ARCHITECTURE.md =====
# Architecture

## Starting brief

Build a closest honest personal substitute for Oncrawl in an empty repository.
Use Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLite, Playwright, and an HTMX interface; do not offer alternative stacks.
The core loop is: crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.
Make the first run work locally with one documented command.
Store all user data locally by default and make export straightforward.
Put secrets in .env, ship .env.example, and never commit credentials.
Require an explicit ownership or permission acknowledgement before a crawl starts.
Respect robots.txt, rate limits, canonical URLs, nofollow, redirects, and a configurable URL cap.
Collect status, title, description, headings, canonical, robots, links, images, structured data, and rendered text.
Detect duplicates, orphan candidates, broken links, redirect chains, missing metadata, and indexability conflicts.
Show every issue with affected URLs, evidence, severity, and a concrete remediation note.
Export crawl data and issues to CSV plus a self-contained HTML report.
Include clear empty, loading, success, and recoverable error states.
Add input validation, safe filenames, and graceful handling of unavailable APIs.
Write focused tests for the core transformation and one end-to-end happy path.
Create a README with setup, architecture, permissions, data location, and backup steps.
Do not add accounts, billing, telemetry, analytics, or a hosted control plane.
Do not claim to reproduce proprietary data, network liquidity, regulated access, or frontier infrastructure.
Deliberately leave out crawling sites without permission.
Deliberately leave out web-scale backlink or keyword datasets.
Deliberately leave out automated changes to production websites.
Finish by running the tests and listing the exact commands used.

## Boundaries

Separate the product into replaceable modules for interface, application logic, persistence, external integrations, and operational concerns. Keep domain logic independent from delivery frameworks and vendors.

## Production baseline

- Configuration: validated at startup with safe local defaults where possible.
- Security: least privilege, input validation, secret redaction, rate limits on abuse-prone paths, and no invented security primitives.
- Data: explicit schema and migrations, transactional writes where integrity matters, backup and restore instructions.
- Integrations: adapters around third-party providers, idempotent webhook or job processing, bounded retries, and timeouts.
- Observability: structured logs with request or operation IDs, an error-tracking hook, and health/readiness checks where a server exists.
- Quality: unit tests for domain rules, integration tests at module boundaries, and one end-to-end critical-path test.

## Decision records

For each major dependency, document why it was chosen, its failure mode, and how it can be replaced. Do not introduce infrastructure until a requirement justifies it.

===== AGENTS.md =====
# Agent instructions

- Read `PRODUCT.md` and `ARCHITECTURE.md` before changing code.
- Implement milestone by milestone; keep each change reviewable and leave the application runnable.
- Treat authentication, payments, encryption, imports, webhooks, and destructive actions as high-risk boundaries when present.
- Never invent cryptography or silently weaken a requirement to make a test pass.
- Use provider interfaces for external services and deterministic fakes in tests.
- Add migrations and rollback or recovery notes for persistent data changes.
- Log useful operational context without credentials, tokens, passwords, or personal data.
- Update documentation and run all checks before completing a milestone.

===== MILESTONES.md =====
# Delivery milestones

## M0 — Decisions and scaffold

- Confirm the runtime, persistence model, threat boundaries, and deployment target.
- Create a reproducible local environment and continuous checks.

## M1 — Core workflow

- Implement the smallest end-to-end product path with validation and tests.
- Keep integrations behind interfaces.

## M2 — Trust layer

- Add secure failure behavior, recovery paths, audit-relevant events, and data safeguards.
- Test abuse cases and destructive operations.

## M3 — Operability

- Add structured logs, error reporting hooks, health signals, backup/restore documentation, and deployment configuration.

## M4 — Release gate

- Run a clean-install test, critical-path end-to-end test, dependency review, and documented rollback exercise.
- Compare the shipped behavior with `PRODUCT.md` and publish remaining limitations.

===== OPERATIONS.md =====
# Operations

## Before release

- Validate configuration and secrets at startup.
- Define backup, restore, and rollback procedures and test them.
- Document logs, error tracking, health signals, and alert ownership.
- Set dependency update and vulnerability review expectations.

## Incident checklist

1. Contain the issue without destroying evidence or user data.
2. Record the timeline and affected scope.
3. Rotate exposed secrets and revoke compromised sessions or credentials.
4. Restore from a verified source when needed.
5. Document the root cause, remediation, and regression test.

