98-URL Dental Template Scaffold for a New Practice
xaverPRO built a 24-live-page dental template with 98-URL scaffold for a new practice — agency Figma, 10 templates, 127 QA items, 64 hours.
Screenshots captured by automated tooling — some elements may not have loaded fully or may layer on top of each other. For the most accurate view, visit the live site →
Rebuild the site on a new stack. Implement the spec. Don't improvise. Hand it back ready for cutover.
The Craft of Template Customisation
Ninety-eight URLs planned in the agency’s workbook for a new two-doctor dental practice in Louisiana — 24 with confirmed content, 74 as scaffold awaiting population — all customised against the agency’s Luminous template to a Figma-specified per-page design on Kinsta. For a practice that had not yet treated its first patient, the architectural decisions made during the build were the ones the agency’s future SEO work would build on. Every URL in the workbook was built as planned, including the geo-location sub-directories.
The value is speed with consistency — but only if the customisation is disciplined. A dev team that “interprets” the Figma, skips QA rounds, or deviates from the template’s design system is worse than starting from scratch.
Snapshot
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| End-client industry | Healthcare — General and Cosmetic Dentistry |
| End-client | Maison Dental Studio (Youngsville, LA) — Dr. Kaleb Murray and Dr. Sam Mullen |
| Engagement | White-label template customisation for a US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites |
| Project Type | WordPress template customisation (agency’s Luminous dental template + per-page Figma design on Kinsta) |
| Scope | 98 URLs total — 24 live pages with content delivered at handoff; 74-URL scaffold (service sub-pages, geo-location directories) built in template structure awaiting content population |
| Live pages at handoff | 24 pages — homepage, about us, 2 doctor bios, meet-the-team, smile gallery, technology, areas-we-serve, blog lander, contact, payment options + financing, 9 service lander pages |
| Timeline | 100 days (12 Sep – 21 Dec 2025), on schedule |
| Effort | 64 hours across development, QA, project management, and fix rounds |
| Team | 5 specialists |
| Templates | 10 reusable templates from the agency’s Luminous dental template system applied across the site (Homepage · About Us · Doctor Page · Service Page · Default Template · Contact Us · Smile Gallery · Blog Lander · Blog · Services Lander) |
| Tech Stack | WordPress · Elementor · Kinsta hosting · Figma-driven per-page design · agency AutoQA (Links / Email / Content AI checks) · Site Checker (xaverPRO QA plugin) |
| QA discipline | 127+ tracked SEO + CX issues reconciled in the agency’s backlog across an 78-item launch checklist; 5 geo-location service sub-directories structured for future content population |
| Engagement cadence | 101 agency-raised issues · all closed by handoff (33-day active span, 2025-10-01 – 2025-11-02) |
| Review rounds | ≈7 review rounds across the 100-day calendar window |
| Launch checklist | 78 items, signed off before cutover |
The Brief
A US marketing agency set up a Kinsta staging environment pre-loaded with their Luminous dental template and delivered a Figma homepage design and a structured workbook for Maison Dental Studio, a new two-doctor practice opening in Youngsville, Louisiana. Dr. Kaleb Murray and Dr. Sam Mullen each required a dedicated Doctor Page; the agency also specified a before-and-after photo gallery, a multi-location service architecture spanning five surrounding communities (Broussard, Lafayette, Milton, New Iberia, Woodlawn), and a range of service sections across general, cosmetic, restorative, periodontic, and oral-surgery dentistry. The agency had planned the full URL structure in the workbook before development began.
The brief was to customise the Luminous template to the Figma, build out the complete URL scaffold across all 98 planned pages, deliver the 24 pages that had confirmed content at the time of handoff, and structure the remaining 74 service sub-pages and geo-location pages as ready-to-populate template instances. The agency would feed content to those pages in subsequent rounds.
The workbook specified a patient reviews section in the sitemap, but the practice had no existing patient reviews at build time — that page was built as a template instance and deferred for post-launch content population, a limitation inherent to building for a practice that had not yet begun treating patients.
