Disclosure: I help run Redirect Review. We built it with AI assistance as a small, free tool for reviewing redirect plans before deployment. This post was also prepared with AI assistance.
A CSV can look reasonable row by row and still contain a problem when its mappings are followed together:
source,target
/old,/middle
/middle,/new
/a,/b
/b,/a
The first pair creates a two-hop chain. The second creates a loop. Redirect Review flags both, along with conflicting destinations, duplicate rules and unsupported URLs. It provides JSON and printable handoff reports.
Try it: https://redirect-review.pages.dev/
The sample button works without uploading anything. For your own plan, paste a source,target CSV or choose a file. Relative paths use the base origin you supply. The limit is 1 MB and 5,000 mappings per file, with unlimited repeat checks and no signup or payment.
What it can and cannot tell you
This is static mapping analysis. It does not fetch the URLs or establish that a server returns a 301, that a destination exists, or that content is relevant. You still need live HTTP testing after deployment.
Paths retain meaningful case, trailing slashes and query strings. Wildcard and regex rules are outside the current scope.
CSV contents stay in browser memory. Separately, successful non-sample checks send a temporary random tab identifier and event type for usage counts; no mapped URLs, filenames or CSV values are included. Browser Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control disable these events.
Feedback we would use
If you handle migrations, what failure would you want caught before handing a redirect plan to a developer? Does the report explain enough to fix it? Sample mappings are welcome; please do not post confidential client data.
Top comments (0)