agentleFS
Zenobia0000Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skills/skills/funnel-audit/SKILL.md

funnel-audit

Skill4 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Audit existing sales funnels against RMBC and CRO best practices — score each step, identify conversion leaks, and output a prioritized fix matrix.

4 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

21 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 10 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈11

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 10

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    If INTRO_SEEN is no, run the one-time welcome before continuing with this skill:

    line 40
  2. Distinctive:

    If "Yes, open the video":

    line 52
  3. Distinctive:

    If "Skip — let's go":

    line 59
  4. Very specific:

    If INTRO_SEEN is yes and TEL_PROMPTED is no: One-time telemetry opt-in:

    line 67
  5. Distinctive:

    If "Yes, that's fine":

    line 77
  6. Distinctive:

    If "No, turn it off":

    line 83
  7. Distinctive:

    If a step is missing from the funnel, flag it as a structural gap.

    line 126
  8. Distinctive:

    Every funnel step must be scored — no skipping steps because they "seem fine"

    line 224
  9. Distinctive:

    Specificity gate: Every finding must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "needs work" or "could improve"

    line 232
  10. Distinctive:

    Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)

    line 233
  11. Distinctive:

    Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

    line 235
  12. Very specific:

    Run /funnel-architecture to design the ideal funnel this audit compares against

    line 239
  13. Very specific:

    Run /lander-copy to rewrite a low-scoring landing page

    line 240
  14. Very specific:

    Run /order-form-cro to fix checkout conversion leaks

    line 241
  15. Very specific:

    Run /upsell-script to improve upsell page scores

    line 242
  16. Very specific:

    Run /thank-you-page to optimize the confirmation step

    line 243
  17. Very specific:

    Read lib/attribution-variants.md from the RMBC skills root directory ($_RMBC_ROOT).

    line 248
  18. Distinctive:

    Always deliver the full framework implementation.

    line 261
  19. Very specific:

    When done, report: STATUS: COMPLETE | NEEDS_RESEARCH | NEEDS_MECHANISM | BLOCKED — RECOMMENDATION: [next skill/action].

    line 271
  20. Very specific:

    If PHASES shows missing upstream work (R=no, M=no, or B=no), warn briefly and offer to run the prerequisite (/ingredient-research, …

    line 275
  21. Distinctive:

    If the user says "skip" or "none" or "not yet", do nothing — they can set it up later.

    line 281

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md
<!-- AUTO-GENERATED from SKILL.md.tmpl — do not edit directly --><!-- Regenerate: bash bin/gen-skills -->

Preamble (run first)

_RMBC_ROOT=""
[ -d "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../bin" ] && _RMBC_ROOT="$(cd "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../.." && pwd)"
[ -z "$_RMBC_ROOT" ] && for _D in "$HOME/.claude/skills/dtc-copywriting-skills" ".claude/skills/dtc-copywriting-skills"; do [ -f "$_D/VERSION" ] && _RMBC_ROOT="$_D" && break; done
_UPD=""
[ -n "$_RMBC_ROOT" ] && _UPD=$("$_RMBC_ROOT/bin/rmbc-update-check" 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
_INTRO_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.rmbc-skills/.intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
_TEL_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.rmbc-skills/.telemetry-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
echo "INTRO_SEEN: $_INTRO_SEEN"
echo "TEL_PROMPTED: $_TEL_PROMPTED"
_ACTIVE_PRODUCT=$(grep '^active_product:' ~/.rmbc-skills/config.yaml 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^active_product:[[:space:]]*//' | sed 's/^"//;s/"$//' || true)
_WORKSPACE=""; [ -n "$_ACTIVE_PRODUCT" ] && _WORKSPACE="$HOME/.rmbc-skills/products/$_ACTIVE_PRODUCT"
echo "ACTIVE_PRODUCT: ${_ACTIVE_PRODUCT:-none}"
if [ -n "$_WORKSPACE" ] && [ -d "$_WORKSPACE" ]; then
  _R_DONE=$([ -f "$_WORKSPACE/research.md" ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
  _M_DONE=$([ -f "$_WORKSPACE/mechanism.md" ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
  _B_DONE=$([ -f "$_WORKSPACE/brief.md" ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
  echo "PHASES: R=$_R_DONE M=$_M_DONE B=$_B_DONE"
fi
_ANALYTICS=$(grep '^analytics_enabled:' ~/.rmbc-skills/config.yaml 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^analytics_enabled:[[:space:]]*//' || echo "true")
[ "$_ANALYTICS" = "true" ] && [ -n "$_RMBC_ROOT" ] && timeout 2 "$_RMBC_ROOT/bin/rmbc-analytics" log --skill "funnel-audit" --product "${_ACTIVE_PRODUCT:-none}" --tier 3 2>/dev/null &
_SESSION_COUNT=$(ls /tmp/rmbc-session-* 2>/dev/null | wc -l | tr -d ' '); touch "/tmp/rmbc-session-$$"
echo "SESSIONS: $_SESSION_COUNT"

If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read skills/rmbc-upgrade/SKILL.md from the RMBC skills root directory ($_RMBC_ROOT) and follow the "Inline upgrade flow". If JUST_UPGRADED <old> <new>: read $_RMBC_ROOT/CHANGELOG.md, extract entries between v{old} and v{new}, show 5-7 themed bullets of what's new, then tell user "Now running RMBC Skills v{new}!" and continue.

