agentleFS
coleschaffercoleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc/skills/funnel-audit/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

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

    line 43
  2. Distinctive:

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

    line 141
  3. Distinctive:

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

    line 149
  4. Distinctive:

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

    line 150
  5. Distinctive:

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

    line 152
  6. Very specific:

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

    line 156
  7. Very specific:

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

    line 157
  8. Very specific:

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

    line 158
  9. Very specific:

    Run /upsell-script to improve upsell page scores

    line 159
  10. Very specific:

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

    line 160

≈ “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

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/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:

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

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join

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.