Client sign-off on WordPress sites, without the email thread

The review round on a WordPress build usually arrives as some combination of: a screenshot in Slack with no URL, a Loom nobody can search, and an email that says "the button looks wrong on mobile."

None of these tell you which button, which page, or which mobile. So the next thirty minutes go on establishing facts that the client already had and did not think to include.

What you actually need from a client

Four things, every time:

1. Which element — not "the button", that button.
2. Which page — the URL, not "the pricing one".
3. Which browser and OS — because half of "it's broken" is one browser.
4. What they expected instead — the only part they reliably supply.

Three of those four can be captured automatically. That is the whole idea behind visual annotation: the client drags a box over the thing, types what is wrong, and the URL, browser, operating system and screen size come along without anyone asking.

The bit that matters for agencies: they don't need an account

Your client's marketing director will use this four times a year. Making them create an account, remember a password, or occupy a licence is how a review tool quietly stops being used.

They should not need one. On a WordPress staging site the workflow is: install the plugin, paste a key, send the client the staging URL. They point, they type, you get the details.

Per-project roles cover the case where a client does want to log in and watch their own queue — viewer to read, editor to triage — and those can be granted to someone who is not a member of your workspace at all. A client signs in and sees their site. Not your other clients, not your billing, not your team.

Installing it on the client's site

If you can install plugins: Plugins → Add New → search "Feedback Magic", then paste a publishable key per widget type under Settings. The plugin is a loader — it enqueues the hosted widget through WordPress's own filter — so it keeps working without you updating anything, which matters when you are maintaining thirty sites rather than one.

If you cannot, the other two routes still work, including one that touches the client's site not at all.

Where we are the wrong choice

Said before you spend a week on it, because two of these are the same finding twice:

• If visual bug reporting across many client sites is your whole job, buy a specialist. BugHerd gives you unlimited projects from $42/mo and Marker.io's agency plan carries 50 — both better on project count than we are at that scale. Our case is the other five surfaces, not price.
• If you need session replay to see what the client actually did, Hotjar and Userback record sessions. We only capture what someone chose to tell you.
• If you want a long reference list of agencies, we are new and do not have one.

Why an agency might still want the wider thing

Because a client engagement is rarely only bug reports. It is the sign-off round, then a CSAT survey after launch, then a changelog the client's team can read instead of emailing you, then a testimonial while they still mean it, then a roadmap board for the retainer.

That is five more surfaces, and buying them separately is four subscriptions and four dashboards — with the arithmetic on our comparison page, which also lists what those tools do better than we do.

If it is only ever the sign-off round, we are the wrong shape and the paragraph above tells you where to go instead.

On the numbers: every competitor price here was read off that vendor's own pricing page on August 12, 2026, not from a comparison listicle — three of the six we first checked were materially wrong. Pricing changes; if you are reading this much later, check the vendor's page and tell us if we are stale.