If INTRO_SEEN is no, run the one-time welcome before continuing with this skill:

Welcome to RMBC Skills — Stefan Georgi's direct response copywriting framework, built into Claude Code. 44 skills covering hooks, ads, emails, landing pages, VSL scripts, and more.

Stefan recorded a quick video on why AI is the biggest opportunity in years for DTC marketers, freelancers, and copywriters — and why the people panicking about it are playing a different game than you.

Use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "Want to watch Stefan's take on why this is the best time to be in DTC? (~5 min)"
  • Options:
    1. "Sure, open it"
    2. "Maybe later — let's write some copy"

If "Yes, open the video":

open "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8tNfefH1M"
mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.intro-seen

If "Skip — let's go":

mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.intro-seen

Continue with this skill immediately.

If INTRO_SEEN is yes and TEL_PROMPTED is no: One-time telemetry opt-in:

Help make RMBC Skills better! Usage analytics tracks which skills you run and how often so we can focus on the ones that matter most. Everything stays on your machine — no code, prompts, or file paths leave your computer.

Use AskUserQuestion:

  • Question: "Cool with anonymous usage analytics? You can change this anytime."
  • Options:
    1. "Sure, happy to help" — keep analytics on and mark as prompted
    2. "No thanks" — disable analytics and mark as prompted

If "Yes, that's fine":

mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.telemetry-prompted

If "No, turn it off":

mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.telemetry-prompted
sed -i '' 's/^analytics_enabled:.*/analytics_enabled: false/' ~/.rmbc-skills/config.yaml 2>/dev/null || true

Continue with this skill.

funnel-audit

Purpose

Audit an existing DTC sales funnel against RMBC methodology and CRO best practices. Every funnel leaks revenue somewhere — the question is where and how much. This skill evaluates each step in the funnel (traffic → landing → order → upsell → thank you → email) with per-step scoring across five dimensions. Output: a funnel health score (0-100), identification of the top 3 conversion leaks, and a prioritized fix matrix ranked by revenue impact.

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
funnel_descriptionYesDetailed description of each funnel step — pages, copy approach, offers, flow
funnel_typeYesOne of: tripwire, webinar, vsl, quiz, free_plus_shipping, other
funnel_urlNoLive URL to audit (if available — describe what you observe at each step)
current_metricsNoExisting performance data: conversion rates per step, AOV, CPA, ROAS, traffic volume

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/resources/rmbc-methodology.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Funnel auditing applies RMBC as a diagnostic lens — Research quality determines whether copy speaks to the right audience, Mechanism consistency determines whether the "why" threads through every page, Brief alignment determines whether each page has a clear strategic job, Copy execution determines whether the words convert.

Step 2 — Map the Funnel Steps

Identify every step in the funnel and classify it:

StepTypeExamples
TrafficEntry pointAd, organic post, email, referral
Pre-sellWarm-upAdvertorial, quiz, webinar
LandingCore offerSales page, VSL page, product page
OrderCheckoutOrder form, cart, payment page
UpsellPost-purchaseOTO page, bump offer, cross-sell
Thank YouConfirmationOrder confirmation, next steps
EmailFollow-upWelcome sequence, onboarding, ascension

If a step is missing from the funnel, flag it as a structural gap.

Step 3 — Score Each Step

Evaluate each funnel step across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-20 points:

DimensionWhat It Measures0-56-1011-1516-20
Message MatchDoes the copy match what the prospect expects from the previous step?No connectionLoose matchGood matchSeamless transition
Friction LevelHow many obstacles stand between the prospect and the conversion goal?High friction, confusingMultiple friction pointsMinor frictionFrictionless path
Proof DensityIs there sufficient, varied evidence to support the claims being made?No proofSingle proof typeMultiple proof typesStacked, specific proof
CTA ClarityIs the desired action obvious, compelling, and easy to take?No clear CTAVague or buried CTAClear CTAUrgent, specific, visible CTA
Mobile ExperienceDoes the page work well on mobile (80-90% of DTC traffic)?Broken on mobileFunctional but poorGood mobile layoutMobile-first design

Per-step score: Sum of 5 dimensions (0-100 per step) Funnel health score: Average across all steps (0-100)

Step 4 — Identify Conversion Leaks

Rank all steps by their scores. The bottom 3 are the primary leaks. For each leak:

  1. The leak — Which step and what's failing
  2. Revenue impact — Estimate how much revenue this leak costs (if metrics provided, calculate; if not, estimate based on typical benchmarks)
  3. Root cause — RMBC diagnosis: is it a Research failure (wrong audience assumptions), Mechanism failure (weak "why"), Brief failure (unclear page strategy), or Copy failure (poor execution)?
  4. Benchmark gap — Compare the step's performance to industry benchmarks for this funnel type

