Corey Haines / skills/cro/SKILL.md
Conversion Rate Optimization
A structured review of marketing pages and lead forms, with prioritized fixes, copy alternatives and experiments to validate.
Source reviewed · reviewed · Named sources were inspected. No runtime results are established by this label.
01 / Task fit
Where it may help.
These are intended uses indicated by the upstream material. They are not measured outcomes.
- Auditing a marketing page against a specific visitor intent
- Reviewing lead/contact forms and planning measurable experiments
What it is
CRO helps an agent examine a page from the visitor's point of view: what it offers, who it is for, what to do next and what makes that action difficult. Version 2.0.3 combines page and form guidance under cro, with separate references for forms and experiment ideas.
Why you might use it
Use it to turn vague feedback about a page into specific issues and testable changes. It is most useful with a stated conversion goal, known traffic sources and trustworthy baseline data; it cannot tell you that a rewrite increased conversions without a real measurement design.
Put it in context.
Illustrative requests and outputs to review. These examples are separate from the recorded evaluation below.
Review a service landing page
Example request
Review this synthetic landing-page copy for visitors arriving from an ad about a data-cleanup service. The only conversion is requesting an assessment. Identify message mismatch and propose three CTA alternatives without invented customer claims.
What to look for. A prioritized review tied to the visitor intent, plus copy alternatives and hypotheses to test.
Before you rely on it. Traffic quality, seasonality and tracking changes can move conversion rates independently of copy.
Reduce form friction
Example request
Review a synthetic demo form asking for name, email, phone, team size and free-text goals. Explain which fields are needed before follow-up, preserve input on validation errors and propose an experiment.
What to look for. A field-by-field rationale and an experiment plan with a clear completion definition.
Before you rely on it. Do not remove necessary consent, qualification or accessibility requirements just to reduce field count.
02 / Setup & access
What it asks of your environment.
Requirements
- An agent with page copy or a permitted page snapshot and product/audience context.
- Product-marketing context files are optional but explicitly checked. Signup and test-design tasks route to separate skills.
- No helper runtime or account is required for source-guided review. Live analytics, session recordings and enrichment tools add separate accounts and permissions.
Permissions & data access
- Read supplied page content and relevant product-marketing files.
- Browser access, analytics reads, contact enrichment, page edits and experiment publication are separate host capabilities, not permissions granted by this document.
Instructions alone do not enforce a sandbox. The agent host, connected tools and approvals determine what the skill can actually read, change or send.
03 / Things to check
Security concerns & practical limits.
These concerns follow from the reviewed sources. They describe possible exposure or required review; they are not confirmed vulnerabilities.
Review before use
Recommendations are test hypotheses
The guide suggests prioritization and experiments, and its form reference includes numerical rules of thumb. Those numbers are source assertions, not results from this review or a forecast for your site.
Higher attention
Proof and privacy claims need real support
Suggested testimonials, customer counts, security badges, guarantees and privacy assurances are not facts to invent. Use verified claims that match the actual service and data handling.
Review before use
Measurement and enrichment add data exposure
Field-level analytics, session recordings and lead enrichment can expose contact details or user behavior to other systems. Scope inputs, collection and vendor access before connecting tools.
Limits and nuances
- Source review only. No landing-page audit was executed by a conditioned model, no browser form was submitted and no analytics, enrichment or A/B testing account was accessed.
- The seven upstream eval prompts were inspected as task descriptions, not run or scored. No conversion improvement, causal effect, accessibility conformance or statistical validity was measured.
- The mutable main-branch revops reference is outside this pinned review. Recheck it and any related skills before following their instructions.
04 / Review record
What we checked. What’s still open.
Recorded review scope
- skills/cro/SKILL.md
- LICENSE
- skills/cro/references/form.md
- skills/cro/references/experiments.md
- skills/cro/evals/evals.json
- VERSIONS.md
Not tested or established
- Source review only. No landing-page audit was executed by a conditioned model, no browser form was submitted and no analytics, enrichment or A/B testing account was accessed.
- The seven upstream eval prompts were inspected as task descriptions, not run or scored. No conversion improvement, causal effect, accessibility conformance or statistical validity was measured.
- The mutable main-branch revops reference is outside this pinned review. Recheck it and any related skills before following their instructions.
- Review date
- Source revision
365b412152b9542499ca1439426f7fc3cc92bb65- Our relationship
- Explored. Investigated through the recorded review. No use or replication is claimed.
Upstream content can change after review. A repository revision identifies source scope; it does not prove that every script, dependency or runtime behavior was tested. How freshness is handled.
Recorded evaluation / Source review
Results with their limits attached.
Completed 6 bounded source checks covering requirements, workflow boundaries and practical security concerns. No skill workflow was executed.
- Passed
- 6
- Failed
- 0
- Total recorded
- 6
These counts refer to the cases in this report. They are not a benchmark against other skills. A source review does not establish runtime behavior.
Read the evidence reportThe report provides the case definitions, observations and baseline scope. Missing baselines or untested behaviors remain limitations.
Recorded environment
- Pinned public UTF-8 sources; exact Git blob contents fetched through GitHub and recorded with SHA-256.
- Windows 11; Python 3.12.10 source-condition verification. No account, private document or live business data.
Recorded commands (2)
Commands document this evaluation. They are not setup instructions for your environment.
Read each pinned file listed in sourceManifest.python build-guide-reviews.py — verify the recorded source conditions and reconcile report counts.Findings from this evaluation
Needs attention
Recommendations are test hypotheses
The guide suggests prioritization and experiments, and its form reference includes numerical rules of thumb. Those numbers are source assertions, not results from this review or a forecast for your site.
Higher attention
Proof and privacy claims need real support
Suggested testimonials, customer counts, security badges, guarantees and privacy assurances are not facts to invent. Use verified claims that match the actual service and data handling.
Needs attention
Measurement and enrichment add data exposure
Field-level analytics, session recordings and lead enrichment can expose contact details or user behavior to other systems. Scope inputs, collection and vendor access before connecting tools.
Observation
Review uses the renamed CRO entrypoint
Current cro combines page and form guidance. Its own 85.5K displayed installs are used; the older page-cro listing is not added to that figure.
Evaluation limitations
- Source review only. No landing-page audit was executed by a conditioned model, no browser form was submitted and no analytics, enrichment or A/B testing account was accessed.
- The seven upstream eval prompts were inspected as task descriptions, not run or scored. No conversion improvement, causal effect, accessibility conformance or statistical validity was measured.
- The mutable main-branch revops reference is outside this pinned review. Recheck it and any related skills before following their instructions.
05 / Reuse & discovery
License, attribution & popularity.
MIT
Repository MIT license text inspected at this revision. Preserve its copyright and permission notice when redistributing covered source; separate dependencies and services can have their own terms.
Why it is in this collection
skills.sh displayed 85.5K installs for this named skill on the observation date. Rounded directory telemetry; not verified unique users, a quality score or measured growth.
85,500 skill installs on skills.sh
- Scope
- Directory listing for marketing-cro; not the whole repository
- Observed
- Time window
- Individual listing says Installs; reporting window not independently established
Popularity and inclusion do not establish quality, compatibility or security. Counts belong to their named metric and date; they are not a current ranking.
06 / Follow the evidence
Go to the original.
- Pinned skill instructions github.com
- Pinned repository license github.com
- Reviewed form.md github.com
- Reviewed experiments.md github.com
- Reviewed evals.json github.com
- Reviewed VERSIONS.md github.com
- Dated directory popularity context www.skills.sh
IonBin’s source notes are independent assessments. Upstream authors retain their work and attribution. This page does not install or execute the skill.