description_too_long
Umbodi cuts the page's own description back at a sentence boundary so it fits in 160 characters, opens one pull request with that change, and checks the defect is gone from the live site.
Fixed by Umbodi on its own site · planted drill
A meta description longer than 160 characters is cut off in search results, usually mid-sentence, so the snippet people read stops where the page's wording stops making sense.
Fires when the page's meta description is longer than 160 characters. Severity: info.
The agent shortens the existing description at the last sentence boundary that fits. It writes no new words. If no boundary fits, there is nothing it can derive, and it proposes nothing.
The change reaches the site as a pull request against its repository, opened by the Umbodi GitHub App, one page per pull request. A page rendered from a database row — a blog post, say — is healed by writing that row instead, and the write is read back before it counts.
The value is derived from the site's own data, so the change is stamped mechanical and no score bar applies. It still applies only when the owner has armed unattended acting and set this category's autonomy dial to automatic; merging needs a separate opt-in.
One proposal in ten is held back as a control group — chosen by a fixed hash per project, not by hand — and is never applied unattended, so the effect of the fixes can be measured against the ones not made.
After the pull request merges and the production deploy appears, the agent fetches the live page and runs the same audit rule that raised the defect. The repair counts only when that rule no longer fires. If it still fires, the page is re-read up to five times, about two and a half hours, and then the agent reverts its own merge.
It stops, and says why, when the site has no GitHub App installation or chosen repository, when the page is not one it may write, when a pull request for the page is already open, when the required checks fail or a person has touched the branch, or when no deploy appears within six hours. It never merges on a check it cannot read, and never reverts on a page it cannot fetch.
We planted this defect on our own site and let the agent find it. Each stage below is a timestamp read from the receipts, not a claim typed into this page.
| Page | planted | found | proposed | approved | published | merged | verified |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| /cookies | 2026-10-04 04:13 | 2026-10-04 12:20 | 2026-10-04 12:20 | 2026-10-04 12:30 | — | — | 2026-10-04 18:00 |
cookies.html- How Umbodi uses cookies and similar technologies, and how consent works across sign-up, site connection, autonomy and billing. + How Umbodi uses cookies and similar technologies, and how consent works across sign-up, site connection, autonomy and billing. How Umbodi uses cookies and si…
This receipt was recorded before 11 October 2026, when the after-deploy check confirmed only that the changed file loaded. The defect was re-checked on the live site on 11 October with the audit rule itself, and is fixed.
Last verified 2026-10-04 18:00 UTC
That the full chain ran with no human decision inside it: the agent found the defect, decided the fix, published it, merged it and verified the live site.
It does not prove a ranking or citation change. Umbodi never infers one from a fix: rank is measured separately, on Google, and reported as measured. One receipt also shows the path works on this site, not that it works on every site.
Umbodi cuts the page's own description back at a sentence boundary so it fits in 160 characters, opens one pull request with that change, and checks the defect is gone from the live site.
Yes. We planted it on our own site and the agent found, fixed, merged and verified it with no human decision in the loop. The receipt is on this page.
The receipts page lists every defect type the agent repairs on its own, and which of them it has repaired live on this site.