# Themattberman Google Ads Copilot Google Ads Copilot > Google Ads Landing Review - Skill: `tomevault-io/themattberman-google-ads-copilot-google-ads-copilot` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/themattberman-google-ads-copilot-google-ads-copilot` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/themattberman-google-ads-copilot-google-ads-copilot/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/themattberman-google-ads-copilot-google-ads-copilot --- # Google Ads Landing Review ## Why this skill exists "The landing page isn't converting" is the most common complaint in Google Ads. But it hides two completely different root causes: 1. **Tracking problem** — conversions ARE happening but aren't being counted. 2. **Path problem** — the visitor arrives but the page fails them. Most operators (and most clients) assume path failure when the numbers look bad. Half the time, it's a tracking failure. Conflating the two wastes months. This skill separates them. Read first: - `google-ads/references/operator-thesis.md` - `google-ads/references/tracking-playbook.md` - `google-ads/references/structure-playbook.md` Read workspace if available: - `workspace/ads/account.md` - `workspace/ads/goals.md` - `workspace/ads/findings.md` - `workspace/ads/drafts/_index.md` — check for existing tracking drafts --- ## Diagnostic Model: Two Forks ``` "Landing page isn't converting" │ ┌────┴────┐ │ │ FORK A FORK B Tracking Path/UX │ │ Is the Is the page signal actually correct? failing? ``` **Always run Fork A first.** If tracking is broken, Fork B conclusions are unreliable. --- ## Fork A: Tracking Diagnosis (Is the signal trustworthy?) ### What to check **1. Does a conversion action exist for the goal on this page?** - Is there a conversion action configured for the form/call/purchase that this landing page is supposed to produce? - Is it set as primary (`include_in_conversions_metric = TRUE`)? - Is the counting type correct? **2. Does the tag actually fire?** - Is the Google Ads conversion tag (or GA4 event imported to Google Ads) present on the confirmation/thank-you page? - Does the tag fire when the user completes the action? (Google Tag Assistant, network tab, or manual test) - Is the tag firing on the WRONG page? (e.g., firing on page load of the form page instead of the thank-you page) **3. Is the conversion path end-to-end intact?** - Click on ad → landing page → form/CTA → thank-you page → tag fires → conversion recorded - Where does the chain break? **4. Cross-domain / redirect issues?** - Does the landing page redirect to a different domain for the form/checkout? - If so, is cross-domain tracking configured? - Are UTM parameters / GCLID surviving the redirect? **5. Auto-tagging?** - Is auto-tagging enabled? - Are there URL parameters being stripped by the landing page CMS or CDN? **6. Attribution window?** - Conversion window too short (e.g., 1 day for a B2B lead that takes a week to decide)? - Multiple touchpoints lost? ### Fork A Data Acquisition (Connected Mode) **Conversion actions for this campaign:** ```sql SELECT conversion_action.name, conversion_action.type, conversion_action.category, conversion_action.counting_type, conversion_action.include_in_conversions_metric, conversion_action.status, metrics.conversions, metrics.all_conversions FROM conversion_action WHERE segments.date DURING LAST_30_DAYS AND conversion_action.status = 'ENABLED' ORDER BY metrics.conversions DESC ``` **Campaign-level conversion data:** ```sql SELECT campaign.name, campaign.final_url_suffix, metrics.clicks, metrics.conversions, metrics.all_conversions, metrics.cost_micros, metrics.cost_per_conversion FROM campaign WHERE campaign.status = 'ENABLED' AND segments.date DURING LAST_30_DAYS ORDER BY metrics.clicks DESC ``` **Ad-level landing page URLs and performance:** ```sql SELECT campaign.name, ad_group.name, ad_group_ad.ad.final_urls, ad_group_ad.ad.type, metrics.clicks, metrics.impressions, metrics.conversions, metrics.cost_micros FROM ad_group_ad