CRO Audit

You need to evaluate a website, landing page, or conversion funnel for optimization opportunities. Covers heuristic evaluation, friction point identification, trust signal assessment, CTA effectiveness, form optimization, page speed impact, and a prioritized test backlog.

---

How it works

1. You provide pages to audit (URLs or descriptions), conversion goals, current conversion rates, and traffic volume
2. The skill runs a structured heuristic evaluation across clarity, relevance, motivation, friction, and distraction, then identifies specific optimization opportunities with prioritized test recommendations
3. It returns a scored audit with friction points, trust signal gaps, CTA improvements, form fixes, and a test backlog ranked by ICE and PIE scores

---

Prompt

You are conducting a conversion rate optimization audit for a Kate Makrigiannis consulting engagement. Kate helps clients find and fix the specific reasons visitors are not converting, using structured frameworks instead of guesswork. Before writing, read knowledge/voice-tone-guide.md -- use the client-facing voice.

Inputs I will provide:

• Pages to audit: {{PAGES}} (URLs, screenshots, or detailed descriptions of the pages to evaluate)
• Conversion goals: {{GOALS}} (what counts as a conversion -- e.g., "sign up for free trial," "submit demo request," "complete purchase," "download whitepaper")
• Current conversion rate: {{CURRENT_RATE}} (baseline conversion rate if known -- e.g., "2.3% of visitors submit the form," or "unknown")
• Traffic volume: {{TRAFFIC}} (monthly unique visitors or sessions -- needed for test duration calculations)
• Context (optional): {{CONTEXT}} (industry, audience, known pain points, prior testing history, analytics access)

Step 1: Heuristic evaluation framework

Evaluate each page against five heuristic dimensions. Score each dimension 1-5 (1 = critical issues, 5 = optimized).

Evaluation Scorecard

Dimension	Definition	Score (1-5)	Key Findings
Clarity	Can a visitor understand what this page offers and what to do next within 5 seconds?	[score]	[specific findings]
Relevance	Does the page match the visitor's intent and the traffic source that brought them here?	[score]	[specific findings]
Motivation	Does the page give visitors a compelling reason to take the desired action right now?	[score]	[specific findings]
Friction	Are there unnecessary steps, confusing elements, or anxiety-inducing moments that slow or stop conversion?	[score]	[specific findings]
Distraction	Are there elements competing for attention that pull visitors away from the primary conversion goal?	[score]	[specific findings]

Overall heuristic score: [sum / 25] -- [percentage]

Score Range	Assessment
80-100%	Well-optimized; incremental improvements possible
60-79%	Moderate issues; meaningful gains available
40-59%	Significant friction; prioritize fixes before scaling traffic
Below 40%	Fundamental problems; conversion improvements should precede growth investment

Step 2: Page-by-page friction point identification

For each page audited, identify specific friction points:

Page: [Page name / URL]

#	Friction Point	Location	Type	Severity	Evidence
1	[specific issue]	[above fold, form, navigation, footer, etc.]	[clarity / relevance / motivation / friction / distraction]	[Critical / High / Medium / Low]	[what you observed or what data suggests]
2	[specific issue]	[location]	[type]	[severity]	[evidence]

Friction types explained:

• Clarity friction: Visitor does not understand the offer, value, or next step
• Relevance friction: Page content does not match visitor intent or traffic source
• Motivation friction: Insufficient reason to act now (weak value prop, no urgency, missing proof)
• Process friction: Too many steps, confusing forms, broken flows, slow loads
• Anxiety friction: Trust concerns, unclear pricing, hidden costs, privacy fears

Step 3: Trust signal assessment

Evaluate the presence and effectiveness of trust signals on each page.

Trust Signal Checklist

Trust Signal	Present?	Effective?	Notes
Social proof (testimonials, reviews, logos)	[Yes/No]	[Strong/Weak/Missing]	[specifics]
Authority markers (certifications, press mentions, awards)	[Yes/No]	[Strong/Weak/Missing]	[specifics]
Security indicators (SSL, privacy badges, payment security)	[Yes/No]	[Strong/Weak/Missing]	[specifics]
Risk reducers (money-back guarantee, free trial, no credit card required)	[Yes/No]	[Strong/Weak/Missing]	[specifics]
Specificity (real numbers, named customers, concrete outcomes)	[Yes/No]	[Strong/Weak/Missing]	[specifics]
Recency (dates on testimonials, recent case studies)	[Yes/No]	[Strong/Weak/Missing]	[specifics]

Trust gap summary: [1-2 sentences on the biggest trust signal gaps and their likely impact on conversion]

Step 4: CTA effectiveness scoring

Evaluate each call-to-action on the audited pages.

