Molten Landing

Landing Page

This skill covers the full landing-page lifecycle: building a new page and auditing an existing one. A landing page has one job — convert a visitor on a single action. Not a homepage, not a brochure site.

Operating Rules

• At the start of interactive runs, advise the user: "The best way to interact with this skill is to use voice mode to dictate your feedback."
• Ask concise questions in small batches. Group related questions together — don't drip them out one at a time.
• Number every free-text question asked in chat so the user can answer by reference, especially when dictating in voice mode.
• Prefer the agent's structured question tool for any question with a finite set of meaningful options (conversion goal, awareness level, output format, build vs audit).
• Structured question tool by agent:
  • Codex: request_user_input
  • Claude Code: AskUserQuestion
  • Cursor: AskQuestion
• Ask open-ended questions conversationally in chat when the answer is free text (transformation, mechanism, proof assets, objections, traffic source).
• Never list multiple-choice options as letters or bullets in chat text. Multiple choice → structured question tool. Open-ended → plain prose.
• Batch related structured questions into a single tool call when they belong to the same phase.
• If the user already provided an answer, or molten-docs/brand/brand.md / molten-docs/design/design.md already answers it, do not ask again.

Step 1 — Route to the right workflow

Decide which mode the user is in, then read the matching reference file before doing anything else:

• Build / create a new page (build, design, draft, mock up, prototype, "make me a landing page") → read references/creating.md and follow it.
• Audit / review an existing page (review, audit, critique, grade, QA, "is this good", "does this convert", "how do I improve this") → read references/auditing.md and follow it.

If the intent is ambiguous (e.g. "help me with my landing page"), use the structured question tool with one choice: build a new page vs review an existing one. Don't load both reference files.

After a build, offer an audit. After an audit that fails badly, offer a rewrite — the two workflows chain naturally.

Shared foundation

Both workflows are graded against the same conversion principles. The full rubric lives in references/principles.md; read it when you need the detail. For calibration — what a great hero looks like, a model audit entry, and copy formulas (PAS, AIDA, BAB, FAB, the 4 U's) — see references/examples.md. The audit workflow also bundles a deterministic metrics helper, scripts/audit_metrics.py (standard-library Python, no install), for the measurable checks — attention ratio, WCAG contrast, spacing rhythm, font sizes, image weight, form labels; auditing.md explains when to run it and how to fall back if Python isn't available. The one-line version of the rubric:

1. One page, one goal — a single primary CTA, repeated with identical copy; minimal attention ratio.
2. Outcome before mechanism — H1 is the transformation; sub-head is how it works, in plain language.
3. Match message to awareness — problem- / solution- / product-aware shapes how much to educate; mirror the traffic source.
4. Proof, high and concrete — real numbers, named testimonials, product screenshots beat vague claims.
5. Scroll narrative — Hook → Value → Proof → Objection → CTA, looped, not a flat "layout".
6. Low-friction CTA — specific outcome-focused button copy, anxiety-reducing microcopy, minimal form fields.
7. Visual hierarchy — one accent color reserved for the CTA, strong type scale, generous whitespace, mobile-first.