100xprism 2.3.1

package/modules/onboarding-cro/references/experiments.md

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+# Onboarding Experiment Ideas
+
+Comprehensive list of A/B tests and experiments for user onboarding and activation.
+
+## Contents
+- Flow Simplification Experiments (reduce friction, step sequencing, progress & motivation)
+- Guided Experience Experiments (product tours, CTA optimization, UI guidance)
+- Personalization Experiments (user segmentation, dynamic content)
+- Quick Wins & Engagement Experiments (time-to-value, motivation mechanics, support & help)
+- Email & Multi-Channel Experiments (onboarding emails, email content, feedback loops)
+- Re-engagement Experiments (stalled user recovery, return experience)
+- Technical & UX Experiments (performance, mobile onboarding, accessibility)
+- Metrics to Track
+
+## Flow Simplification Experiments
+
+### Reduce Friction
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Email verification timing | During vs. after onboarding |
+| Empty states vs. dummy data | Pre-populated examples |
+| Pre-filled templates | Accelerate setup with templates |
+| OAuth options | Faster account linking |
+| Required step count | Fewer required steps |
+| Optional vs. required fields | Minimize requirements |
+| Skip options | Allow bypassing non-critical steps |
+
+### Step Sequencing
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Step ordering | Test different sequences |
+| Value-first ordering | Highest-value features first |
+| Friction placement | Move hard steps later |
+| Required vs. optional balance | Ratio of required steps |
+| Single vs. branching paths | One path vs. personalized |
+| Quick start vs. full setup | Minimal path to value |
+
+### Progress & Motivation
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Progress bars | Show completion percentage |
+| Checklist length | 3-5 items vs. 5-7 items |
+| Gamification | Badges, rewards, achievements |
+| Completion messaging | "X% complete" visibility |
+| Starting point | Begin at 20% vs. 0% |
+| Celebration moments | Acknowledge completions |
+
+---
+
+## Guided Experience Experiments
+
+### Product Tours
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Interactive tours | Tools like Navattic, Storylane |
+| Tooltip vs. modal guidance | Subtle vs. attention-grabbing |
+| Video tutorials | For complex workflows |
+| Self-paced vs. guided | User control vs. structured |
+| Tour length | Shorter vs. comprehensive |
+| Tour triggering | Automatic vs. user-initiated |
+
+### CTA Optimization
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| CTA text variations | Action-oriented copy testing |
+| CTA placement | Position within screens |
+| In-app tooltips | Feature discovery prompts |
+| Sticky CTAs | Persist during onboarding |
+| CTA contrast | Visual prominence |
+| Secondary CTAs | "Learn more" vs. primary only |
+
+### UI Guidance
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Hotspot highlights | Draw attention to key features |
+| Coachmarks | Contextual tips |
+| Feature announcements | New feature discovery |
+| Contextual help | Help where users need it |
+| Search vs. guided | Self-service vs. directed |
+
+---
+
+## Personalization Experiments
+
+### User Segmentation
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Role-based onboarding | Different paths by role |
+| Goal-based paths | Customize by stated goal |
+| Role-specific dashboards | Relevant default views |
+| Use-case question | Personalize based on answer |
+| Industry-specific paths | Vertical customization |
+| Experience-based | Beginner vs. expert paths |
+
+### Dynamic Content
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Personalized welcome | Name, company, role |
+| Industry examples | Relevant use cases |
+| Dynamic recommendations | Based on user answers |
+| Template suggestions | Pre-filled for segment |
+| Feature highlighting | Relevant to stated goals |
+| Benchmark data | Industry-specific metrics |
+
+---
+
+## Quick Wins & Engagement Experiments
+
+### Time-to-Value
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| First quick win | "Complete your first X" |
+| Success messages | After key actions |
+| Progress celebrations | Milestone moments |
+| Next step suggestions | After each completion |
+| Value demonstration | Show what they achieved |
+| Outcome preview | What success looks like |
+
+### Motivation Mechanics
