cro-methodology
This Claude Code skill applies the CRE Methodology, a systematic nine-step framework for conversion rate optimization that prioritizes research-driven discovery over guesswork. Use it when diagnosing why landing pages, checkout flows, or email sequences underperform, designing A/B tests, or auditing funnels for friction points. It provides tools for funnel mapping, objection handling frameworks, and evidence-based experimentation to identify and eliminate visitor barriers to conversion.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/wondelai/skills /tmp/cro-methodology && cp -r /tmp/cro-methodology/cro-methodology ~/.claude/skills/cro-methodologySKILL.md
# CRO Methodology
Scientific, customer-centric approach to conversion rate optimization based on the CRE Methodology(TM). Extraordinary improvements come from understanding WHY visitors don't convert, not from copying competitors or applying generic tips.
## Core Principle
**Don't guess -- discover.** Every visitor who doesn't convert has a reason. Discover those reasons through research, then systematically eliminate them with evidence and proof. This evidence-based approach consistently outperforms "best practices", intuition, competitor copying, and expert opinion.
## Scoring
**Goal: 10/10.** Rate any landing page, funnel, or conversion flow 0-10 against the principles below. Report the current score and the specific improvements needed to reach 10/10.
## The CRO Frameworks
### 1. The CRO Process
**Core concept:** A systematic 9-step process moving from defining success metrics through research and experimentation to scaling wins across the business.
**Why it works:** Random optimization skips research. The process forces you to understand visitors before changing anything, so every change rests on evidence, not opinion.
**Key insights:**
- Define success metrics aligned with business KPIs before touching any page
- Map the entire funnel to find "blocked arteries" (high-traffic underperforming paths) and "missing links" (absent funnel stages)
- Research visitors in three dimensions: who they are, what blocks them (UX problems), what stops them (objections)
- Gather market intelligence from competitors, reviews, and other industries
- Prioritize ideas with ICE scoring; design bold experiments, not "meek tweaks"
- Run experiments with statistical rigor (95% confidence minimum, full business cycles), then scale wins across the business
**Product applications:**
| Context | CRO Process Step | Example |
|---------|-----------------|---------|
| **Landing page audit** | Define goals, map funnel, research visitors | 70% bounce because value prop is unclear |
| **Checkout optimization** | Map funnel for blocked arteries | Shipping cost shock causes 40% cart abandonment |
| **Email sequence** | Scale wins | Winning objection-handling copy reused in drip emails |
**Copy patterns:**
- "What's preventing you from [action] today?" (exit survey to discover objections)
- "Here's what [X] customers found..." (counter-objection with social proof)
- Hypothesis template: "If we [change X], then [metric Y] will improve because [reason from research]"
**Ethical boundary:** Never manipulate test results or cherry-pick data; report all tests, including failures.
See: [testing-methodology.md](references/testing-methodology.md) for ICE scoring, A/B vs. multivariate guidance, and statistical rigor.
### 2. Customer Research & Objections
**Core concept:** Visitors fail to convert for specific, discoverable reasons. Exit surveys, chat logs, support tickets, sales calls, and reviews reveal the "voice of the customer" and their real objections.
**Why it works:** Teams' guesses about why visitors leave are almost always wrong. Research uncovers objections no one anticipated, and the customer's own language out-persuades any copywriter's invention.
**Key insights:**
- Primary sources (exit surveys, live chat, tickets, sales calls) give direct visitor language; secondary sources (reviews, social media, competitors) reveal industry-wide objections
- The "Big 5" universal objections: Trust, Price, Fit, Timing, Effort
- Quantitative research (analytics, heatmaps) shows WHERE problems are; qualitative (surveys, interviews) shows WHY
- Non-converter surveys should ask ONE question for maximum response; post-purchase surveys ("What almost stopped you from buying?") reveal the objections that matter most
**Product applications:**
| Context | Research Method | Example |
|---------|---------------|---------|
| **Exit intent** | On-site survey | "What's preventing you from signing up today?" |
| **Post-purchase** | Email survey within 7 days | "What almost stopped you from buying?" |
| **Objection mining** | Support tickets + reviews | Search "but", "however", "worried about"; negative reviews = unaddressed objections |
**Copy patterns:**
- Use exact customer language in headlines and body copy -- it outperforms polished marketing copy
- "What's the one thing we could change to make you [action]?"
- "How would you describe [product] to a friend?" (reveals positioning in customer terms)
**Ethical boundary:** Anonymize data, get consent for recordings, and don't survey so aggressively that you degrade the experience.
See: [RESEARCH.md](references/RESEARCH.md) for tools, survey questions, and data analysis methods.
### 3. Persuasion Assets
**Core concept:** Every company sits on overlooked proof -- undisplayed testimonials, unmentioned awards, hidden credentials, buried guarantees. Inventory these "persuasion assets", acquire missing ones, display them.
**Why it works:** Visitors decide on evidence, not claims. A modest claim with overwhelming proof beats a bold claim with none.
