version: "1.0.0" name: landing-ux-review description: >- Conversion-focused UX review of a landing page — above-the-fold clarity, visual hierarchy, copy, CTA, trust, friction, mobile, and load — scored section by section with prioritized fixes. Use when the user shares a landing page URL or screenshot and asks "why isn't this converting", "review this landing page", "audit the UX", "improve this page", or "give me CRO feedback". license: MIT metadata: author: fjilvi-afk version: "1.0" category: conversion

Landing Page UX Review

A structured, conversion-oriented critique of a single landing page — what to

fix first to lift conversion.

What it does

Reviews one landing page against a conversion-UX rubric and returns a scored, section-by-section critique with a prioritized fix list. It focuses on the decisions that move conversion — clarity, hierarchy, trust, and friction — not on subjective aesthetics.

When to use this skill

• "Why isn't this landing page converting? <url>"
• "Review the UX / do a CRO review of this page."
• "Improve this page" (with a URL or screenshot).
• Pre-launch check on a new landing or sales page.

Inputs needed

• Required: the page URL, or screenshots (desktop and ideally mobile).
• Helpful: the page's single goal (the one action), the traffic source, and

the target audience — UX is only "good" relative to a goal and a visitor.

• If the goal isn't obvious, ask: "What's the one action this page should drive?"

Method

Score each area 1–5 and note the highest-leverage issue. Use the LIFT-style levers (value proposition, clarity, relevance, urgency, anxiety, distraction).

1. Above the fold — within 5 seconds: is it clear what this is, who it's for,

and what to do? Is the primary CTA visible without scrolling?

1. Value proposition & clarity — headline strength, benefit vs feature

framing, jargon, reading ease.

1. Visual hierarchy — does the eye flow to the headline → proof → CTA? Are

there competing focal points?

1. Relevance / message-match — does the page match the promise of the ad,

email, or search query that sent the visitor?

1. Call to action — wording (action + value), prominence, repetition,

contrast, and whether there's one primary action or many competing ones.

1. Trust & proof — testimonials, logos, numbers, guarantees, security — and

whether they appear near the decision point.

1. Friction & anxiety — form length, required fields, unclear pricing,

missing answers to obvious objections, risk reducers.

1. Distraction — nav, links, and elements that pull away from the goal.
2. Mobile & performance — layout on mobile, tap targets, apparent load speed,

anything that breaks the fold on small screens.

Output format

# Landing UX Review — <page>
 
## TL;DR
-Overall __/5. The one change that will move conversion most.
 
## Page goal & visitor
-Primary action: · Traffic source: · Audience:
 
## Scorecard
| Area | Score /5 | Key issue |
|------|----------|-----------|
| Above the fold | | |
| Value prop & clarity | | |
| Visual hierarchy | | |
| Message-match | | |
| Call to action | | |
| Trust & proof | | |
| Friction & anxiety | | |
| Distraction | | |
| Mobile & performance | | |
 
## Prioritized fixes
| # | Fix | Area | Why it matters | Impact | Effort |
|---|-----|------|----------------|--------|--------|
 
## Quick wins (ship today)
-3 changes that are fast and high-confidence.

Quality bar

• Tie every critique to a conversion lever and the page's stated goal.
• Reference specific page elements ("the second-fold CTA reads 'Submit'"), not

vague impressions.

• Don't invent traffic, bounce, or conversion numbers.
• Separate high-confidence issues from "test this" hypotheses.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Aesthetic opinions ("I'd use a different blue") over conversion impact.
• A flat list of issues with no prioritization.
• Reviewing without knowing the page's one goal.