Internal-link problems are one of the most common launch regressions because they spread across navigation, content, docs, and app routes at the same time. A pre-launch link check should do more than count dead hrefs. It should show which pages link to broken targets, which routes were discovered but never verified, and where route integrity has degraded.
Worked example from a live capped static scan
A capped static scan of verifalcon.com is a good illustration of why discovered-versus-verified reporting matters before launch.
If a pre-launch report only showed the 12 verified pages, the team would miss the gap between what the site links to and what the crawl actually confirmed. That gap is where launch regressions often hide.
Live Example Screens From The Current Product
What to include in a pre-launch internal-link check
- all primary navigation routes and landing pages
- footer and support links that often get missed late in release cycles
- content migrations that changed slugs or URL structure
- protected or app-only routes that product teams still need to validate
- discovered-but-not-crawled pages that may indicate crawl gaps or route limits
Why grouped-link context matters
A flat list of broken targets is useful, but grouped-link context is more actionable. It shows which source pages still reference the bad target, which makes the fix path much faster for content, docs, and engineering teams.
That is especially important before launch, when the goal is quick remediation rather than abstract reporting.
Release workflow advice
Run the check on staging or the release candidate environment, review broken pages separately from broken resources, and treat uncrawled pages as a signal worth investigating instead of ignoring them.
That approach catches more launch-risk than waiting for user reports after the release is already live.