Smithery is now a part of Arcade.dev! Read more in our announcement here
Frameworks, heuristics, and checklists for auditing websites and strategy documents for conversion optimization...
Conversion auditing is systematic, not subjective. This skill provides frameworks to find issues reliably, assess severity consistently, and prioritize fixes effectively.
A seven-dimension framework for comprehensive conversion assessment.
C - CLARITY
Can visitors understand what you do/offer within 5 seconds?
Questions:
- Is the value proposition visible above the fold?
- Does the headline communicate benefit, not just feature?
- Is the primary action obvious?
- Would a stranger know what to do?
Scoring:
5 = Crystal clear, no confusion possible
4 = Clear to most visitors
3 = Requires some effort to understand
2 = Confusing, multiple interpretations
1 = Completely unclear what this is
O - OBJECTIONS
Are known customer concerns proactively addressed?
Questions:
- Are ICP objections identified and mapped?
- Does content address objections before they become blockers?
- Is there proof/evidence for each major claim?
- Are risk-reducers present (guarantees, trials)?
Scoring:
5 = All major objections addressed with proof
4 = Most objections addressed
3 = Some objections addressed, gaps exist
2 = Few objections addressed
1 = Objections ignored or avoided
N - NAVIGATION
Can users find what they need easily?
Questions:
- Can any page reach conversion in ≤3 clicks?
- Is the menu intuitive and scannable?
- Are there dead ends?
- Is search available (if needed)?
Scoring:
5 = Effortless navigation, logical structure
4 = Good navigation with minor issues
3 = Adequate but some friction
2 = Confusing, users will get lost
1 = Broken or highly confusing
V - VALUE
Is the benefit clear at every touchpoint?
Questions:
- Are features framed as benefits?
- Is "what's in it for me" answered throughout?
- Is there a reason to act now?
- Does the value justify the ask?
Scoring:
5 = Compelling value at every step
4 = Value clear, minor gaps
3 = Value present but not compelling
2 = Value unclear or weak
1 = No clear value communicated
E - EVIDENCE
Is there sufficient proof for claims?
Questions:
- Are testimonials present and specific?
- Is there data/statistics supporting claims?
- Are case studies or results shown?
- Are credentials/certifications displayed?
Scoring:
5 = Overwhelming proof, hard to doubt
4 = Strong evidence present
3 = Some evidence, could be stronger
2 = Weak or generic evidence
1 = No evidence, just claims
R - RELEVANCE
Does content match visitor intent and stage?
Questions:
- Does content match awareness level?
- Is the language familiar to the ICP?
- Does it answer what brought them here?
- Are there paths for different intents?
Scoring:
5 = Perfectly matched to visitor needs
4 = Well-matched with minor gaps
3 = Generally relevant
2 = Mismatch between content and intent
1 = Completely irrelevant
T - TRUST
Are there adequate signals of credibility?
Questions:
- Are trust signals visible early?
- Is the company/team humanized?
- Is contact information accessible?
- Are security/privacy concerns addressed?
Scoring:
5 = Trust established at every touchpoint
4 = Good trust signals present
3 = Adequate trust, some gaps
2 = Trust signals weak or missing
1 = Looks untrustworthy or scammy
Identify and categorize conversion barriers.
COGNITIVE FRICTION
Mental effort required to understand or decide
Examples:
- Complex pricing tables
- Jargon-heavy copy
- Too many options
- Unclear next steps
- Information overload
Detection:
- Would a tired user understand this?
- How many decisions are required?
- Is information chunked appropriately?
EMOTIONAL FRICTION
Fear, uncertainty, or discomfort that prevents action
Examples:
- No guarantee or return policy
- Hidden pricing (must contact to learn)
- No social proof
- Impersonal, cold tone
- Asking for too much too soon
Detection:
- What might make someone hesitate?
- Where would skepticism arise?
- What fears go unaddressed?
INTERACTION FRICTION
Physical or technical barriers to completing actions
Examples:
- Too many form fields
- Small tap targets
- Slow load times
- Broken functionality
- No autofill support
Detection:
- How many clicks/taps required?
