funnel-audit
Skill32 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
- teachskillofskills-ai/DigitalMarketingPro-techshutheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- fjilvvi/growthlenstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skillsedited, first seen Mar 20, 2026
- indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-protheir own version, first seen Feb 12, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skills★ 453% same
Wrote their own version · 3
- indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro★ 934same name
- fjilvvi/growthlens★ 2same name
- teachskillofskills-ai/DigitalMarketingPro-techshu★ 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 repository41 other files it gives its agents.
- ab-test-planSkill
- ad-angle-generatorSkill
- ad-creative-auditSkill
- advertorial-writerSkill
- bonus-stackSkill
- broadcast-emailSkill
- cart-abandonment-flowSkill
- checkout-abandonmentSkill
- competitor-offer-analysisSkill
- copy-rewriteSkill
- creative-briefSkill
- email-promoSkill
- email-retention-sequencesSkill
- fb-ad-copySkill
- free-offer-briefSkill
- funnel-architectureSkill
- guarantee-writerSkill
- hook-batterySkill
- ingredient-researchSkill
- lander-copySkill
- lead-writerSkill
- mechanism-ideationSkill
- media-buying-briefSkill
- offer-stackSkill
- order-form-croSkill
- pdp-ecomm-templateSkill
- post-purchase-sequenceSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- reengagement-sequenceSkill
- rmbc-contextSkill
- rmbc-copy-auditSkill
- scarcity-urgencySkill
- soap-opera-sequenceSkill
- thank-you-pageSkill
- ugc-briefSkill
- unified-research-synthesizerSkill
- upsell-scriptSkill
- upsell-sequence-writerSkill
- vsl-scriptSkill
- webinar-registration-copySkill
- welcome-sequenceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 43
If a step is missing from the funnel, flag it as a structural gap.
- Distinctive: line 141
Every funnel step must be scored — no skipping steps because they "seem fine"
- Distinctive: line 149
Specificity gate: Every finding must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "needs work" or "could improve"
- Distinctive: line 150
Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
- Distinctive: line 152
Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
- Very specific: line 156
Run /funnel-architecture to design the ideal funnel this audit compares against
- Very specific: line 157
Run /lander-copy to rewrite a low-scoring landing page
- Very specific: line 158
Run /order-form-cro to fix checkout conversion leaks
- Very specific: line 159
Run /upsell-script to improve upsell page scores
- Very specific: line 160
Run /thank-you-page to optimize the confirmation step
≈ “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.
Files
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
| Input | Required | Description |
funnel_description | Yes | Detailed description of each funnel step — pages, copy approach, offers, flow |
funnel_type | Yes | One of: tripwire, webinar, vsl, quiz, free_plus_shipping, other |
funnel_url | No | Live URL to audit (if available — describe what you observe at each step) |
current_metrics | No | Existing performance data: conversion rates per step, AOV, CPA, ROAS, traffic volume |
Execution Protocol
Step 1 — Load Framework Context
Read rmbc-context/SKILL.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:
| Step | Type | Examples |
| Traffic | Entry point | Ad, organic post, email, referral |
| Pre-sell | Warm-up | Advertorial, quiz, webinar |
| Landing | Core offer | Sales page, VSL page, product page |
| Order | Checkout | Order form, cart, payment page |
| Upsell | Post-purchase | OTO page, bump offer, cross-sell |
| Thank You | Confirmation | Order confirmation, next steps |
| Follow-up | Welcome 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:
| Dimension | What It Measures | 0-5 | 6-10 | 11-15 | 16-20 |
| Message Match | Does the copy match what the prospect expects from the previous step? | No connection | Loose match | Good match | Seamless transition |
| Friction Level | How many obstacles stand between the prospect and the conversion goal? | High friction, confusing | Multiple friction points | Minor friction | Frictionless path |
| Proof Density | Is there sufficient, varied evidence to support the claims being made? | No proof | Single proof type | Multiple proof types | Stacked, specific proof |
| CTA Clarity | Is the desired action obvious, compelling, and easy to take? | No clear CTA | Vague or buried CTA | Clear CTA | Urgent, specific, visible CTA |
| Mobile Experience | Does the page work well on mobile (80-90% of DTC traffic)? | Broken on mobile | Functional but poor | Good mobile layout | Mobile-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:
- The leak — Which step and what's failing
- Revenue impact — Estimate how much revenue this leak costs (if metrics provided, calculate; if not, estimate based on typical benchmarks)
- 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)?
- 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-architectureto design the ideal funnel this audit compares against - Run
/lander-copyto rewrite a low-scoring landing page - Run
/order-form-croto fix checkout conversion leaks - Run
/upsell-scriptto improve upsell page scores - Run
/thank-you-pageto optimize the confirmation step - Validate individual pages with
/rmbc-copy-audit
Attribution
Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join
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.

