Landing page experimentation
Skill Paldom/landing-page-builder-skills/skills/landing-page-experimentation
Agent Skills for building high-converting, modern, performant landing pages: design tokens, conversion copywriting, marketing UX, layout patterns, Next.js/React + shadcn implementation, scroll motion, and performance/SEO/accessibility.
npx -y skills add Paldom/landing-page-builder-skills --skill landing-page-experimentationAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Sets up conversion measurement and A/B testing for a landing page - server/edge variant assignment (no flicker), A/B vs multi-armed bandit, statistical significance, filtering bot/AI traffic, analytics. Use when asked to A/B test, run an experiment, measure conversions, check significance, or set up landing-page analytics. Not for writing copy, page structure, or Core Web Vitals.
SKILL.md
5.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
landing-page-experimentation
Assign variants on the server, respect the sample-size floor, and distrust the numbers until the bots are filtered.
The failure this fixes
Teams bolt a client-side A/B script onto a page; it swaps the DOM after render (flash of original content, 200-500ms delay), and the anti-flicker snippet that hides the body to mask it directly tanks LCP/CLS — so the test suppresses the conversion it measures. Then they run tests that can never reach significance (only ~13% of tests produce a winner; low-traffic pages can't clear the ~300 conversions/variant floor), and trust analytics corrupted by bot/AI traffic (0-second sessions, some ad-driven tests >98% bots) and ad-blockers that eat 10-30% of client events. The deepest scar: tooling isn't the lever — the same AI CRO tools deliver a few % lift DIY vs several-fold more expert-guided, because human hypothesis quality is what moves the number.
When to use / when NOT to use
Use for measurement and testing: variant assignment, A/B vs bandit, sample size & significance, bot filtering, event instrumentation, and consent.
Not for: writing the variants (landing-page-copywriting), section design
(landing-page-structure), the page's own Core Web Vitals (web-vitals-and-seo
— though this skill's edge-assignment protects them), palette
(visual-design-system), or building the page (nextjs-landing-page).
Workflow
- Assign the variant server-side / at the edge (Next.js middleware,
Cloudflare Workers) and render the correct HTML — no client DOM swap, no
anti-flicker snippet. Persist the assignment in a cookie so a visitor always
sees the same variant; log exposure server-side at assignment time
(ad-blockers drop client events). Use the precompute pattern (encode the
variant into a URL segment) so each variant stays statically cached — don't
call
cookies()/headers()in a root layout. Details:references/experimentation-guide.md. - Size the test before running it. ~300+ conversions/variant floor; ≥2 weeks covering multiple weekday/weekend cycles; run an A/A test first to catch tooling bugs; pre-commit the sample size and never peek / stop early.
- Pick A/B vs bandit deliberately. Fixed-split A/B for permanent structural decisions (pricing, core UX) needing clean causal certainty; multi-armed bandit (Thompson Sampling) for many-variant, short-lived, high-traffic optimization to minimize regret. Bandits need a conversion floor before they route meaningfully.
- Filter bots before trusting any delta. Exclude known crawler UAs server-side; watch for 0-second-session / ~100%-bounce spikes and metronome hit patterns. Unfiltered, a bandit "wins" by optimizing for scraper behavior.
- Instrument real events, not vanity counts. GA4
generate_lead/purchase/add_to_cartplus custom scroll-depth (GA4's default scroll event fires only at 90%; bounce is now the inverse of engagement). Heatmaps/session recordings generate hypotheses; A/B validates them. - Know the honest limit. Most pages lack the traffic to test the levers that matter — below the floor, use qualitative review (heatmaps, replay, user testing), not underpowered tests that produce false winners faster.
The rules
- Server/edge variant assignment + server-rendered HTML = zero flicker, neutral-to-positive CWV, no anti-flicker snippet.
- Server-side exposure logging — client events are lost to ad-blockers.
- ~300 conversions/variant, ≥2-week multi-cycle, A/A first, no peeking.
- A/B for causal/permanent; bandit for many-variant/short-lived; bandits need a conversion floor.
- Bot/AI traffic is real and must be filtered before trusting deltas.
- Real-event instrumentation over pageview vanity metrics.
- Human hypothesis quality is the lever, not the tool — more automation without discipline just accelerates false winners.
- Every lift % in the research is directional, never a promise (the 13% win rate baseline means published wins are survivors, not the average).
Output
Server/edge variant assignment with server-side exposure logging; a pre-committed sample size honoring the ~300/variant floor and multi-cycle duration; an explicit A/B-vs-bandit choice; bot filtering; real-event instrumentation; and every tool name, pricing, and lift number version-gated or flagged directional — with a clear "use qualitative review instead" path for low-traffic pages.
References
references/experimentation-guide.md- server/edge assignment & the precompute pattern, sample-size and significance discipline, A/B-vs-bandit decision, bot filtering, the tooling landscape (version-gated), and the fact ledger.