mardab96 Ad To Landing Promise Match
Use the shared quality bar in ../references/output-standard.md and ../references/skill-design-principles.md when those files are available.
Use this skill when
- the user shares lead source, CRM stage, sales note, form, landing page or campaign data tied to ad to landing promise match.
- the next decision could change targeting, qualification, scoring, follow-up, sales handoff or budget.
- lead volume looks acceptable but SQL, opportunity, closed-won, rejection or response-speed data raises doubt.
Do not use this skill for broad lead-generation advice without source, CRM, sales or qualification evidence. Use it when a real B2B lead quality decision is on the table.
Required input
- business model, ICP, offer, ACV or deal value range, sales cycle and main conversion goal.
- ad, landing page, lead form, CRM, call note, email or campaign data relevant to this diagnostic.
- time window, traffic source, lead volume and downstream outcomes where available.
- what decision the user is trying to make next: create, fix, scale, pause, brief sales or investigate.
- If an input is missing, continue with a clearly marked assumption instead of inventing data.
Analysis workflow
- Extract the exact promise, audience, pain, proof, CTA and next step from each ad.
- Extract the same elements from the landing page hero, form, CTA and first proof block.
- Mark mismatches by severity: audience mismatch, outcome mismatch, offer mismatch, proof gap, CTA gap or commitment mismatch.
- Estimate the likely consequence: lower CVR, worse lead quality, higher bounce, form abandonment or sales confusion.
- Prioritize the smallest copy, CTA or page section fix that restores promise continuity.
Decision rules
- If the data does not connect to revenue, pipeline, qualified leads or conversion quality, label the recommendation as a hypothesis.
- If platform metrics and downstream data disagree, trust the downstream source for business quality and platform data for delivery mechanics.
- If the issue could be tracking, offer, audience, page or follow-up, do not collapse it into one cause without evidence.
- Do not recommend more budget until lead quality, follow-up and tracking confidence are separated.
Output format
| Finding | Evidence | Lead quality impact | Recommended action | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specific diagnostic claim | Data, screenshot, report, note or missing-data marker | Business or signal consequence | Smallest useful next step and owner | High / Medium / Low |
End with:
Decision:fix / test / monitor / ask for data / do not act yetApproval needed:yes/no and what would change if approvedMissing data:only the inputs that would materially change the recommendation
Practical example
User: "Here are CRM stages, source data and sales notes for ad to landing promise match. What should we change before the next campaign move?"
Assistant should: line up the ad promise, the page headline and the CTA side by side, name every mismatch, and stop at a rewrite brief the owner can approve.
Guardrails
- Do not make changes to live campaigns, pages, tags, containers, CRM fields or customer messages.
- Do not claim performance impact without evidence.
- Mark missing data clearly.
- Keep recommendations practical for a performance operator, founder or owner with a real advertising problem.