本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

landing-page-cro-expert

Audits and rewrites landing pages, homepages, and sales pages to increase conversion — diagnosing why a page is not converting, rewriting headlines, hero copy and calls to action, and prioritizing which changes to test first. Use this when a page underperforms, when someone pastes a URL or screenshot asking what is wrong, when writing a new page, or when deciding which conversion changes are worth testing.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(2)

  • SKILL.md4.4 KB
  • references/sources.md2.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Landing page CRO

Diagnose before rewriting

A page converts when a visitor understands what this is, believes it will work for them, and has no unresolved objection at the moment they are asked to act. Failures are almost always one of those three, and the remedy differs entirely.

Read the page as a stranger who has five seconds. Then answer:

  • What is this, in the reader's words? If the hero requires domain knowledge to parse, nothing below it matters.
  • Who is it for? A page for everyone converts nobody. Specificity is a conversion tactic, not a marketing luxury.
  • Why this instead of the alternative — including doing nothing, which is the real competitor.
  • What is the single action? Multiple competing calls to action reliably reduce all of them.

The hero

Most of the outcome, decided in the space of a phone screen.

  • Headline states the outcome, not the category and not a slogan. "Close your books in two days, not two weeks" beats "Modern accounting infrastructure."
  • Subhead handles the obvious next question — usually how, or for whom.
  • One primary call to action, above the fold, with a label describing what happens next rather than "Submit" or "Get started."
  • Proof in the first screen. A logo row, a number, a named customer. Claims made with no evidence in sight are discounted wholesale.
  • Show the product. A screenshot of the real thing outperforms an abstract illustration for almost every software product.

Down the page

Order by the reader's questions, not by your feature list: what it does → why it is better than what they do now → proof → objections → price → act.

Every claim needs evidence near it. Every section should be removable — if cutting it changes nothing, cut it. Long pages are fine; padded pages are not.

Repeat the call to action at each natural decision point, always the same action.

Objections

List the real reasons people do not buy — cost, switching effort, trust, whether it works for their case, who else uses it — and answer each on the page. Objections not handled on the page are handled by leaving.

The strongest objection handling is specific: a migration guide, a named customer like them, a concrete guarantee.

Prioritizing tests

Rank by traffic × expected effect × confidence, and test structural things before cosmetic ones. Headline, offer framing, page order, and form length move conversion. Button color does not, and testing it consumes the traffic a real test needed.

Most pages cannot support many adequately powered tests. Spend them on the hero and the offer.

Scoring a page

Where a score is useful, rate each of these one to five with the criteria stated: clarity of what it is, specificity of who it is for, strength of the primary action, proof present and near claims, objections handled, and visual hierarchy supporting the path.

Publish the criteria with the score. A page scored 6/10 with no rubric produces an argument; the same score with the rubric produces a work list.

Sources

references/sources.md in this skill lists the outside authorities that settle the questions here — what each one is authoritative for, and what you may do with it. Check them before answering on anything they cover, and cite what you used. Most are free to read and not free to reproduce; the use note on each is binding.

Never

  • Rewrite before diagnosing. Most pages that fail to convert are failing above the fold or off the page entirely, in the traffic.
  • Test a variant you cannot explain the hypothesis for. A win you cannot account for does not generalize.
  • Remove an objection from the page because it is uncomfortable. It does not leave the buyer's head, only your copy.

Return contract

Findings ordered by expected impact, each with the evidence, the specific fix, and effort. The one change to make first. And what you would leave alone — a CRO audit that flags everything has prioritized nothing.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Designs and audits who can reach what — authentication, authorization models, privileged access, service credentials, and joiner-mover-leaver process. Use this to design a permissions model, run an access review, reduce standing privilege, handle offboarding, set up SSO or MFA, manage service and machine credentials, or diagnose why permissions have sprawled.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Concentrates marketing and sales effort on a named set of accounts rather than on volume — qualifying whether the model fits your economics at all, building the account list and the buying group inside each, tiering effort against account value, coordinating so the account experiences one campaign rather than several, and measuring account progression instead of leads. Use this to decide whether to run an account-based program, build one, or work out why an existing one produces activity and no pipeline.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Gets new users from signup to first real value — signup flow, onboarding, time-to-value, and the early experience that determines whether someone becomes a user or a lapsed account. Use this to design or fix signup and onboarding, diagnose why signups do not convert to active use, reduce time-to-value, or decide what a new user must accomplish first.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Designs orchestrator-and-subagent hierarchies for a repository — splitting agents by exclusive write surface, pairing every producer with an independent auditor, and enforcing the split with a script that runs in CI. Use this whenever the user wants to set up, expand, audit, or fix a multi-agent or subagent structure for a codebase; asks how to divide work between agents; wants agent charters, roles, or a surface map written; or is hitting agents that collide on the same files, review their own work, or drift from their remit. Also use when sizing a roster or deciding whether a new agent is justified.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Governs models and AI systems in production — intended use, evaluation, monitoring, human oversight, documentation, and the decision to deploy or retire. Use this before deploying a model or AI feature, when defining evaluation criteria, when a model's behavior has drifted, when assessing AI risk or regulatory exposure, or when deciding whether an AI system is fit for a consequential decision.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

Produces executive-level research — market sizing, competitor mapping, trend analysis, and strategic intelligence — grounded in cited sources with the confidence in each claim made explicit. Use this to analyze a market or industry, map competitors, evaluate a market-entry or build-versus-buy decision, produce a research brief, or assemble evidence for a decision. Also use when comparing options that need a structured, evidence-based verdict rather than an opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

cbrock84/headcount2,0422026年9月18日 更新

cbrock84 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する