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Achievement badges | Gamification elements |
+| Streaks | Consecutive day engagement |
+| Leaderboards | Social comparison (if appropriate) |
+| Rewards | Incentives for completion |
+| Unlock mechanics | Features revealed progressively |
+
+### Support & Help
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Free onboarding calls | For complex products |
+| Contextual help | Throughout onboarding |
+| Chat support | Availability during onboarding |
+| Proactive outreach | For stuck users |
+| Self-service resources | Help docs, videos |
+| Community access | Peer support early |
+
+---
+
+## Email & Multi-Channel Experiments
+
+### Onboarding Emails
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Founder welcome email | Personal vs. generic |
+| Behavior-based triggers | Action/inaction based |
+| Email timing | Immediate vs. delayed |
+| Email frequency | More vs. fewer touches |
+| Quick tips format | Short actionable content |
+| Video in email | More engaging format |
+
+### Email Content
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Subject lines | Open rate optimization |
+| Personalization depth | Name vs. behavior-based |
+| CTA prominence | Single clear action |
+| Social proof inclusion | Testimonials in email |
+| Urgency messaging | Trial reminders |
+| Plain text vs. designed | Format testing |
+
+### Feedback Loops
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| NPS during onboarding | When to ask |
+| Blocking question | "What's stopping you?" |
+| NPS follow-up | Actions based on score |
+| In-app feedback | Thumbs up/down on features |
+| Survey timing | When to request feedback |
+| Feedback incentives | Reward for completing |
+
+---
+
+## Re-engagement Experiments
+
+### Stalled User Recovery
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Re-engagement email timing | When to send |
+| Personal outreach | Human vs. automated |
+| Simplified path | Reduced steps for returners |
+| Incentive offers | Discount or extended trial |
+| Problem identification | Ask what's blocking |
+| Demo offer | Live walkthrough |
+
+### Return Experience
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Welcome back message | Acknowledge return |
+| Progress resume | Pick up where left off |
+| Changed state | What happened while away |
+| Re-onboarding | Fresh start option |
+| Urgency messaging | Trial time remaining |
+
+---
+
+## Technical & UX Experiments
+
+### Performance
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Load time optimization | Faster = higher completion |
+| Progressive loading | Perceived performance |
+| Offline capability | Mobile experience |
+| Error handling | Graceful failure recovery |
+
+### Mobile Onboarding
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Touch targets | Size and spacing |
+| Swipe navigation | Mobile-native patterns |
+| Screen count | Fewer screens needed |
+| Input optimization | Mobile-friendly forms |
+| Permission timing | When to ask |
+
+### Accessibility
+
+| Test | Hypothesis |
+|------|------------|
+| Screen reader support | Accessibility impact |
+| Keyboard navigation | Non-mouse users |
+| Color contrast | Visibility |
+| Font sizing | Readability |
+
+---
+
+## Metrics to Track
+
+For all experiments, measure:
+
+| Metric | Description |
+|--------|-------------|
+| Activation rate | % reaching activation event |
+| Time to activation | Hours/days to first value |
+| Step completion rate | % completing each step |
+| Drop-off points | Where users abandon |
+| Return rate | Users who come back |
+| Day 1/7/30 retention | Engagement over time |
+| Feature adoption | Which features get used |
+| Support requests | Volume during onboarding |

package/modules/orchestrate/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+name: orchestrate
+description: Apply the Workflow Orchestration methodology for complex, multi-step tasks — plan-first approach, subagent strategy, self-improvement loop, verification before done, elegant solutions, and autonomous bug fixing. Use for any non-trivial task with 3+ steps or architectural decisions.
+category: engineering
+tier: core
+slash_command: /orchestrate
+allowed-tools: Bash Read Edit Write Grep Glob Agent Task Workflow
+---
+
+# Orchestrate — Complex Task Orchestration
+
+Apply workflow orchestration methodology for multi-step tasks with 3+ steps or architectural decisions.
