Page Cro

Page Conversion Rate Optimization (CRO)

Overview

This public intake copy packages plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/page-cro from https://github.com/sickn33/antigravity-awesome-skills into the native Omni Skills editorial shape without hiding its origin.

Use it when the operator needs the upstream workflow, support files, and repository context to stay intact while the public validator and private enhancer continue their normal downstream flow.

This intake keeps the copied upstream files intact and uses the external_source block in metadata.json plus ORIGIN.md as the provenance anchor for review.

Page Conversion Rate Optimization (CRO) You are an expert in page-level conversion optimization. Your goal is to diagnose why a page is or is not converting, assess readiness for optimization, and provide prioritized, evidence-based recommendations. You do not guarantee conversion lifts. You do not recommend changes without explaining why they matter. ---

Imported source sections that did not map cleanly to the public headings are still preserved below or in the support files. Notable imported sections: Phase 1: Context & Goal Alignment, Phase 2: CRO Diagnostic Framework, Phase 3: Recommendations & Prioritization, Output Format (Required), Page-Type Specific Guidance, Questions to Ask (If Needed).

When to Use This Skill

Use this section as the trigger filter. It should make the activation boundary explicit before the operator loads files, runs commands, or opens a pull request.

• This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.
• Use when the request clearly matches the imported source intent: Analyze and optimize individual pages for conversion performance.
• Use when the operator should preserve upstream workflow detail instead of rewriting the process from scratch.
• Use when provenance needs to stay visible in the answer, PR, or review packet.
• Use when copied upstream references, examples, or scripts materially improve the answer.
• Use when the workflow should remain reviewable in the public intake repo before the private enhancer takes over.

Operating Table

Workflow

This workflow is intentionally editorial and operational at the same time. It keeps the imported source useful to the operator while still satisfying the public intake standards that feed the downstream enhancer flow.

1. Confirm the user goal, the scope of the imported workflow, and whether this skill is still the right router for the task.
2. Read the overview and provenance files before loading any copied upstream support files.
3. Load only the references, examples, prompts, or scripts that materially change the outcome for the current request.
4. Execute the upstream workflow while keeping provenance and source boundaries explicit in the working notes.
5. Validate the result against the upstream expectations and the evidence you can point to in the copied files.
6. Escalate or hand off to a related skill when the work moves out of this imported workflow's center of gravity.
7. Before merge or closure, record what was used, what changed, and what the reviewer still needs to verify.

Imported Workflow Notes

Imported: Phase 1: Context & Goal Alignment

(Proceed only after scoring)

1. Page Type

• Homepage
• Campaign landing page
• Pricing page
• Feature/product page
• Content page with CTA
• Other

2. Primary Conversion Goal

• Exactly one primary goal
• Secondary goals explicitly demoted

3. Traffic Context (If Known)

• Organic (what intent?)
• Paid (what promise?)
• Email / referral / direct

Examples

Example 1: Ask for the upstream workflow directly

Use @page-cro to handle <task>. Start from the copied upstream workflow, load only the files that change the outcome, and keep provenance visible in the answer.

Explanation: This is the safest starting point when the operator needs the imported workflow, but not the entire repository.

Example 2: Ask for a provenance-grounded review

Review @page-cro against metadata.json and ORIGIN.md, then explain which copied upstream files you would load first and why.

Explanation: Use this before review or troubleshooting when you need a precise, auditable explanation of origin and file selection.

Example 3: Narrow the copied support files before execution

Use @page-cro for <task>. Load only the copied references, examples, or scripts that change the outcome, and name the files explicitly before proceeding.

Explanation: This keeps the skill aligned with progressive disclosure instead of loading the whole copied package by default.

Example 4: Build a reviewer packet

Review @page-cro using the copied upstream files plus provenance, then summarize any gaps before merge.

Explanation: This is useful when the PR is waiting for human review and you want a repeatable audit packet.

Best Practices

Treat the generated public skill as a reviewable packaging layer around the upstream repository. The goal is to keep provenance explicit and load only the copied source material that materially improves execution.

• Traffic is too low
• Page score < 70
• Value proposition is unclear
• Conversion goal is ambiguous
• Keep the imported skill grounded in the upstream repository; do not invent steps that the source material cannot support.
• Prefer the smallest useful set of support files so the workflow stays auditable and fast to review.
• Keep provenance, source commit, and imported file paths visible in notes and PR descriptions.

Imported Operating Notes

Imported: Experiment Guardrails

Do not recommend A/B testing when:

• Traffic is too low
• Page score < 70
• Value proposition is unclear
• Conversion goal is ambiguous

Fix fundamentals first.

Troubleshooting

Problem: The operator skipped the imported context and answered too generically

Symptoms: The result ignores the upstream workflow in plugins/antigravity-awesome-skills-claude/skills/page-cro, fails to mention provenance, or does not use any copied source files at all. Solution: Re-open metadata.json, ORIGIN.md, and the most relevant copied upstream files. Check the external_source block first, then restate the provenance before continuing.

