Improve Website

Improve a Website

An interactive, resumable journey that turns a live-but-underperforming website into a ranked backlog of defensible fixes. Across eight phases it diagnoses why visitors don't convert, then fixes usability, hierarchy, typography, message, speed, memory, and errors — asking you at each decision point and recording results in docs/. Each change is tied to a reason; the big ones ship as tests.

Core Principle

Diagnose, fix, prove: evidence from real visitors decides what changes, and every fix ships as a testable hypothesis. Order is deliberate — research first, then usability, look, message, speed, memory, and error-tolerance, because each phase's output feeds the next.

This skill sequences the phases, asks the decision questions, and records what you decide. The constituent skills carry the method — invoke them rather than improvising their frameworks.

Journey Map

Operating Rules

1. Resume first. Before anything else, read docs/IMPROVE-WEBSITE-PLAN.md and every artifact in the Journey Map. If the tracker exists, summarize the journey state in 3-5 lines and ask which phase to enter. Done when the user has confirmed an entry point. A journey with a tracker is resumed, never restarted.
2. Intake on first run only. No tracker: run the Intake below, then create docs/IMPROVE-WEBSITE-PLAN.md with every phase statused pending | in-progress | awaiting-evidence | done | deferred: reason | skipped: reason. Done when the tracker exists and the user has confirmed the phase plan.
3. Phase entry. Announce: what the phase does, the decision it forces, the artifact it produces, rough effort. Offer proceed / skip / defer — phases marked GATE may be deferred, never skipped. Mark the phase in-progress on proceed. Done when the user chose.
4. Skill invocation and fallback. Load the phase's skill and use it: each phase's Invoke line names the skill by slug — use that skill to run the phase. If it is not available, offer: npx skills add wondelai/skills/<slug> --global. If the user declines, run the phase from its Brief — the minimum viable method. State which mode you are in.
5. In-phase decisions. Ask every question under "Decide with the user" — with concrete options and your recommendation. Record the choice in the tracker's Key Decisions. A decision made silently is a defect.
6. Phase exit. Present the draft artifact content for sign-off before writing. On approval: write or extend the docs/ files, update the tracker (status, Key Decisions, Next Actions). Done when the files are written and the phase row shows done.
7. Artifact discipline. Read before writing; create a file only if missing, otherwise extend — add or update your sections, preserve everyone else's. Files are UPPERCASE in docs/. Every recommendation lands as a checkbox or a table row with owner and priority. See references/artifact-templates.md when creating a docs/ file for the first time — create it from the full skeleton (all section headings), then fill the sections your phase names.
8. Diagnose before redesigning. No visual or copy change ships before the Phase 1 diagnosis produces evidence for it, and every change lands in EXPERIMENTS.md with a pre-committed metric. A fix with no Phase 1 finding behind it goes back to Phase 1; a bold change with no test attached stays in the backlog until it has one.

Intake

Ask these before creating the tracker:

1. What page or flow are we improving, and what is the ONE action it should drive? (Scopes every phase; gates Phase 1 — a page with three CTAs has no goal.)
2. What is the conversion problem in your words, and what evidence do you have — analytics, bounce rate, drop-off? (Feeds the Phase 1 funnel diagnosis.)
3. Do you have real visitor input — exit surveys, reviews, support tickets, recordings — or can you get it? (Phase 1's counter-objections must use the customer's own words.)
4. Roughly how much traffic per week? (Decides whether A/B tests can reach significance; low traffic leans on the qualitative and heuristic phases.)
5. Which complaint do you hear most — "looks unprofessional," "nobody understands what we do," "it's slow," "the text is hard to read"? (Routes which fix phase to front-load, per the guide FAQ.)
6. Do you have existing positioning or brand docs (POSITIONING.md)? (Phase 5 and 7 build on them.)
7. Can you paste real assets — URLs, live copy, CSS, analytics screenshots? (The skills are only as good as the evidence you feed them.)

Skip heuristics: skip Phase 4 if body text already meets 16px / ~66ch / 1.5-1.7 line height; skip Phase 6 if Core Web Vitals are already green (but triage a fast LCP fix first if the page barely renders); skip Phase 5 or 7 if messaging is already validated and clear. Never skip Phase 1 — it aims every other phase.

Then create docs/IMPROVE-WEBSITE-PLAN.md from the template and confirm the plan. Done when docs/IMPROVE-WEBSITE-PLAN.md exists with every phase statused and the user has confirmed the plan.

Phases

Phase 1 — Diagnose why visitors don't convert (cro-methodology) — GATE

Purpose: Find where and why the page loses visitors before any pixel changes. Phases 2-8 may only fix problems traceable to a Phase 1 finding.