+
+## How to use
+- `/orchestrate <task>` — plan-first approach for any non-trivial task
+
+---
+
+## Methodology
+
+### 1. Plan first (invoke `writing-plans` skill)
+
+**Always start by invoking the `writing-plans` skill** (or native plan mode if your platform has it) to produce a structured plan with TDD-style task steps. Write it to wherever `writing-plans` puts plans for this repo — do not assume a fixed path. Do not proceed to coding until the plan is written and reviewed.
+
+- If something goes sideways mid-task: STOP, re-plan using `writing-plans` again
+- Track progress via `tasks/todo.md` checkboxes
+
+### 2. Use subagents (fan out independent work)
+- Offload research, exploration, and parallel analysis to subagents
+- Keep main context window clean and focused
+- One task per subagent for precision
+- Invoke the `subagents` skill for the **fan-out ladder** and **standard return contract**
+
+Once the plan splits into **independent workstreams**, do not implement them serially.
+Fan them out using the ladder from the `subagents` skill (Workflow tool → parallel
+subagents → serial fallback):
+
+```
+plan (writing-plans)
+  → parallel implementation subagents     # one per independent workstream, isolated
+      each returns { summary, files[], diff, risks[], confidence }
+  → gather the structured diffs
+  → independent reviewer subagent          # fresh context, runs /code-review — no self-review bias
+      returns { findings[]{severity,file,detail}, verdict }
+  → merge / verify gate                    # apply, run /gate, only then mark done
+```
+
+Reference `dispatching-parallel-agents` and `subagent-driven-development` for the
+mechanics. Use worktree isolation when subagents edit files in parallel so they don't
+collide. Workstreams that share state (same module, ordering dependency) stay serial.
+
+### 3. Self-improvement loop
+- After any correction: note the pattern in `tasks/lessons.md`
+- Review lessons at session start for relevant context
+
+### 4. Verify before done
+- Never mark complete without proving it works
+- Run tests, check logs, diff behaviour vs main
+- Ask: "Would a staff engineer approve this?"
+
+### 5. Demand elegance
+- After a working but messy fix: "Implement the elegant solution"
+- Skip this for simple, obvious fixes
+
+### 6. Autonomous bug fixing
+- When given a bug: investigate and fix. Do not wait for hand-holding.
+- Pair with `/fix` for CI failures and log-based bugs.
+
+---
+
+## Task Management
+
+1. Write plan → `tasks/todo.md`
+2. Check in before implementation starts
+3. Mark items complete as you go
+4. Document results in review section
+5. Capture lessons → `tasks/lessons.md`

package/modules/page-cro/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+---
+name: page-cro
+description: When the user wants to optimize, improve, or increase conversions on any marketing page — including homepage, landing pages, pricing pages, feature pages, or blog posts. Also use when the user says "CRO," "conversion rate optimization," "this page isn't converting," "improve conversions," "why isn't this page working," "my landing page sucks," "nobody's converting," "low conversion rate," "bounce rate is too high," "people leave without signing up," or "this page needs work." Use this even if the user just shares a URL and asks for feedback — they probably want conversion help. For signup/registration flows, see signup-flow-cro. For post-signup activation, see onboarding-cro. For forms outside of signup, see form-cro. For popups/modals, see popup-cro.
+category: marketing
+tier: on-demand
+---
+
+# Page Conversion Rate Optimization (CRO)
+
+You are a conversion rate optimization expert. Your goal is to analyze marketing pages and provide actionable recommendations to improve conversion rates.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.agents/product-marketing-context.md` exists (or `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` in older setups), read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
+
+Before providing recommendations, identify:
+
+1. **Page Type**: Homepage, landing page, pricing, feature, blog, about, other
+2. **Primary Conversion Goal**: Sign up, request demo, purchase, subscribe, download, contact sales
+3. **Traffic Context**: Where are visitors coming from? (organic, paid, email, social)
+
+---
+
+## CRO Analysis Framework
+
+Analyze the page across these dimensions, in order of impact:
+
+### 1. Value Proposition Clarity (Highest Impact)
+
+**Check for:**
+- Can a visitor understand what this is and why they should care within 5 seconds?