## Launch constraint

Do not market omitted Oncrawl capabilities as implemented. The v1 non-goals in `PRODUCT.md` remain user-visible limitations until they are deliberately delivered.

# Oncrawl indie build

## Goal

Build the smallest trustworthy replacement for the core Oncrawl workflow for one developer or a tiny team.

## Scope

Crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.

## Quick start

1. Install the documented dependencies.
2. Copy `.env.example` to `.env`.
3. Run the development command chosen during implementation.
4. Complete the acceptance checks in `BUILD_PLAN.md`.

## Honest limits

This build deliberately does not replace:
- large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support
- massive hosted crawl capacity
- proprietary scoring
- continuous monitoring
- agency reporting and support

If those capabilities are essential, use SEOnaut instead of pretending the gap is solved.

# Agent instructions

- Optimize for a working, understandable weekend build.
- Prefer the fewest moving parts that satisfy the brief.
- Do not invent cryptography, security guarantees, APIs, or compliance claims.
- Keep secrets out of source control and logs.
- Add focused tests for destructive, security-sensitive, and data-loss paths.
- Run the project checks before declaring the build complete.
- Record any deliberate shortcut in the README under "Tradeoffs".

# Build plan

## Original build brief

Build a closest honest personal substitute for Oncrawl in an empty repository.
Use Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLite, Playwright, and an HTMX interface; do not offer alternative stacks.
The core loop is: crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.
Make the first run work locally with one documented command.
Store all user data locally by default and make export straightforward.
Put secrets in .env, ship .env.example, and never commit credentials.
Require an explicit ownership or permission acknowledgement before a crawl starts.
Respect robots.txt, rate limits, canonical URLs, nofollow, redirects, and a configurable URL cap.
Collect status, title, description, headings, canonical, robots, links, images, structured data, and rendered text.
Detect duplicates, orphan candidates, broken links, redirect chains, missing metadata, and indexability conflicts.
Show every issue with affected URLs, evidence, severity, and a concrete remediation note.
Export crawl data and issues to CSV plus a self-contained HTML report.
Include clear empty, loading, success, and recoverable error states.
Add input validation, safe filenames, and graceful handling of unavailable APIs.
Write focused tests for the core transformation and one end-to-end happy path.
Create a README with setup, architecture, permissions, data location, and backup steps.
Do not add accounts, billing, telemetry, analytics, or a hosted control plane.
Do not claim to reproduce proprietary data, network liquidity, regulated access, or frontier infrastructure.
Deliberately leave out crawling sites without permission.
Deliberately leave out web-scale backlink or keyword datasets.
Deliberately leave out automated changes to production websites.
Finish by running the tests and listing the exact commands used.

## Required capabilities

- Python 3.12
- Playwright browsers
- permission to crawl the target site
- local disk space

## Delivery order

1. Scaffold the smallest runnable application and document its commands.
2. Implement the primary data model and core workflow.
3. Add validation, safe failure states, and persistence.
4. Cover the critical path with automated tests.
5. Exercise a clean install from the README and fix every missing step.

## Done when

- A new user can go from clone to first successful workflow using only the README.
- The core workflow works without paid infrastructure unless the brief requires it.
- Tests cover the highest-risk behavior.
- Known limitations are explicit rather than hidden.

# Copy to .env and document every variable when it is introduced.
# Never put real credentials in this file.

APP_ENV=development
# Add only values required by the selected implementation.

# Oncrawl product brief

## Problem

A consolation build is possible, but the paid product's decisive value sits outside a solo rebuild. For Oncrawl, crawl one owned site locally and join pages to user-supplied analytics exports. The hard boundary is large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support, plus crawl scale, rule depth, and operational polish.

## Product outcome

Crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.

## Target user

A serious builder who needs a maintainable product foundation rather than a one-off demo.

## Required capabilities

- Python 3.12
- Playwright browsers
- permission to crawl the target site
- local disk space

## Explicit non-goals for v1

- large-scale crawler, log analysis, data connectors, and enterprise support
- massive hosted crawl capacity
- proprietary scoring
- continuous monitoring
- agency reporting and support

## Success criteria

- The primary workflow is measurable end to end.
- Setup is reproducible in a clean environment.
- Failure, recovery, and support paths are documented.
- Product claims match what the implementation actually guarantees.