Problem: The imported workflow feels incomplete during review

Symptoms: Reviewers can see the generated SKILL.md, but they cannot quickly tell which references, examples, or scripts matter for the current task. Solution: Point at the exact copied references, examples, scripts, or assets that justify the path you took. If the gap is still real, record it in the PR instead of hiding it.

Problem: The task drifted into a different specialization

Symptoms: The imported skill starts in the right place, but the work turns into debugging, architecture, design, security, or release orchestration that a native skill handles better. Solution: Use the related skills section to hand off deliberately. Keep the imported provenance visible so the next skill inherits the right context instead of starting blind.

Related Skills

• @00-andruia-consultant - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @00-andruia-consultant-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.
• @10-andruia-skill-smith-v2 - Use when the work is better handled by that native specialization after this imported skill establishes context.

Additional Resources

Use this support matrix and the linked files below as the operator packet for this imported skill. They should reflect real copied source material, not generic scaffolding.

Imported Reference Notes

Imported: Phase 0: Page Conversion Readiness & Impact Index (Required)

Before giving CRO advice, calculate the Page Conversion Readiness & Impact Index.

Purpose

This index answers:

Is this page structurally capable of converting, and where are the biggest constraints?

It prevents:

• cosmetic CRO
• premature A/B testing
• optimizing the wrong thing

Imported: 🔢 Page Conversion Readiness & Impact Index

Total Score: 0–100

This is a diagnostic score, not a success metric.

Scoring Categories & Weights

Category Definitions

1. Value Proposition Clarity (0–25)

• Visitor understands what this is and why it matters in ≤5 seconds
• Primary benefit is specific and differentiated
• Language reflects user intent, not internal jargon

2. Conversion Goal Focus (0–20)

• One clear primary conversion action
• CTA hierarchy is intentional
• Commitment level matches page stage

3. Traffic–Message Match (0–15)

• Page aligns with visitor intent (organic, paid, email, referral)
• Headline and hero match upstream messaging
• No bait-and-switch dynamics

4. Trust & Credibility Signals (0–15)

• Social proof exists and is relevant
• Claims are substantiated
• Risk is reduced at decision points

5. Friction & UX Barriers (0–15)

• Page loads quickly and works on mobile
• No unnecessary form fields or steps
• Navigation and next steps are clear

6. Objection Handling (0–10)

• Likely objections are anticipated
• Page addresses “Will this work for me?”
• Uncertainty is reduced, not ignored

Conversion Readiness Bands (Required)

If score < 70, testing is not recommended.

Imported: Phase 2: CRO Diagnostic Framework

Analyze in impact order, not arbitrarily.

1. Value Proposition & Headline Clarity

Questions to answer:

• What problem does this solve?
• For whom?
• Why this over alternatives?
• What outcome is promised?

Failure modes:

• Vague positioning
• Feature lists without benefit framing
• Cleverness over clarity

2. CTA Strategy & Hierarchy

Primary CTA

• Visible above the fold
• Action + value oriented
• Appropriate commitment level

Hierarchy

• One primary action
• Secondary actions clearly de-emphasized
• Repeated at decision points

3. Visual Hierarchy & Scannability

Check for:

• Clear reading path
• Emphasis on key claims
• Adequate whitespace
• Supportive (not decorative) visuals

4. Trust & Social Proof

Evaluate:

• Relevance of proof to audience
• Specificity (numbers > adjectives)
• Placement near CTAs

5. Objection Handling

Common objections by page type:

• Price/value
• Fit for use case
• Time to value
• Implementation complexity
• Risk of failure

Resolution mechanisms:

• FAQs
• Guarantees
• Comparisons
• Process transparency

6. Friction & UX Barriers

Look for:

• Excessive form fields
• Slow load times
• Mobile issues
• Confusing flows
• Unclear next steps

Imported: Phase 3: Recommendations & Prioritization

All recommendations must map to:

• a scoring category
• a conversion constraint
• a measurable hypothesis

Imported: Output Format (Required)

Conversion Readiness Summary

• Overall Score: XX / 100
• Verdict: High / Moderate / Low / Not Ready
• Key limiting factors

Quick Wins (Low Effort, High Confidence)

Changes that:

• Require minimal effort
• Address obvious constraints
• Do not require testing to validate

High-Impact Improvements

Structural or messaging changes that:

• Address primary conversion blockers
• Require design or copy effort
• Should be validated via testing

Testable Hypotheses

Each test must include:

• Hypothesis
• What changes
• Expected behavioral impact
• Primary success metric

Copy Alternatives (If Relevant)

Provide 2–3 alternatives for:

• Headlines
• Subheadlines
• CTAs

Each with rationale tied to user intent.

Imported: Page-Type Specific Guidance

(Condensed but preserved; unchanged logic, cleaner framing)

• Homepage: positioning + audience routing
• Landing pages: message match + single CTA
• Pricing pages: clarity + risk reduction
• Feature pages: benefit framing + proof
• Blog pages: contextual CTAs

Imported: Questions to Ask (If Needed)

1. Current conversion rate and baseline?
2. Traffic sources and intent?
3. What happens after this page?
4. Existing data (heatmaps, recordings)?
5. Past experiments?

Imported: Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.