Work / Rebuild / 17-Page Veterinary WordPress Rebuild

17-Page Veterinary WordPress Rebuild

Spec-faithful rebuild of a 17-page veterinary coaching site for a US marketing agency — 8 templates, 42.7 hours across 13 days, zero path-change redirects.

Industry Veterinary
Engagement White-label · US marketing agency
Delivered 13 calendar days · on schedule
43h across 13 days
veterinarymastery.com · desktop
veterinarymastery.com · mobile

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 →

— The brief

Rebuild the site on a new stack. Implement the spec. Don't improvise. Hand it back ready for cutover.

Client (end user): Veterinary Mastery — veterinary coaching and consultancy firm, multi-location
Engagement: White-label development for a US marketing agency
Delivered: May 2025 · 13 days · 42.7 hours · on schedule, no overrun

The Craft of a Rebuild

A 17-page rebuild for a veterinary coaching and consultancy brand — not a clinic site, but a B2B platform serving multi-location veterinary practices across six US regions. Five geo landing pages were scoped out mid-estimation when the agency confirmed they lacked designs, narrowing the contract to a rebuild of what already existed on the legacy site against a 13-day deadline.

This case study is a record of one such rebuild, in which the agency owned the strategy and we owned the execution.

Snapshot

Field Value
End-client industry Veterinary — B2B coaching and consultancy for veterinary practices
End-client Veterinary Mastery (veterinary coaching firm, multi-location)
Engagement White-label WordPress build for a US marketing agency specialising in local-business websites
Project Type WordPress rebuild with Elementor Pro on WP Engine
Scope Full site — homepage, blog, about, contact, coach bios, ebook landing page, testimonials, service pages
Timeline 13 days (7 May – 20 May 2025), on schedule
Effort 42.7 hours — core rebuild (20h dev · 10h QA · 10h PM) within estimate; follow-up refinements processed inside the same agency relationship
Team 5 specialists (Anna Polunina lead dev · Pavel Sazhin QA · Anton Hersun PM)
Tech Stack WordPress · Elementor Pro · Gravity Forms · WP Engine · Yoast · Screaming Frog · Site Checker ( QA plugin)
Content parity check Original-vs-rebuild content diff cleared before handoff — no missing copy, no broken internal links, no structural drift
Delivered Spec followed line-for-line — 17 original pages rebuilt, 8 templates applied, 20+ QA items closed, zero path-change redirects required
Retained engagement 5 additional geo-location service pages built across July–August 2025, plus live-site issue resolution and content backlog closure — all delivered inside the same agency relationship
Engagement cadence 21 agency-raised issues · 20 of 21 closed by handoff (22-day active span, 2025-07-17 – 2025-08-07)
Review rounds ≈6 review rounds across the 13-day calendar window
Per-ticket effort 9 internal Redmine tickets · median 6h / P75 10h per ticket
Launch checklist 38 items, signed off before cutover

The Brief

The agency had a retained client — Veterinary Mastery, a veterinary coaching and consultancy firm serving practice owners across multiple US locations — whose existing WordPress site needed a rebuild on a modern, maintainable stack. The agency had already done the groundwork: a Google Sheets workbook containing every URL to rebuild, every template assignment, every staging URL, and a launch checklist organised across seven categories.

The ask was specific. Take the spec as given; rebuild the site on Elementor Pro; preserve every existing URL (same-CMS rebuild, no path changes); hand it back ready for WP Engine cutover. Remain outside the client-facing loop. Implement the SEO decisions as written. Deliver inside the quoted hours.

The risk the agency was hedging against was not a CMS gap — the platform stayed WordPress — but the dev shop that would quietly improvise around the brief: a missing geo-page, a CTA button wired to a page that no longer existed, a coach bio that lost its H1, a blog archive that drifted from the original layout.

Risk context. A veterinary coaching firm does not sell products — it sells expertise, and its website is the primary lead-generation surface. Every geo-page URL that ranks for “veterinary consultant [city]”, every ebook download path that captures a practice owner’s email, every coach bio page that establishes credibility — all of these are revenue-bearing assets. On a same-CMS rebuild, the visible risk is low: the URLs stay the same, the platform stays the same. The invisible risk is content drift: a missing geo-page, a CTA button that leads nowhere, an ebook download that breaks after cutover, a coach bio that loses its H1. Each is defensible in isolation; together they erode the lead-generation funnel the agency staked its reputation on.

How We Did It

1. Template-first build. Rather than rebuilding 17 pages one by one, we collapsed them into eight reusable templates and fit every page into them:

  • Homepage, About Us, Contact Us, and a Default Template fallback
  • Blog Lander + Blog Post — post archive and individual posts
  • Service Page — applied to the Utah location page and later extended to five additional geo pages
  • Doctor Page — individual coach bio pages (Brianne and Laura)

Eight templates, 17 original pages delivered. Future edits on the agency’s side live in one place per page type.

