Wireframe reviewer
Seven Claude Code skills that apply six psychology-based storytelling levers across short-form video, YouTube, titles & thumbnails, carousels, email, and website wireframes. General-purpose for any niche.
npx -y skills add yaxeen/storytelling-skills --skill wireframe-reviewerAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 2 stars2 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
Use when reviewing or critiquing an existing website wireframe, landing page, or page structure for any niche or business — when you need structured feedback on narrative flow, visual hierarchy, clarity, and conversion path, plus concrete fixes per section. For building a new page structure from scratch, use wireframe-writer.
SKILL.md
4.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Wireframe Reviewer
- Reviewing a page = checking whether it tells a clear story that pulls one scroll toward one action.
- Critique against five axes, then return structured findings + a concrete fix for each.
- Built on the six levers — see storytelling-hooks. Recap: 1. Curiosity gap · 2. Emotional mirror · 3. Conflict engine · 4. Relatability · 5. Pattern + surprise · 6. Three-act.
When to Use
- Reviewing a wireframe, mockup, or live landing/sales/home page.
- Diagnosing low conversion, confusing flow, or "it just feels off".
- Giving a designer/marketer structured, actionable feedback.
- Any niche or business. To build a new structure, use wireframe-writer.
The Five Review Axes (Quick Reference)
| Axis | Question | Common failure |
|---|---|---|
| Narrative flow | Does each section earn the next scroll? | Sections in random order; no loop |
| Visual hierarchy | Does the eye land on what matters first? | Everything equal weight; buried CTA |
| Clarity | Is the message understood in 5 seconds? | Vague hero; jargon; feature dump |
| Conversion path | Is there one obvious next action? | Many/competing CTAs; no CTA above fold |
| Friction | What makes a visitor hesitate or leave? | Unanswered objections; cognitive load |
Intake (Before Reviewing)
- A review without context grades against guesses. Know before reviewing: the page's one conversion goal, the target visitor in a sentence, and the main traffic source.
- If these are inferable from the request (a freelancer's services page → goal is inquiries), state your assumptions inline and proceed; only ask first when the goal is genuinely undecidable — don't block a review on intake theater.
Review Process
- 5-second test: Look only at the hero. Can you state what it offers and what to do next? If not, that's finding #1.
- Scroll the arc: Does it move hook → problem → solution → proof → offer → objections → CTA? Note any missing or out-of-order section.
- Score each axis per section (works / weak / missing) — an internal diagnostic pass, not a grid to render in the output.
- Trace the eye: Is hierarchy guiding to headline → value → CTA? Or competing for attention?
- Find the friction: List every reason a visitor hesitates (unanswered question, weak proof, too many choices).
- Write findings: For each issue — what's wrong, why it hurts, the fix.
Findings Format
- For each issue, return:
- Section — where it is.
- Severity — critical (blocks conversion) / major (leaks conversions) / minor (polish).
- Issue — what's wrong.
- Why it matters — impact on flow/conversion.
- Fix — concrete change (and which lever it restores, where one applies — pure-polish fixes don't need a lever tag).
- Order by severity first, position second (hero/CTA issues usually are the critical ones, but a critical mid-page issue outranks a minor hero one). Cap the list at the ~5–8 findings that matter; a 20-item list buries the critical three. Missing objection-handling before the CTA is usually worth a slot — don't let polish findings crowd it out.
- End with the single change you'd make first if only one were allowed.
What to Flag
- Hero: no curiosity gap or promise; CTA missing above the fold; headline about the company, not the visitor.
- Problem: doesn't mirror the visitor's pain → no relatability, no conflict.
- Proof: absent, generic, or placed far from the claims it supports.
- Benefits: feature lists instead of outcomes/feelings.
- Objections: common "buts" left unaddressed before the CTA.
- CTA: multiple competing actions; vague labels; high friction.
- Hierarchy: uniform weight, no focal point, CTA visually lost.
- Flow: a section that closes a loop without opening the next (dead end where users drop).
- Bookend: ending doesn't echo the opening promise.
Review Checklist
- Passes the 5-second hero test?
- Sections follow a deliberate narrative arc?
- Clear visual focal point per section guiding to the CTA?
- One primary action, obvious and repeated?
- Proof sits beside its claims?
- Top objections handled before the final CTA?
- Every finding paired with a concrete fix (+ the lever it restores, where applicable)?
Related
- wireframe-writer — build the structure this skill critiques.
- storytelling-hooks — the six levers (read for depth).