**Key insights:**
- Audit five categories: Credentials & Authority, Social Proof, Risk Reversal, Data & Specificity, Process & Methodology
- Create a wish list for missing assets and actively acquire them (request testimonials, apply for awards, compile statistics)
- "Proof sandwich" structure: Claim (bold promise), then Proof (evidence), then Reinforcement (secondary proof)
- Proof hierarchy, strongest first: specific results with context > named testimonials with photos > case studies > statistics > logos > generic testimonials
- Place proof at points of friction, not in FAQs; specific numbers beat round ones ("47,832 customers" beats "About 50,000")
**Product applications:**
| Context | Persuasion Asset | Example |
|---------|-----------------|---------|
| **Landing page header** | Logo bar + rating | "Trusted by 10,000+ companies" with 5 recognizable logos |
| **Pricing page** | Risk reversal | "30-day money-back guaranteBuild lean, opinionated products using the 37signals philosophy from Getting Real, Rework, and Shape Up. Use when the user mentions "Getting Real", "Rework", "Shape Up", "37signals", "Basecamp method", "six-week cycles", "fixed time variable scope", "appetite vs estimates", "betting table", "breadboarding", "fat marker sketch", "build less", "underdo the competition", or "opinionated software". Also trigger when cutting scope to ship faster, running small teams, avoiding long-term roadmaps, or eliminating meetings. Covers shaping, betting, building, and the art of saying no. For MVP validation, see lean-startup. For design sprints, see design-sprint.
Create uncontested market space using value innovation instead of competing head-to-head. Use when the user mentions "blue ocean", "red ocean", "strategy canvas", "ERRC framework", "value innovation", "non-customers", "buyer utility map", "eliminate-reduce-raise-create", or "uncontested market". Also trigger when comparing pricing strategies, exploring new market categories, finding underserved customer segments, or asking how to stop competing on price. Covers the Four Actions Framework, buyer utility map, and value-cost trade-offs. For tech adoption strategy, see crossing-the-chasm. For product positioning, see obviously-awesome.
Structure software around the Dependency Rule: source code dependencies point inward from frameworks to use cases to entities. Use when the user mentions "architecture layers", "dependency rule", "ports and adapters", "hexagonal architecture", "use case boundary", "onion architecture", "screaming architecture", or "framework independence". Also trigger when decoupling business logic from databases or frameworks, defining module boundaries, or debating where to put business rules. Covers component principles, boundaries, and SOLID. For code quality, see clean-code. For domain modeling, see domain-driven-design.
Write readable, maintainable code through disciplined naming, small functions, and clean error handling. Use when the user mentions "code review", "naming conventions", "function too long", "code smells", "readable code", "boy scout rule", "single responsibility", or "unit test quality". Also trigger when reviewing pull requests for readability, refactoring messy functions, debating comment styles, or improving error handling patterns. Covers SRP, comment discipline, formatting, and unit testing. For refactoring techniques, see refactoring-patterns. For architecture, see clean-architecture.
Engineer word-of-mouth and virality using the STEPPS framework (Social Currency, Triggers, Emotion, Public, Practical Value, Stories). Use when the user mentions "go viral", "word of mouth", "shareable content", "social currency", "why people share", "viral loop", "referral program", or "organic growth". Also trigger when designing shareable features, crafting social media campaigns, or building products that spread through peer recommendation. Covers environmental triggers and high-arousal emotional content. For sticky messaging, see made-to-stick. For persuasion tactics, see influence-psychology.
Build a weekly cadence of customer touchpoints using Opportunity Solution Trees, assumption mapping, and interview snapshots. Use when the user mentions "continuous discovery", "opportunity solution tree", "weekly interviews", "assumption testing", "discovery habits", "product trio", or "outcome-based roadmap". Also trigger when setting up regular customer feedback loops, prioritizing which experiments to run, or connecting discovery insights to delivery work. Covers experience mapping, co-creation, and prioritizing opportunities. For interview technique, see mom-test. For team structure, see inspired-product.
Navigate the technology adoption lifecycle from early adopters to mainstream market. Use when the user mentions "crossing the chasm", "beachhead segment", "whole product", "early adopters vs. mainstream", "tech go-to-market", "bowling pin strategy", "technology adoption lifecycle", or "pragmatist buyers". Also trigger when a startup has early traction but struggles to grow beyond initial users, or when planning go-to-market for technical products. Covers D-Day analogy, bowling-pin strategy, and positioning against incumbents. For product positioning, see obviously-awesome. For new market creation, see blue-ocean-strategy.
Design data systems by understanding storage engines, replication, partitioning, transactions, and consistency models. Use when the user mentions "database choice", "replication lag", "partitioning strategy", "consistency vs availability", "stream processing", "ACID transactions", "eventual consistency", or "LSM tree vs B-tree". Also trigger when choosing between SQL and NoSQL, designing data pipelines, or debugging distributed system consistency issues. Covers data models, batch/stream processing, and distributed consensus. For system design, see system-design. For resilience, see release-it.