2. Spec followed line-for-line, from the agency’s sheet. The agency handed us a Google Sheets workbook: every URL to rebuild with its template assignment, every staging URL, every hours estimate. We implemented each row as written. Where the sheet had a value, that value landed on the new site. Where it didn’t — for instance, the goldenticket page that existed on the original site but was not initially reflected in the rebuild — we flagged it back to the agency, confirmed the requirement, and added it. No “creative interpretations” shipped.

The principle behind this is simple: on a rebuild, the spec is the contract between the agency and its client. A dev team’s job is to protect that contract, not to edit it.

3. Crawl-based verification, not “looks fine to me”. Before DNS cutover, we ran Screaming Frog on the original production site and the staging rebuild side-by-side. Status codes, broken links, internal link consistency, meta-tag differences — every delta reconciled against the agency’s spec. A second crawl after go-live confirmed every internal link resolved on the live domain.

4. Launch checklist across seven categories, closed before handoff. Design, Functionality, Content, SEO & Analytics, Responsive, client-specific integrations, and Domain & DNS migration to WP Engine. Nothing shipped until each line was signed off. Cross-device QA on Chrome / Firefox / Safari / Edge and six viewports (1920 / 1280 / 1024 / iPad / mobile portrait / mobile landscape). The contact form tested end-to-end with a real submission to the client’s email.

Scoping out five undesigned geo pages mid-estimation meant the 13-day contract was bounded before a line of code ran — the agency confirmed what existed on the legacy site, we rebuilt exactly that, and the expansion came back as a clean retained tail in July. That order held: no scope drift in the rebuild window, five new Service Page instances in the follow-on reusing the same template without changes.

Results

Metric Outcome
Spec fidelity — pages 17 / 17 original content URLs returning HTTP 200 on staging before cutover
Spec fidelity — templates 8 / 8 templates built and applied site-wide
Spec fidelity — redirects 0 path-change redirects required (same-URL rebuild)
Launch checklist Checklist items across 7 categories signed off before cutover
Timeline 13 days, delivered on schedule
Effort 42.7h total across core rebuild and follow-up refinements — no overrun, no scope creep
Responsive verification Zero layout issues across 4 browsers × 6 viewports
Internal QA All agency-scoped issues closed before handoff (20+ of 20+ flagged; remaining items were client-blocked or out of agency scope)
Handoff Site live on WP Engine on the scheduled cutover day, no downtime
Site status veterinarymastery.com remains live and indexed by Google

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s spec was implemented as written, inside the quoted hours, on the scheduled cutover day. Eleven months on, the build remains in production.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Pre-handoff QA on the staging build caught a header CTA pointing to /goldenticket — a page that existed on the original site but had not been included in the rebuild spec; the gap was flagged back to the agency, confirmed, and rebuilt before handoff. Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see our QA discipline for the categories and the fail-zero gate. The agency’s own QA layer — their tools, their process — ran post-handoff and surfaced issues into the shared backlog for our fix loop until they signed off.

Process

Phase Duration Outcome
Brief & estimation 1 day Agency spec reviewed; 20h core rebuild quoted and agreed
Development ~5 days Full site rebuilt across 8 templates
Internal QA & review 2 days 20+ issues logged; all agency-scoped work closed
Spec verification 1 day Page and template matches reconciled against sheet
Delivery & DNS cutover 1 day Site live on WP Engine, no downtime

Phases overlap (QA ran alongside late development), which is why the calendar timeline is 13 days rather than the sum of individual phases.

Team

Delivery team

  • Nikita Tumasevic — build review and QA support
  • Pavel Sazhin — QA fixes and meta-data implementation
  • Anna Polunina — lead developer (full site build and template system)
  • Lyudmila Travkina — QA pass and pre-handoff review coordination
  • Anton Hersun, — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

The agency stayed the visible vendor; we stayed invisible to the end client throughout cutover and migration. All decisions on URL preservation and content assignment belonged to the agency; our role was implementation fidelity to the spec they delivered.

For agencies considering a white-label WordPress build

This pattern fits agencies that manage a retained WordPress client on WP Engine and need a dev partner who will stay inside the spec on the rebuild and return a clean, extensible template system for the retained work that follows. If that describes your pipeline, send a sample spec — sitemap sheet, template assignments, and any known follow-on scope — and we will estimate the rebuild and the extension work separately, with a fixed-hours quote within 24 hours. No cost. No obligation to proceed.

Request a spec review →

Don't have a spec yet? Send a one-paragraph description — we'll come back with the questions worth asking. Send a description →


— Pre-handoff QA gate

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.

Core settings verificationpass
Content & SEO surface auditpass
URL structure integritypass
Content-language sanitizationpass
Menus & widgets auditpass
Original-vs-rebuild content diffpass
Multi-resolution screenshot capturepass
xaver.pro · 2026 White-label · Agency not named
Scroll to Top