# Architecture

## Starting brief

Build a closest honest personal substitute for Oncrawl in an empty repository.
Use Python 3.12, FastAPI, SQLite, Playwright, and an HTMX interface; do not offer alternative stacks.
The core loop is: crawl one owned site locally, inspect HTML and rendered pages, join pages to user-supplied analytics exports, explain prioritized issues, and export a reproducible audit.
Make the first run work locally with one documented command.
Store all user data locally by default and make export straightforward.
Put secrets in .env, ship .env.example, and never commit credentials.
Require an explicit ownership or permission acknowledgement before a crawl starts.
Respect robots.txt, rate limits, canonical URLs, nofollow, redirects, and a configurable URL cap.
Collect status, title, description, headings, canonical, robots, links, images, structured data, and rendered text.
Detect duplicates, orphan candidates, broken links, redirect chains, missing metadata, and indexability conflicts.
Show every issue with affected URLs, evidence, severity, and a concrete remediation note.
Export crawl data and issues to CSV plus a self-contained HTML report.
Include clear empty, loading, success, and recoverable error states.
Add input validation, safe filenames, and graceful handling of unavailable APIs.
Write focused tests for the core transformation and one end-to-end happy path.
Create a README with setup, architecture, permissions, data location, and backup steps.
Do not add accounts, billing, telemetry, analytics, or a hosted control plane.
Do not claim to reproduce proprietary data, network liquidity, regulated access, or frontier infrastructure.
Deliberately leave out crawling sites without permission.
Deliberately leave out web-scale backlink or keyword datasets.
Deliberately leave out automated changes to production websites.
Finish by running the tests and listing the exact commands used.

## Boundaries

Separate the product into replaceable modules for interface, application logic, persistence, external integrations, and operational concerns. Keep domain logic independent from delivery frameworks and vendors.

## Production baseline

- Configuration: validated at startup with safe local defaults where possible.
- Security: least privilege, input validation, secret redaction, rate limits on abuse-prone paths, and no invented security primitives.
- Data: explicit schema and migrations, transactional writes where integrity matters, backup and restore instructions.
- Integrations: adapters around third-party providers, idempotent webhook or job processing, bounded retries, and timeouts.
- Observability: structured logs with request or operation IDs, an error-tracking hook, and health/readiness checks where a server exists.
- Quality: unit tests for domain rules, integration tests at module boundaries, and one end-to-end critical-path test.

## Decision records

For each major dependency, document why it was chosen, its failure mode, and how it can be replaced. Do not introduce infrastructure until a requirement justifies it.

# Agent instructions

- Read `PRODUCT.md` and `ARCHITECTURE.md` before changing code.
- Implement milestone by milestone; keep each change reviewable and leave the application runnable.
- Treat authentication, payments, encryption, imports, webhooks, and destructive actions as high-risk boundaries when present.
- Never invent cryptography or silently weaken a requirement to make a test pass.
- Use provider interfaces for external services and deterministic fakes in tests.
- Add migrations and rollback or recovery notes for persistent data changes.
- Log useful operational context without credentials, tokens, passwords, or personal data.
- Update documentation and run all checks before completing a milestone.

# Delivery milestones

## M0 — Decisions and scaffold

- Confirm the runtime, persistence model, threat boundaries, and deployment target.
- Create a reproducible local environment and continuous checks.

## M1 — Core workflow

- Implement the smallest end-to-end product path with validation and tests.
- Keep integrations behind interfaces.

## M2 — Trust layer

- Add secure failure behavior, recovery paths, audit-relevant events, and data safeguards.
- Test abuse cases and destructive operations.

## M3 — Operability

- Add structured logs, error reporting hooks, health signals, backup/restore documentation, and deployment configuration.

## M4 — Release gate

- Run a clean-install test, critical-path end-to-end test, dependency review, and documented rollback exercise.
- Compare the shipped behavior with `PRODUCT.md` and publish remaining limitations.

# Operations

## Before release

- Validate configuration and secrets at startup.
- Define backup, restore, and rollback procedures and test them.
- Document logs, error tracking, health signals, and alert ownership.
- Set dependency update and vulnerability review expectations.

## Incident checklist

1. Contain the issue without destroying evidence or user data.
2. Record the timeline and affected scope.
3. Rotate exposed secrets and revoke compromised sessions or credentials.
4. Restore from a verified source when needed.
5. Document the root cause, remediation, and regression test.

## Launch constraint

Do not market omitted Oncrawl capabilities as implemented. The v1 non-goals in `PRODUCT.md` remain user-visible limitations until they are deliberately delivered.

$ choose a build depth, inspect the files, then open the complete pack in your agent · this prompt is generated from the build plan · improve it via PR