- Are inputs optimized for device?
- What technical barriers exist?
PROCESS FRICTION
Steps or requirements that feel unnecessary
Examples:
- Mandatory account creation
- Forced verification steps
- Requiring info not needed for the ask
- Multi-page forms for simple actions
- Captcha on every action
Detection:
- What steps could be eliminated?
- What's required vs. nice-to-have?
- Where do users abandon?
SEVERITY MATRIX
Low Frequency High Frequency
(Few users hit) (Most users hit)
─────────────────────────────────
High Impact MEDIUM CRITICAL
(Causes abandon)
Low Impact LOW MEDIUM
(Causes annoyance)
Frequency × Impact = Priority
Evaluate how trust is built throughout the experience.
SOCIAL PROOF
- Testimonials (specific > generic)
- Reviews and ratings
- Client/customer logos
- User counts or metrics
- Media mentions
AUTHORITY SIGNALS
- Certifications and credentials
- Awards and recognition
- Expert endorsements
- Industry association membership
- Published thought leadership
CREDIBILITY MARKERS
- Professional design quality
- Clear contact information
- Physical address (if applicable)
- Team/founder photos and bios
- Company history/story
RISK REDUCERS
- Money-back guarantee
- Free trial or sample
- Clear refund policy
- No long-term commitment
- Easy cancellation
SECURITY SIGNALS
- SSL certificate (https)
- Security badges
- Privacy policy
- Secure checkout messaging
- Data protection statements
Trust signals must appear BEFORE the ask:
TRUST TIMING CHECKLIST
Homepage:
□ Trust signal visible above fold
□ Social proof before first CTA
□ Credibility established early
Product/Service Page:
□ Testimonial before "Buy" CTA
□ Guarantee visible near price
□ Credentials shown with claims
Checkout/Signup:
□ Security badges visible
□ Privacy assurance near form
□ Review/testimonial reminder
RULE: If you're asking for something (email, money, time),
trust must come first.
Evaluate call-to-action implementation.
VISIBILITY
□ Above the fold on key pages
□ Sufficient contrast from surroundings
□ Repeated at logical intervals
□ Not competing with other CTAs
□ Mobile: reachable by thumb
CLARITY
□ Action is specific (not "Submit")
□ Benefit is implied or stated
□ Commitment level is appropriate
□ What happens next is clear
HIERARCHY
□ Primary CTA is visually dominant
□ Secondary doesn't compete
□ One primary per page section
□ Ghost buttons for secondary actions
PSYCHOLOGY
□ Low-friction language (if appropriate)
□ Urgency (if authentic)
□ Benefit-oriented copy
□ Addresses "why now"
PLACEMENT
□ After value is established
□ Near relevant proof
□ At natural decision points
□ Not buried below fold
COMMITMENT LEVEL MATCHING
High Commitment Ask (Buy, Subscribe, Sign Contract)
→ Needs more proof, more trust, more value first
→ CTA copy can be direct: "Start Your Plan", "Buy Now"
Medium Commitment Ask (Free Trial, Demo, Consultation)
→ Reduce friction with "free", "no obligation"
→ CTA copy: "Try Free for 14 Days", "Book Free Demo"
Low Commitment Ask (Email, Download, Learn More)
→ Emphasize value received
→ CTA copy: "Get the Guide", "See How It Works"
RULE: Match CTA commitment to visitor readiness
Ensure content matches where visitors are in their journey.
UNAWARE
"I don't know I have a problem"
Content Should:
- Educate about the problem
- Create recognition of need
- NOT pitch solution yet
Audit Check:
□ Is there top-of-funnel content?
□ Does it identify with audience pain?
□ Does it avoid premature selling?
PROBLEM-AWARE
"I know I have a problem, don't know solutions exist"
Content Should:
- Validate the problem
- Introduce solution category
- Begin building trust
Audit Check:
□ Is the problem clearly articulated?
□ Is solution introduced gently?
□ Is there empathy for the situation?