WHERE campaign.status = 'ENABLED' AND ad_group_ad.status = 'ENABLED' AND segments.date DURING LAST_30_DAYS ORDER BY metrics.clicks DESC LIMIT 50 ``` **Landing page experience (quality score indicators):** ```sql SELECT campaign.name, ad_group.name, ad_group_criterion.keyword.text, ad_group_criterion.quality_info.quality_score, ad_group_criterion.quality_info.post_click_quality_score, ad_group_criterion.quality_info.creative_quality_score, ad_group_criterion.quality_info.search_predicted_ctr FROM keyword_view WHERE campaign.status = 'ENABLED' AND ad_group.status = 'ENABLED' AND ad_group_criterion.status = 'ENABLED' ORDER BY ad_group_criterion.quality_info.post_click_quality_score ASC LIMIT 50 ``` ### Fork A Verdict | Tracking Status | Meaning | Next Step | |----------------|---------|-----------| | **Clean** | Tag fires correctly, conversion action configured right, GCLID passes | Proceed to Fork B | | **Suspicious** | Tag exists but volume seems too low or too high vs. reality | Investigate specific break, then Fork B | | **Broken** | No tag, wrong tag, or GCLID stripped | Fix tracking FIRST. Fork B is premature. | | **Unknown** | Can't verify from API alone — needs manual tag inspection | Recommend Tag Assistant audit, then Fork B | --- ## Fork B: Path/UX Diagnosis (Is the page actually failing?) Only meaningful if Fork A shows tracking is Clean or Suspicious. ### The Message Match Test **1. Search intent → Ad promise → Landing page delivery** The #1 conversion killer in Google Ads is message mismatch: - User searches "roll-off dumpster rental near me" (specific, purchase-intent) - Ad says "Container Solutions for Your Business" (vague) - Landing page is a generic homepage with 12 menu items Each handoff is a potential drop: | Handoff | Question | Failure Mode | |---------|----------|-------------| | Search → Ad | Does the ad answer the specific search? | Generic ad for specific intent | | Ad → Landing | Does the LP deliver what the ad promised? | "Request a Quote" ad → page with no form | | Landing → CTA | Is the CTA visible, clear, and low-friction? | Form buried below fold, 15 fields | | CTA → Completion | Can the user actually complete the action? | Broken form, redirect fails, captcha blocks | **2. Specific checks (via browser or URL fetch):** - **Above-the-fold message:** Does the H1/hero text match the ad's promise? Does it match the search intent? - **CTA visibility:** Can the user see what to do within 3 seconds? Is the CTA above the fold? - **Form friction:** How many fields? Required fields? Captcha? Multi-step? - **Mobile experience:** Does it work on mobile? (Most Google Ads clicks are mobile) - **Page speed:** Does it load in <3 seconds? (Slow = bounced) - **Trust signals:** Phone number, reviews, certifications, real photos? - **Specificity:** Does the page serve ONE intent, or is it a homepage trying to serve all intents? ### The Intent Routing Test **3. Are different intent classes landing on different pages?** | Intent Class | Should Land On | Common Failure | |-------------|----------------|---------------| | Buyer ("buy X now") | Product/service page with CTA | Homepage | | Comparison ("X vs Y") | Comparison content | Product page with no comparison | | Research ("how does X work") | Educational content | Sales page | | Local ("X near me") | Location/service area page | National homepage | | Brand ("company name") | Homepage or brand page | Generic product page | If multiple intent classes all route to the same generic page, that's a structure problem (→ recommend in structure draft), not a landing page problem. ### The Conversion Path Walk **4. Walk the actual path the user takes:** ``` Click on ad → Landing page loads (check: speed, mobile rendering) → User reads headline (check: message match) → User finds CTA (check: visibility, clarity) → User clicks CTA (check: does it work?) → Form/checkout loads (check: friction, fields) → User submits (check: confirmation page loads) → Tag fires (check: conversion