landing-page-cro
Skill0 starsChanged 40 days agoMITView on GitHub
Improves an existing landing page's conversion rate through evidence-first CRO - audit heatmaps and recordings, write structured hypotheses, prioritize with ICE scoring, and run one-variable tests to statistical significance. Use when someone asks "why isn't my landing page converting", "audit this page before we scale spend", "which A/B test should we run first", or after a CVR drop or ahead of a paid-traffic push. Do NOT use for writing a new landing page from scratch - use landing-page-copy instead. Do NOT use for auditing the ad accounts sending the traffic - use paid-acquisition-audit instead. Do NOT use for reading the results of a finished experiment - use ab-test-analyzer instead.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- astDeniss/business-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- scayver/marketing-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- SkillMedev/ecommerce-dtc-opsword for word, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- ekinciio/saas-growth-marketing-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 14, 2026
- MarcBuzatto/ai-agents-vaulttheir own version, first seen Jun 20, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- SkillMedev/ecommerce-dtc-ops★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- ekinciio/saas-growth-marketing-skills★ 12same name
- astDeniss/business-skills★ 8same name
- scayver/marketing-skills★ 8same name
- MarcBuzatto/ai-agents-vault★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository7 other files it gives its agents.
- ab-test-analyzerSkill
- ad-creative-testingSkill
- audience-targetingSkill
- budget-pacingSkill
- landing-page-copySkill
- marketing-attributionSkill
- paid-acquisition-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
9
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 41
Every hypothesis uses this exact format: "Because [observation from audit], changing [element] to [proposed change] will [expected …
- Distinctive: line 51
Never end a test early because one variant "looks better" - regression to the mean is real.
- Distinctive: line 52
Document every outcome including losses in a test log - a failed hypothesis is still a learning, and an undocumented one gets re-run in six …
- Distinctive: line 86
Do not test before auditing - hypotheses without observations are guesses, and testing guesses burns traffic.
- Distinctive: line 87
Do not change multiple variables in one test.
- Distinctive: line 88
Do not peek and stop early when a variant leads - early leads regress, and calling them ships losers.
- Distinctive: line 89
Do not start with micro-elements (button shades, fonts) while the five high-leverage elements have unaddressed findings.
- Distinctive: line 90
Do not run frequentist 95%/100-conversion tests on a low-traffic page - the test will never conclude.
- Distinctive: line 91
Do not skip documenting losing tests.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Landing Page CRO
Conversion rate optimization is not applying best practices - it is forming specific hypotheses from real user evidence, testing them, and iterating. The costly failure this skill prevents is the redesign roulette: shipping a batch of untested "improvements" that mixes winners with losers, moves nothing, and teaches nothing, while paid spend keeps landing on a leaky page.
Operating procedure
Order is strict: audit before hypotheses (a hypothesis without an observation is a guess), hypotheses before prioritization, prioritization before tests, and significance before verdicts.
Step 1: Gather inputs
Collect before auditing. Label anything assumed as a guess.
- Page URL and its single conversion goal (form fill, purchase, signup). A page with two goals is already a finding.
- Current CVR and traffic: unique visitors per week and conversions per week - these decide the testing method in Step 5.
- Traffic sources and the ads or emails sending them (needed for the message-match check in Step 2).
- Available tooling: heatmaps, session recordings, analytics funnel. Default: assume analytics only and flag the gap.
- Constraints: brand rules, dev bandwidth, deadline.
Step 2: Audit before hypothesizing
Collect two evidence types:
- Quantitative: heatmaps, scroll maps, click maps, session recordings, funnel drop-off data. Spend at least one hour in session recordings before forming opinions.
- Qualitative: user surveys, live-chat transcripts, sales call notes - objections in the users' own words.
The audit must answer three questions: where are users leaving, what are they clicking that does not help them convert, and what objections repeat verbatim.
Run the message-match check first - it is the single most common CRO failure: the ad makes a specific promise and the page delivers a generic brand statement. Every paid source must land on a page whose headline directly echoes the ad's offer. If one page serves multiple campaigns, prescribe dynamic text replacement or dedicated pages per major campaign theme before any other test.