A new practice’s website carries a particular structural risk that does not exist on a site refresh or a migration. There is no existing content to anchor the architecture — every structural decision made during template customisation sets the floor that SEO work will build on. For the agency, the question is whether the dev team will follow the workbook’s planned URL structure precisely, even for pages that have no content yet, or whether they will simplify the architecture to reduce build scope. Simplifying means undoing foundational SEO structure at a later date, when redirects and content migrations are far more expensive. Every one of the 98 URLs in the workbook was built as planned, including the geo-location sub-directories, regardless of whether content was available at handoff.
Risk context. A new practice has no legacy URL surface to preserve, which means the architecture decisions made in the first build are the ones that cost money to undo later. For a site with five geo-location service directories, each with its own sub-pages, the temptation is to skip the empty pages and build them when content arrives. That shortcut resets the SEO clock on every deferred URL — the agency has to restructure, redirect, and re-index at content-population time rather than launching onto a URL surface that was already search-ready. Maison Dental Studio’s 98-URL structure was planned in the workbook before development began. Building to it in full, including the 74 content-pending pages, was not optional scope; it was the architectural commitment the agency’s future SEO work depended on.
How We Did It
1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The Luminous template provided the branded structure. The homepage Figma was the visual specification. Where the Figma required specific layouts — including the dual-doctor section, the before/after photo gallery, and the location-specific service sections — we built those against the template’s existing components, customising at the per-client layer rather than modifying shared template elements.
2. Two doctor profiles on one template. We applied Maison Dental Studio’s Doctor Page template to both Dr. Kaleb Murray and Dr. Sam Mullen, each with distinct credentials, photos, and bio content. The agency’s workbook included a separate Google Doc for each doctor page. A QA finding during the build flagged that one doctor image had been loaded incorrectly — the wrong physician was shown on one page. We caught and corrected that before handoff as part of the issues-backlog resolution cycle.
3. Scaffold-first build for a future-state URL architecture. Seventy-four of the 98 planned pages had no client content at the time of build — the agency’s workbook noted these explicitly, and the chat record confirms the team identified and flagged each gap in the CX backlog rather than building placeholder pages silently. We built the five geo-location service directories (Broussard, Lafayette, Milton, New Iberia, Woodlawn — each with five service sub-pages) to the exact URLs in the sitemap, including the 15 internal redirect mappings that handled initial traffic routing while sub-pages awaited content. We chose to build the full scaffold rather than defer the 74 content-pending pages because deferring would have required URL restructuring with redirects at content-population time, resetting every deferred page’s path to search indexing. This preserved the URL architecture for future SEO work without requiring a restructure at content-population time.
4. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. Of the 23 tasks tracked in Redmine, 15 were QA iterations — individual rounds where the agency flagged design and content deltas across the SEO and CX issue backlogs. The combined backlog ran to 127+ items: SEO issues (logo removal, reviews-section handling, missing images, meta-title accuracy, URL structure) and CX issues (content-design mismatches on the blog lander, contact-page layout decisions, doctor image accuracy, hiding sections without confirmed content). Each round closed only when the agency-side reviewer confirmed the resolution.
5. Cross-device verification. QA covered desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports for each affected page on every round. We identified a typography-sizing deviation from the Figma (a 96 px heading too large for live use) during QA review and corrected it with the agency’s input. We refined the contact-page layout through a direct developer-QA conversation to resolve a form-and-image composition issue. We addressed mobile layout shifts (a post-launch finding) through dedicated fix tasks.
Building for a practice with no existing content meant the scaffold had to be the work — not a deferred phase. We built all 74 content-pending pages to the sitemap URL before any content existed, so the agency’s SEO architecture was in place on day one rather than requiring URL restructuring when content arrived later.
Operational Integrity at handoff
Site Checker flagged a template carry-over in the Luminous dental template’s contact block — a California placeholder address with a Cyrillic-encoded Google Maps URL that would have produced broken links on any page that inherited the block. We confirmed it was unused and removed it before handoff. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see our QA approach for the categories and the threshold every page clears before handoff. After handoff the agency reviewed on its own setup. We resolved what it surfaced up to sign-off.
Customisations stayed in the per-client overrides. We did not modify the agency’s shared Luminous template components.
AutoQA gates (Links / Email / Content AI checks) — agency-managed — were active on this project per the workbook’s AutoQA Setup tab.
