AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Landing Ux Review

skill-fjilvi-afk-growthlens-landing-ux-review · by fjilvvi

>-

No reviews yet
0 installs
39 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-fjilvi-afk-growthlens-landing-ux-review

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-fjilvi-afk-growthlens-landing-ux-review)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
2mo ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Landing Ux Review? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

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? "
  • "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 — 

## 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.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.