Then audit the five highest-leverage elements, in order of typical impact: (1) headline - must match the ad's promise and speak to a specific pain; (2) primary CTA - text, position, contrast; (3) social proof - specificity beats volume; a named customer quote outperforms a star rating; (4) above-the-fold visual - must show the outcome, not the product; (5) form/checkout friction - every unnecessary field reduces conversion. Fix these before testing background colors or font sizes.
Step 3: Write structured hypotheses
Every hypothesis uses this exact format: "Because [observation from audit], changing [element] to [proposed change] will [expected measurable outcome] for [audience]." No observation means it is a guess and does not enter the backlog. Write hypotheses before mockups - the thinking matters more than the execution.
Step 4: Prioritize with ICE
Score each hypothesis 1-10 on Impact (how much it moves CVR if true), Confidence (strength of the evidence behind it), and Ease (speed to build and test), then multiply. Run the top score first. Run at most two simultaneous tests on the same page - more complicates interpretation. Change one variable per test; a test that changes headline and CTA together cannot attribute its own result.
Step 5: Test to significance
- Standard: do not call a winner before 95% statistical significance with at least 100 conversions per variant.
- Low traffic (roughly under 1,000 conversions per month): switch to Bayesian testing with a 90% probability-to-beat threshold, or test bigger swings (full section rewrites) where the effect size is detectable.
- Never end a test early because one variant "looks better" - regression to the mean is real. Pre-commit the sample size or run duration before launch, and run at least one full business cycle (usually one to two weeks) so weekday/weekend mix is represented.
- Document every outcome including losses in a test log - a failed hypothesis is still a learning, and an undocumented one gets re-run in six months.
Step 6: Ship, log, loop
Roll out the winner, record the result against the hypothesis, re-score the backlog (a win often changes Confidence on related hypotheses), and return to Step 4.
Worked artifact: scored hypothesis backlog
PAGE: /demo-request GOAL: demo form fill BASELINE CVR: 2.1% TRAFFIC: 9,400/wk
| # | Hypothesis (Because / changing / will / for) | I | C | E | ICE |
|---|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|---|---|---|-----|
| 1 | Because 62% of paid visitors bounce in <10s and the ad promises "cut | 8 | 8 | 9 | 576 |
| | invoice time 80%" while the headline says "The modern finance platform", | | | | |
| | changing the headline to echo the ad's offer will lift CVR for paid | | | | |
| | traffic. | | | | |
| 2 | Because recordings show 40% of users open the 7-field form and abandon | 7 | 7 | 6 | 294 |
| | at "phone number", removing phone + company size will lift form | | | | |
| | completion for all traffic. | | | | |
| 3 | Because chat transcripts repeat "does this work with NetSuite?", | 6 | 6 | 7 | 252 |
| | adding a NetSuite logo + one-line integration proof above the fold will | | | | |
| | lift CVR for ERP-sourced segments. | | | | |
RUN ORDER: #1 first. One variable. Min sample: 100 conversions/variant, 95% sig,
full 2-week cycle. Result logged to test log regardless of outcome.Deliverable
Produce a CRO package containing: the audit findings (drop-off points, misleading clicks, verbatim objections, message-match verdict), a scored hypothesis backlog in the format above, the test plan for the top hypothesis (variable, sample size, significance standard, duration), and a test log structure for recording outcomes.
Do NOT
- Do not test before auditing - hypotheses without observations are guesses, and testing guesses burns traffic.
- Do not change multiple variables in one test; the result becomes unattributable and the "learning" is noise.
- Do not peek and stop early when a variant leads - early leads regress, and calling them ships losers.
- Do not start with micro-elements (button shades, fonts) while the five high-leverage elements have unaddressed findings.
- Do not run frequentist 95%/100-conversion tests on a low-traffic page - the test will never conclude; use Bayesian thresholds or bigger swings.
- Do not skip documenting losing tests; undocumented losses get expensively re-run.
Quality bar
Ship only when: every hypothesis cites a specific audit observation; ICE scores are justified, not vibes; each planned test isolates one variable; the significance standard and sample floor are pre-committed in writing; message match is verified for every paid source; and the test log exists before the first test launches.
Escalation
Writing net-new page copy is landing-page-copy; diagnosing the ad side of poor performance is paid-acquisition-audit; deep statistical readout of a completed experiment is ab-test-analyzer; funnel-wide drop-off beyond one page is funnel-analysis.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

