Full disclosure: I run Revert Creations, and this is a paid fixed-scope service.
The Shopify Storefront Evidence Audit inspects five public paths—the homepage, one collection, one product, cart behavior without purchase, and one additional URL—at 390px, 768px, and 1440px widths.
The deliverable is one self-contained HTML report with up to 12 prioritized findings. Each finding includes the exact URL and viewport, reproducible evidence, severity, recommendation, and confidence. It covers public functional failures, responsive layout problems, experience friction, and diagnostic performance signals.
The boundary is deliberately narrow: no Shopify admin or collaborator access, no credentials, no analytics or customer data, no checkout purchase, no implementation retainer, and no sales call. Delivery is within three business days after usable intake. The fixed price is $250.
A shortened demonstration report made from an invented storefront with intentional defects is here: Demonstration Storefront Audit | Revert Creations
The complete scope and checkout are here: Shopify Storefront Evidence Audit · $250 | Revert Creations
I am happy to answer scope questions publicly in this thread. Please do not post store credentials, private preview links, analytics, or customer information.
A plain-English version of the offer above, since the original reads a bit dense:
If your store feels off — mobile layout glitches, things that look broken, a confusing path to checkout — I’ll find what’s wrong and hand you an ordered repair list.
For a flat $250, delivered within 3 business days:
- I inspect 5 public pages of your store (home, a collection, a product, cart, plus one URL you choose) at phone, tablet, and desktop widths.
- You get one report with up to 12 findings — each with the exact URL, a screenshot, how serious it is, and what to do about it — ordered so you know what to fix first.
- Your developer, designer, or theme support can act on it directly.
No store access or credentials needed, no sales call, no upsell, and no invented conversion promises — only problems I can actually reproduce on your public store.
You can see a complete demonstration report before paying: Demonstration Storefront Audit | Revert Creations
Clear scope, fixed pricing, and defined deliverables make this easy to evaluate. I also like that you’ve set expectations around what’s included and what isn’t. Wishing you success with the service!
HI @Trever_Hillis
I like that you’ve kept the engagement focused and well-bounded. A fixed-scope audit with reproducible findings can be useful for merchants who want actionable feedback without granting admin access or committing to an ongoing engagement.
The demonstration report is also a nice touch, as it helps merchants understand the type of findings and level of detail they can expect before purchasing.
One suggestion would be to include a brief explanation of how you prioritize issues. For example, what distinguishes a critical finding from a medium or low priority. That can help merchants understand which fixes are likely to have the greatest impact.
Overall, the scope and expectations are clearly communicated, which is always appreciated when offering services in the community.
Good question — the report states this explicitly, but it’s worth saying here too. Each finding’s severity comes from three things, in order:
-
Where it sits relative to the purchase path. A problem on the route a buyer must travel — product page, add to cart, cart — outranks the same class of problem on a peripheral page. Findings are ordered so purchase-path issues and the store owner’s stated primary concern lead the report.
-
Whether it blocks or degrades. Something that stops an action from completing (a button that doesn’t work, a redirect that dumps the visitor somewhere unintended) rates higher than something that makes the action harder or uglier (overlapping layout, cramped tap targets).
-
How broadly it reproduces. An issue confirmed at all three tested widths, or on every page load, rates higher than one visible only in one viewport or one state.
Each finding also carries a separate confidence note, so “this happened, I recorded it” is never mixed up with “I believe this is why.” The report never claims a revenue or conversion effect — only what was reproduced, where, and what to do about it. The prioritization exists so a developer can start at finding 1 and work down without re-triaging the list.
Hey @Trever_Hillis ,
I think the plain English version is much easier to follow. It quickly explains who the service is for, what merchants receive, and what isn’t included, while the detailed version provides the complete scope for anyone who wants more information.
I also like that you’ve included a demonstration report before asking merchants to purchase the service. Seeing the actual deliverable helps set clear expectations and makes it easier to evaluate whether the audit is a good fit.
One suggestion that could make the report even more useful would be to include the expected business impact for each finding for example, whether it primarily affects conversions, usability, performance, or accessibility. That would help merchants prioritize which recommendations to address first.
Thank you, and if you found my reply helpful, feel free to mark it as the accepted solution so it can help other merchants following this discussion.
Thanks — glad the plain-English version and the sample report helped. Your suggestion is a good one and I’m adopting part of it: each finding will now carry an affected-area tag (purchase path, usability, performance, or accessibility) alongside the severity and confidence notes it already carries, so you can scan the list by the dimension you care about.
The part I deliberately won’t add is a predicted business-impact number. The audit only inspects public pages — I don’t have the store’s analytics — so an “expected effect on conversions” figure would be a guess dressed up as a finding. Severity instead comes from three things that can actually be observed: how close the issue sits to the purchase path, whether it blocks an action or just degrades it, and how broadly it reproduces across the three tested widths. Everything in the report stays something that was reproduced on the page, not projected.