Results
| Metric | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Live URLs delivered at handoff | 24 — homepage · about us · 2 doctor bios · meet-the-team · smile gallery · technology · areas-we-serve · blog lander · contact · payment options + financing · 9 service landers |
| Full URL scaffold built | 98 URLs — all planned pages built to specification including 74 content-pending pages |
| Geo-location service structure | 5 directories × 5 service sub-pages (Broussard · Lafayette · Milton · New Iberia · Woodlawn) built to sitemap specification |
| Templates applied | 10 of 10 Luminous dental templates applied across the site |
| Launch checklist | 78 items across development and QA stages |
| QA / SEO issues tracked + resolved | 127+ items reconciled (101 SEO + 26 CX) across the agency’s issue-backlog tabs |
| Redmine QA iterations | 15 of 23 tasks tracked at the iteration level |
| Timeline | 100 days, delivered on schedule |
| Effort | 64 hours across development, QA, and fixes — within estimate |
| Team | 5 specialists |
| Hosting handoff | Live on the agency’s Kinsta template environment |
Boiled down: we implemented the agency’s Figma against the Luminous dental template, built the full 98-URL architecture as planned in the workbook, delivered 24 pages live at handoff with confirmed content, and left the remaining 74-page scaffold clean and ready for content population — over 100 calendar days, inside the estimated hours.
Process
| Phase | Duration | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Brief & estimation | ~5 days (Sep 12–17) | Figma reviewed, Kinsta access confirmed, scope agreed (17h estimate for initial build) |
| Template customisation — initial build | ~1 week (Sep 17–26) | 24 content-ready pages built; 98-URL scaffold structured; doctor bios, gallery, geo-directories built |
| QA iterations — round 1 (concurrent) | ~1 week (Sep 22–30) | Agency flagged 127+ SEO + CX items; reviews, image corrections, layout fixes completed |
| Agency handoff | Sep 30 | Site submitted to agency for review |
| Fix rounds — Oct–Nov 2025 | ~6 weeks | Spreadsheet items, missing images, pre-release fixes, 15 QA sub-tasks closed |
| Final fix — layout shift | Nov–Dec 2025 | Mobile layout shift issue addressed across four QA sub-tasks; final close Dec 21 |
Development and QA ran concurrently throughout — the backlog loop from initial handoff through final sign-off spanned nearly three months, characteristic of a new-practice build where content population and design approvals happen in stages.
Team
Delivery team
- Evgeniy Karpov — lead developer (template customisation, Figma-to-layout mapping, initial build)
- Timur Arbaev — QA lead (review rounds, issues-backlog management, sign-off gating)
- Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and fix rounds
- Nikita Tumasevic — developer (team coordination on this engagement)
- Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)
The agency’s design, content strategy, client relationship, and hosting infrastructure were upstream of our engagement throughout. Every message to Dr. Murray and Dr. Mullen went out under the agency’s name; our developers worked the template and the backlog without ever appearing on a client call. Work items were routed through the agency’s shared issue backlog, and each round was closed only when the agency’s reviewer signed off.
For agencies with a branded template system
On a branded template system, the boundary between client customizations and the shared template is where the trouble waits. For this practice — a dental group with location-specific service directories; for others — a single-location practice or a network with a different service hierarchy. When the template vendor releases an update, your child-theme overrides will stop applying without warning. Brand colours and typography tokens will stop pushing into hardcoded fallbacks, leaving archive pages visually out of sync. The editor tools your client’s staff relies on will break if the block library is hidden behind code.
The question to ask a dev partner before committing is not “can you work within a template?” — it is “how exactly will you protect my client’s customizations from being overwritten on the next template update?”
Send us the template source or template ID and your brand specifications. We will walk the override layers, flag the spots where updates will break your customizations, and return a fixed-hours quote. The review is free.
Don't have a spec yet? Send a one-paragraph description — we'll come back with the questions worth asking. Send a description →
Site Checker runs before the agency sees anything.
Before handoff, every staging build runs through Site Checker — the WordPress QA plugin we built and maintain. It is a fail-zero gate: nothing goes to the agency with an open failure. Warnings are reviewed and judged non-blocking; the agency gets a clean slate to run their own QA layer against, not a staging site with known issues in the queue.