recorded) ``` Each step is a potential break. Document where the break is. ### Fork B Scoring Rate each dimension: | Dimension | Score | Notes | |-----------|-------|-------| | Message match (search→ad→page) | Strong / Weak / Missing | | | CTA clarity | Clear / Buried / Missing | | | Form friction | Low (≤4 fields) / Medium (5-8) / High (9+) | | | Mobile experience | Good / Adequate / Broken | | | Page speed | Fast (<3s) / Slow (3-6s) / Broken (>6s) | | | Trust signals | Strong / Some / None | | | Intent specificity | Focused / Mixed / Generic | | | Conversion path completeness | Complete / Partially broken / Broken | | --- ## Data Acquisition — Landing Page Review ### Connected Mode (MCP + Browser/Fetch) 1. Pull ad final URLs and campaign data via GAQL (see queries above) 2. For each unique landing URL: - Fetch with `web_fetch` for content analysis (H1, CTA text, form fields, page structure) - Use `browser` for interactive checks if needed (JavaScript-rendered pages, form testing) - Check mobile rendering if concerns arise 3. Cross-reference landing pages against search term intent classes from `workspace/ads/intent-map.md` ### Export Mode Ask the user for: - Landing page URL(s) - Which campaigns/ad groups point to which pages - Conversion action name and how it fires (page load, event, etc.) - Any known issues (form complaints, mobile problems) - Recent conversion volume (or "we don't know" — that's data too) --- ## Differential Diagnosis Summary After running both forks, produce a clear classification: ### Scenario 1: Tracking Problem Masquerading as UX Problem **Symptoms:** Low/zero conversions, but page looks fine, form works, users seem to engage **Diagnosis:** Tag not firing, wrong conversion action, GCLID stripped, cross-domain break **Action:** Fix tracking → then reassess conversion rate with clean data **Draft type:** Tracking fix (use `drafts/templates/tracking-draft.md`) ### Scenario 2: UX/Path Problem (Tracking Is Fine) **Symptoms:** Tracking verified clean, but conversion rate is genuinely low **Diagnosis:** Message mismatch, buried CTA, excessive form friction, wrong page for intent **Action:** Landing page improvements or intent routing changes **Draft type:** Landing review draft (use template below) and/or structure draft ### Scenario 3: Both Problems **Symptoms:** Tracking has issues AND the page has UX problems **Diagnosis:** Two independent failures compounding **Action:** Fix tracking first (P0), then address UX (P1) — in that order **Draft types:** Tracking fix draft + Landing review draft ### Scenario 4: Traffic Quality Problem (Page and Tracking Are Fine) **Symptoms:** Tracking clean, page is good, but conversion rate still low **Diagnosis:** The traffic is wrong — keywords matching wrong intent, broad match pulling junk, PMax sending Display/YouTube traffic to a Search landing page **Action:** Search terms analysis, negative keywords, or structure changes **Draft type:** Negative draft and/or structure draft (this is NOT a landing page problem) --- ## Draft Output ### Landing Review Draft **Trigger:** Fork B finds meaningful path/UX issues (at least 2 dimensions scored Weak/Missing/Broken) Create using the template below: - Write to `workspace/ads/drafts/YYYY-MM-DD-[account-slug]-landing-review.md` - Update `workspace/ads/drafts/_index.md` If Fork A also finds issues, create a SEPARATE tracking fix draft — don't mix them. ### Landing Review Draft Template ```markdown # Draft: Landing Page Review — [DATE] Status: proposed Skill: /google-ads landing-review Account: [Customer ID / Name] ## Summary [One paragraph: which pages were reviewed, the primary diagnosis (tracking vs path vs both), and the highest-priority fix.] ## Diagnostic Classification **Primary issue:** Tracking Problem | Path/UX Problem | Both | Traffic Quality Problem ## Fork A: Tracking Status - **Conversion action:** [Name and status] - **Tag status:** [Fires correctly / Suspicious / Broken / Unknown] - **GCLID passing:** [Yes / No / Unknown] - **Auto-tagging:** [Enabled / Disabled] - **Verdict:** [Clean / Suspicious / Broken / Unknown] ## Fork B: Path/UX Assessment ### Page: [URL] - **Campaigns pointing here:** [list] - **Clicks (30d):** [N] - **Conversions (30d):** [N] - **Implied conversion rate:** [X%] #### Scores | Dimension | Score | Detail | |-----------|-------|--------| | Message match | [Strong/Weak/Missing] | [specific observation] | | CTA clarity | [Clear/Buried/Missing] | [specific observation] | | Form friction | [Low/Medium/High] | [field count, issues] | | Mobile experience | [Good/Adequate/Broken] | [specific observation] | | Page speed | [Fast/Slow/Broken] | [load time if available] | | Trust signals | [Strong/Some/None] | [specific observation] | | Intent specificity | [Focused/Mixed/Generic] | [specific observation] | | Path completeness | [Complete/Partial/Broken] | [where it breaks] | ### Proposed Changes #### Change 1: [Specific recommendation] - **Current state:** [what's wrong] - **Proposed state:** [what to do] - **Expected impact:** [on conversion rate, quality score] - **Risk:** [what could go wrong] - **Priority:** P0 / P1 / P2 [repeat for each change] ## Intent Routing Assessment - **Are different intent classes landing on the right pages?** [Yes / No — detail] - **Should new landing pages be created?** [If so, for which intent classes] - **Cross-reference with intent map:** [link to workspace/ads/intent-map.md findings] ## Dependencies - [e.g., "Fix tracking (2026-03-15-acme-tracking-fix.md) before assessing conversion rate improvement"] ## Confidence [High / Medium / Low] — [reasoning] ## Review - [ ] Evidence checked - [ ] Collateral risk checked - [ ] Dependencies checked - **Decision:** approve | defer | reject - **Decision reason:** ____ - **Reviewed by:** ____ - **Reviewed on:** ____ - **Applied on:** ____ - **Notes:** ____ ``` ### Always update workspace memory: - `workspace/ads/findings.md` — landing page diagnosis and classification - `workspace/ads/learnings.md` — what we learned about this account's conversion path - Update existing tracking drafts if Fork A reveals new tracking problems --- ## Output Shape 1. **Account Status block** — name, CID, mode, date range, tracking confidence 2. **Diagnostic classification** — tracking problem vs path problem vs both vs traffic quality 3. **Fork A summary** — tracking status for each page/campaign reviewed 4. **Fork B summary** — path/UX scores for each landing page reviewed 5. **Differential diagnosis** — which scenario applies (1, 2, 3, or 4) 6. **Prioritized recommendations** — fix order matters (always tracking before UX) 7. **Drafts created** — with file paths and summaries 8. **Memory updates** --- ## Rules - **Always run Fork A first.** If tracking is broken, do NOT produce detailed UX recommendations — they will be based on phantom conversion data. - **Distinguish clearly:** A page with a broken tag and 0% conversion rate is a tracking problem, not a UX problem. Say it explicitly. - **Don't blame the landing page for traffic quality problems.** If the keywords are sending the wrong people, the page can be perfect and still not convert. Route to negatives/structure skills. - **Walk the actual path.** Don't just look at the page — follow the entire click → conversion chain. - **Be specific.** "The form has too many fields" is vague. "The form has 12 required fields including 'company size' and 'annual revenue' which are unnecessary for an initial quote request" is useful. - **Mobile first.** Most Google Ads clicks are mobile. If you can only check one thing, check mobile. - **One page at a time.** Don't try to review 10 pages at once. Start with the highest-spend page. - **Message match is almost always the problem.** When in doubt, check whether the H1 matches the search intent. If there's a mismatch, that's usually the answer. --- > Source: [TheMattBerman/google-ads-copilot](https://github.com/TheMattBerman/google-ads-copilot) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).