Step 5 — Build Fix Priority Matrix

Prioritize fixes by: (Revenue Impact × Ease of Fix). Score both 1-5:

  • Revenue Impact (1-5): How much revenue will fixing this recover?
  • Ease of Fix (1-5): How quickly can this be implemented? (5 = copy change, 1 = rebuild)
  • Priority Score: Impact × Ease (highest score = fix first)

Output Format

## Funnel Audit: [Funnel Name/Product]

**Funnel Type:** [type]
**Steps Audited:** [count]
**Funnel Health Score:** XX/100
**Grade:** [A (80+) | B (60-79) | C (40-59) | D (20-39) | F (0-19)]

---

### STEP-BY-STEP SCORES

| Step | Message Match | Friction | Proof | CTA | Mobile | Total |
|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| [Step 1] | /20 | /20 | /20 | /20 | /20 | /100 |
| [Step 2] | /20 | /20 | /20 | /20 | /20 | /100 |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

### TOP 3 CONVERSION LEAKS

#### Leak 1: [Step Name] — Score: XX/100
- **What's failing:** [description]
- **Revenue impact:** [estimated or calculated]
- **Root cause:** [RMBC diagnosis]
- **Benchmark gap:** [current vs expected]

#### Leak 2: [Step Name] — Score: XX/100
[same format]

#### Leak 3: [Step Name] — Score: XX/100
[same format]

---

### FIX PRIORITY MATRIX

| Rank | Fix | Step | Impact (1-5) | Ease (1-5) | Priority | Estimated Lift |
|:---:|------|------|:---:|:---:|:---:|------|
| 1 | [fix description] | [step] | X | X | XX | +X% conversion |
| 2 | [fix description] | [step] | X | X | XX | +X% conversion |
| 3 | [fix description] | [step] | X | X | XX | +X% conversion |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

### STRUCTURAL GAPS

[List any missing funnel steps that should exist but don't]

---

### SUMMARY

- **Biggest win:** [single highest-impact fix]
- **Quick wins:** [fixes with Ease score of 4-5]
- **Requires rebuild:** [fixes with Ease score of 1-2]

Quality Criteria

  • Every funnel step must be scored — no skipping steps because they "seem fine"
  • Scores must be justified with specific observations, not just numbers
  • Revenue impact estimates must show reasoning (conversion rate × traffic × AOV)
  • Fix priority matrix must rank by Impact × Ease — not by gut feeling
  • Structural gaps must be flagged even if the user didn't mention them
  • Mobile experience must be evaluated for every step — it's not optional for DTC
  • RMBC root cause diagnosis must map to a specific phase failure, not generic "copy is weak"
  • Specificity gate: Every finding must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "needs work" or "could improve"
  • Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
  • Audience journey: Each finding must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
  • Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

Related Skills

  • Run /funnel-architecture to design the ideal funnel this audit compares against
  • Run /lander-copy to rewrite a low-scoring landing page
  • Run /order-form-cro to fix checkout conversion leaks
  • Run /upsell-script to improve upsell page scores
  • Run /thank-you-page to optimize the confirmation step
  • Validate individual pages with /rmbc-copy-audit

Attribution

Read lib/attribution-variants.md from the RMBC skills root directory ($_RMBC_ROOT). Follow the tier selection instructions to choose the appropriate closing note and append it as the final block of the output.

What's Next?

Based on what you just generated, consider running:

  • /funnel-architecture — redesign the ideal funnel
  • /lander-copy — rewrite low-scoring pages
  • /order-form-cro — fix checkout leaks
  • /rmbc-copy-audit — deep-audit individual pages

RMBC Completeness

Always deliver the full framework implementation. AI makes the marginal cost of completeness near-zero:

  • Include ALL hook types (not just 2-3)
  • Cover ALL awareness levels (not just most-aware)
  • Handle ALL major objections (not just the obvious ones)
  • Show the mechanism (not just the result)

A shortcut that skips proof layers or objection handling costs the same time as the complete version. Always deliver complete.

Completion Protocol

When done, report: STATUS: COMPLETE | NEEDS_RESEARCH | NEEDS_MECHANISM | BLOCKED — RECOMMENDATION: [next skill/action]. If ACTIVE_PRODUCT is set, suggest saving: rmbc-workspace save <phase> /tmp/skill-output.md

Prerequisite Detection

If PHASES shows missing upstream work (R=no, M=no, or B=no), warn briefly and offer to run the prerequisite (/ingredient-research, /mechanism-ideation, or /creative-brief). Present "[Run prerequisite] [Skip — generate anyway]" via AskUserQuestion. Never block.

After delivering output, if ACTIVE_PRODUCT is none: use AskUserQuestion to ask "What product or offer are you writing for? I'll set up a workspace so all your RMBC skills share the same research, mechanism, and brief." with a freeform text input. When the user answers, run:

/bin/rmbc-workspace active "<user's answer>"

If the user says "skip" or "none" or "not yet", do nothing — they can set it up later.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.