Landing Page Review

Analyze a landing page for conversion optimization — messaging, layout, trust signals, and CTA effectiveness.

Usage

/landing-page-review example.com/pricing — review the given page

Steps

1. Fetch and analyze the page

Use WebFetch to load the URL. Extract:

• Headline and subheadline text
• CTA buttons (text, placement, count)
• Value proposition clarity
• Above-the-fold content
• Page structure (sections, flow)

2. Evaluate messaging

Score each element:

• Headline clarity (1-10): Does it immediately communicate what you get?
• Value prop specificity (1-10): Numbers > vague claims
• CTA strength (1-10): Action-oriented, specific, visible
• Social proof (1-10): Testimonials, logos, stats
• Urgency/scarcity (1-10): Reason to act now

3. Check trust signals

Look for:

• Customer logos or testimonials
• Security badges / certifications
• Pricing transparency
• Contact information
• Privacy policy / terms links
• Case studies or results

4. Analyze form/CTA friction

If there's a form:

• Number of fields (fewer = higher conversion)
• Field labels and placeholder text
• Submit button text (specific > generic)
• Error handling
• Privacy reassurance near form

5. Mobile assessment

Check:

• Mobile viewport optimization
• Touch target sizes
• Content readability on small screens
• CTA visibility without scrolling

6. Competitive comparison

WebSearch for 2-3 competitors and briefly compare:

• How do their landing pages differ?
• What trust signals do they use?
• How is their CTA different?

7. Report

Landing Page Review: [URL]
Conversion Score: X/100

Messaging: X/30
- Headline: [score] — [specific feedback]
- Value prop: [score] — [specific feedback]
- CTA: [score] — [specific feedback]

Trust: X/30
- Social proof: [score]
- Credibility signals: [score]
- Transparency: [score]

UX: X/20
- Form friction: [score]
- Mobile: [score]
- Load speed: [score]

Differentiation: X/20
- vs [Competitor 1]: [comparison]
- vs [Competitor 2]: [comparison]

Top 5 Changes (in priority order):
1. [Specific change with expected impact]
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...