Brief (fallback): Don't guess — discover. Map the funnel for blocked arteries (underperforming high-traffic stages) and missing links (stages that don't exist). Name the ONE action each page drives. Build the O/CO table for the Big 5 (Trust, Price, Fit, Timing, Effort) in the customer's words, each counter at friction. Rank by ICE.

Invoke: Use the cro-methodology skill with the target page/flow, the ONE action, and real visitor input. Ask for a funnel map, an O/CO table, missing persuasion assets, and an ICE-ranked hypothesis list.

Decide with the user: (1) Confirm the ONE action per page; cut competing CTAs. (2) Attack the highest-money blocked artery or a missing link first? (3) Low traffic: accept qualitative + heuristic evidence.

Artifact: Extend docs/METRICS.md ## Funnel and ## Stage & One Metric That Matters; docs/WEBSITE.md ## Conversion Elements and ## Audit Findings (issue | severity 0-4 | fix | status); docs/EXPERIMENTS.md ## Experiment Backlog (ICE-ranked). Update the tracker.

Done when: the funnel is mapped, the ONE action set per page, every researched objection has a counter, the backlog is ICE-ranked, and Phase 1 shows done — only then are Phases 2-8 unlocked.

Phase 2 — Remove the usability friction (ux-heuristics)

Purpose: Find where visitors stumble — the friction that makes them quit before they weigh the offer.

Brief (fallback): Don't make me think. Users scan, satisfice, and muddle through. Run a heuristic evaluation against Nielsen's 10 heuristics; rate each issue 0-4 by frequency, impact, and persistence so catastrophes outrank cosmetics. Apply the Trunk Test to interior pages (what site, page, options, where am I, where's search?). Cut half the words, then half again; kill mystery-meat icon navigation.

Invoke: Use the ux-heuristics skill with the page/flow and the Phase 1 findings. Ask for a severity-rated evaluation, a Trunk Test result per key page, and rewritten error and label copy.

Decide with the user: Which severity-4 and -3 issues get fixed now versus backlogged? Confirm fixes run by severity, not by ease.

Artifact: Extend docs/DESIGN.md ## UX Audit Findings (issue | heuristic | severity 0-4 | fix | status); append each fix to docs/EXPERIMENTS.md ## Experiment Backlog with ICE. Update the tracker.

Done when: every issue carries a 0-4 severity, the Trunk Test passes on each key page or is logged, and severity-4 issues have an owner.

Phase 3 — Fix the visual hierarchy (refactoring-ui)

Purpose: Make the page look as clear as it reads — one obvious focal point, not everything competing.

Brief (fallback): Great UI is systems, not talent. Design in grayscale first: establish hierarchy with size, weight, and contrast before any color — combine levers, don't multiply (all three only for the hero element). Enforce a spacing scale (4/8/16/24/32/48/64) where gaps between groups exceed gaps within them. Constrain text to 45-75 chars. Add color last: 5-9 shades per hue, grays tinted, not #000.

Invoke: Use the refactoring-ui skill with the page, the Phase 2 findings, and the CSS framework. Ask for a grayscale hierarchy pass, spacing-scale corrections, a systematic palette, and exact class/CSS changes.

Decide with the user: Fix within the current design system or introduce new tokens? Confirm color work waits until the grayscale layout reads.

Artifact: Extend docs/DESIGN.md ## Tokens (spacing scale · palette shades · shadows) and ## Components (component | decision | status); append fixes to docs/EXPERIMENTS.md ## Experiment Backlog. Update the tracker.

Done when: the layout reads in grayscale, the spacing scale is applied, one primary CTA dominates, and the token decisions are recorded.

Phase 4 — Make the words readable (web-typography)

Purpose: Fix the measurements that decide whether visitors can comfortably read the copy.

Brief (fallback): Size, line length, and line height matter more than the typeface. Fix three: body ≥16px (18px for reading-heavy pages); line length 45-75 chars (~66 sweet spot) via ch or max-width; line height 1.5-1.7 body, 1.1-1.25 headings. Build a modular scale; load fonts with swap, preload one, subset, <200KB.

Invoke: Use the web-typography skill with the reading-heavy templates and the DESIGN.md type decisions. Ask for corrected CSS with a fluid clamp() scale and a font-loading plan.

Decide with the user: Keep the current typefaces or repair the pairing? Confirm the font-loading budget (<200KB) that Phase 6 will verify.

Artifact: Extend docs/DESIGN.md ## Typography (typefaces · scale · measure · line height · loading strategy); append fixes to docs/EXPERIMENTS.md ## Experiment Backlog. Update the tracker.

Done when: body size, measure, and line height meet targets on the key templates, the scale is defined, and the loading strategy is recorded.