CTA Audit

CTA	Location	Text	Score (1-5)	Issues	Recommendation
[Primary CTA]	[above fold, mid-page, bottom]	[exact button text]	[score]	[visibility, clarity, motivation, placement]	[specific improvement]
[Secondary CTA]	[location]	[text]	[score]	[issues]	[recommendation]

CTA scoring criteria:

• Visibility (1-5): Can you find it immediately? Contrast, size, whitespace
• Clarity (1-5): Does the text clearly state what happens when you click?
• Value (1-5): Does the CTA communicate the benefit, not just the action? ("Get my free report" vs. "Submit")
• Urgency (1-5): Is there a reason to click now vs. later?
• Placement (1-5): Is it positioned where the visitor is ready to act?

Step 5: Form optimization checklist

If the conversion goal involves a form, audit it specifically.

Form Audit

Factor	Current State	Issue	Recommendation
Number of fields	[count]	[too many / appropriate / too few]	[specific recommendation]
Required vs. optional	[ratio]	[are required fields clearly marked?]	[recommendation]
Field labels	[above, inline, placeholder-only]	[clarity of labels]	[recommendation]
Error handling	[inline, post-submit, unclear]	[how errors are communicated]	[recommendation]
Mobile experience	[responsive / broken / untested]	[mobile-specific issues]	[recommendation]
Progress indication	[present / absent]	[does the user know where they are in multi-step forms?]	[recommendation]
Social login / autofill	[available / absent]	[friction reduction opportunity]	[recommendation]
Privacy / data use	[explained / hidden / absent]	[trust impact]	[recommendation]

Form friction score: [fields x cognitive load] -- general rule: every unnecessary field costs 5-10% of form completions.

Step 6: Page speed impact analysis

Speed Assessment

Metric	Current Value	Target	Impact on Conversion
Largest Contentful Paint (LCP)	[seconds]	< 2.5s	Each additional second above 2.5s reduces conversion by approximately 7%
First Input Delay (FID)	[ms]	< 100ms	Slow interactivity increases bounce, especially on mobile
Cumulative Layout Shift (CLS)	[score]	< 0.1	Visual instability erodes trust and causes misclicks
Time to First Byte (TTFB)	[ms]	< 200ms	Server response time bottleneck
Total page weight	[MB]	< 2MB ideal	Heavy pages lose mobile visitors on slower connections

Conversion impact estimate:

• If current LCP is [X]s and target is 2.5s, estimated conversion improvement from speed alone: [X]%
• Formula: (current LCP - target LCP) x 7% = estimated conversion lift from speed optimization

Show the math: Current LCP [X]s - Target 2.5s = [Y]s gap x 7% per second = [Z]% estimated improvement

Step 7: Prioritized test backlog

Compile all findings into a prioritized test backlog using both ICE and PIE scoring.

Scoring Frameworks

ICE Score (Impact x Confidence x Ease, each 1-10):

#	Test Idea	Impact (1-10)	Confidence (1-10)	Ease (1-10)	ICE Score	Priority
1	[test description]	[score]	[score]	[score]	[I x C x E]	[rank]
2	[test description]	[score]	[score]	[score]	[score]	[rank]

PIE Score (Potential x Importance x Ease, each 1-10):

#	Test Idea	Potential (1-10)	Importance (1-10)	Ease (1-10)	PIE Score	Priority
1	[test description]	[score]	[score]	[score]	[P x I x E]	[rank]
2	[test description]	[score]	[score]	[score]	[score]	[rank]

Scoring definitions:

• Impact / Potential: How much improvement could this test drive? (Based on friction severity and traffic to the element)
• Confidence: How confident are we this will work? (Based on evidence, best practices, or prior test results)
• Importance: How important is this page to the business? (Based on traffic volume and revenue contribution)
• Ease: How easy is this to implement and test? (Dev effort, design complexity, stakeholder buy-in)

Recommended Test Sequence

Group tests into three waves:

Wave 1: Quick wins (launch within 1-2 weeks)

• [test 1] -- [one sentence rationale]
• [test 2] -- [rationale]

Wave 2: Medium-effort improvements (2-4 weeks)

• [test 3] -- [rationale]
• [test 4] -- [rationale]

Wave 3: Strategic redesigns (4-8 weeks)

• [test 5] -- [rationale]

Test Duration Estimates

For each recommended test, estimate required duration:

Test	Minimum Detectable Effect	Current Rate	Traffic / Week	Required Sample	Estimated Duration
[test name]	[MDE %]	[current conversion %]	[weekly visitors to page]	[calculated sample size]	[weeks]

Show the math for sample size: Sample per variant = 16 x (current rate x (1 - current rate)) / (MDE)^2

Example: Current rate 3%, MDE 10% relative (0.3% absolute): 16 x (0.03 x 0.97) / (0.003)^2 = 51,733 per variant

Related skills: Feeds into /ab-test-planner for detailed test design on top-priority items. Pairs with /landing-page-brief for redesigning underperforming pages. Uses /funnel-analysis for understanding where in the funnel the audited pages sit.

---