SOLUTION-AWARE
"I know solutions exist, comparing options"
Content Should:
- Differentiate from alternatives
- Prove effectiveness
- Address "why you"
Audit Check:
□ Is differentiation clear?
□ Is there comparison content?
□ Are unique benefits emphasized?
PRODUCT-AWARE
"I know your product, deciding if it's right"
Content Should:
- Handle objections
- Provide detailed proof
- Reduce risk
Audit Check:
□ Are objections addressed?
□ Is there case study depth?
□ Are guarantees visible?
MOST AWARE
"I'm ready, just need the right offer"
Content Should:
- Make purchase easy
- Remove all friction
- Provide urgency if authentic
Audit Check:
□ Is checkout frictionless?
□ Are barriers minimized?
□ Is the offer clear?
COMMON MISMATCHES
Selling to Unaware:
- Pitching features before establishing problem
- "Buy now" to someone who doesn't know they need it
→ Feels pushy, creates resistance
Over-explaining to Most Aware:
- Long sales pages to ready buyers
- Too much education when they want to purchase
→ Creates friction, delays conversion
Under-proving to Solution Aware:
- Claims without evidence
- Differentiation without specifics
→ Doesn't overcome comparison shopping
Mobile-specific conversion factors.
NAVIGATION
□ Primary CTA reachable by thumb
□ Menu is finger-friendly
□ Back/escape always possible
□ No horizontal scrolling required
CONTENT
□ Headlines readable without zoom
□ Body text 16px minimum
□ Key content not hidden in accordions
□ Images optimized for bandwidth
FORMS
□ Input types correct (tel, email)
□ Labels always visible
□ Keyboard doesn't obscure input
□ Autofill enabled
□ Field number minimized
TAPPABLE ELEMENTS
□ Touch targets 44px minimum
□ Adequate spacing between elements
□ No tiny links in text blocks
□ Buttons full-width where appropriate
PERFORMANCE
□ Page loads in <3 seconds
□ Images lazy-loaded
□ No render-blocking resources
□ Works on slower connections
TRUST
□ Trust signals visible without scroll
□ Testimonials readable on mobile
□ Security badges don't break layout
HIGH-FRICTION ON MOBILE
- Long forms (3+ fields feels long)
- Dropdown menus (hard to use)
- Hover-dependent interactions
- Tiny tap targets
- Landscape-only content
- Desktop-focused layouts
MOBILE CONVERSION BOOSTERS
- Click-to-call buttons
- Sticky CTAs on scroll
- Simplified checkout
- Touch-friendly forms
- Fast load times
- Thumb-zone optimization
How to prioritize what to fix first.
LOW EFFORT HIGH EFFORT
─────────────────────────────────
HIGH IMPACT │ QUICK WINS │ MAJOR PROJECTS
│ Do immediately │ Plan carefully
│ │
├───────────────────┼───────────────
LOW IMPACT │ FILL-INS │ AVOID
│ Do when time │ Don't bother
│ permits │ unless required
└───────────────────┴───────────────
Classification Questions:
- Impact: How many users affected? How much revenue at stake?
- Effort: Time, cost, complexity, dependencies?
PRIORITY SCORE = (Impact × Confidence) / Effort
Impact (1-5):
5 = Affects primary conversion path
4 = Affects secondary conversion
3 = Affects engagement metrics
2 = Affects satisfaction
1 = Affects edge cases
Confidence (1-5):
5 = Data proves this is an issue
4 = Strong evidence (testing, best practices)
3 = Moderate evidence (heuristics)
2 = Hypothesis based on experience
1 = Gut feeling
Effort (1-5):
1 = Minutes to fix
2 = Hours to fix
3 = Days to fix
4 = Weeks to fix
5 = Months to fix
Example:
- Homepage headline unclear
Impact: 5 (affects everyone)
Confidence: 4 (best practice violation)
Effort: 1 (just copy change)
Score: (5 × 4) / 1 = 20 → HIGH PRIORITY
For additional patterns and examples, see:
references/conversion-patterns.md - Common patterns and anti-patternsreferences/page-type-benchmarks.md - Expected elements by page typereferences/severity-examples.md - Calibration for severity levels