+- Is the primary benefit clear, specific, and differentiated?
+- Is it written in the customer's language (not company jargon)?
+
+**Common issues:**
+- Feature-focused instead of benefit-focused
+- Too vague or too clever (sacrificing clarity)
+- Trying to say everything instead of the most important thing
+
+### 2. Headline Effectiveness
+
+**Evaluate:**
+- Does it communicate the core value proposition?
+- Is it specific enough to be meaningful?
+- Does it match the traffic source's messaging?
+
+**Strong headline patterns:**
+- Outcome-focused: "Get [desired outcome] without [pain point]"
+- Specificity: Include numbers, timeframes, or concrete details
+- Social proof: "Join 10,000+ teams who..."
+
+### 3. CTA Placement, Copy, and Hierarchy
+
+**Primary CTA assessment:**
+- Is there one clear primary action?
+- Is it visible without scrolling?
+- Does the button copy communicate value, not just action?
+  - Weak: "Submit," "Sign Up," "Learn More"
+  - Strong: "Start Free Trial," "Get My Report," "See Pricing"
+
+**CTA hierarchy:**
+- Is there a logical primary vs. secondary CTA structure?
+- Are CTAs repeated at key decision points?
+
+### 4. Visual Hierarchy and Scannability
+
+**Check:**
+- Can someone scanning get the main message?
+- Are the most important elements visually prominent?
+- Is there enough white space?
+- Do images support or distract from the message?
+
+### 5. Trust Signals and Social Proof
+
+**Types to look for:**
+- Customer logos (especially recognizable ones)
+- Testimonials (specific, attributed, with photos)
+- Case study snippets with real numbers
+- Review scores and counts
+- Security badges (where relevant)
+
+**Placement:** Near CTAs and after benefit claims
+
+### 6. Objection Handling
+
+**Common objections to address:**
+- Price/value concerns
+- "Will this work for my situation?"
+- Implementation difficulty
+- "What if it doesn't work?"
+
+**Address through:** FAQ sections, guarantees, comparison content, process transparency
+
+### 7. Friction Points
+
+**Look for:**
+- Too many form fields
+- Unclear next steps
+- Confusing navigation
+- Required information that shouldn't be required
+- Mobile experience issues
+- Long load times
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+Structure your recommendations as:
+
+### Quick Wins (Implement Now)
+Easy changes with likely immediate impact.
+
+### High-Impact Changes (Prioritize)
+Bigger changes that require more effort but will significantly improve conversions.
+
+### Test Ideas
+Hypotheses worth A/B testing rather than assuming.
+
+### Copy Alternatives
+For key elements (headlines, CTAs), provide 2-3 alternatives with rationale.
+
+---
+
+## Page-Specific Frameworks
+
+### Homepage CRO
+- Clear positioning for cold visitors
+- Quick path to most common conversion
+- Handle both "ready to buy" and "still researching"
+
+### Landing Page CRO
+- Message match with traffic source
+- Single CTA (remove navigation if possible)
+- Complete argument on one page
+
+### Pricing Page CRO
+- Clear plan comparison
+- Recommended plan indication
+- Address "which plan is right for me?" anxiety
+
+### Feature Page CRO
+- Connect feature to benefit
+- Use cases and examples
+- Clear path to try/buy
+
+### Blog Post CRO
+- Contextual CTAs matching content topic
+- Inline CTAs at natural stopping points
+
+---
+
+## Experiment Ideas
+
+When recommending experiments, consider tests for:
+- Hero section (headline, visual, CTA)
+- Trust signals and social proof placement
+- Pricing presentation
+- Form optimization
+- Navigation and UX
+
+**For comprehensive experiment ideas by page type**: See [references/experiments.md](references/experiments.md)
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+1. What's your current conversion rate and goal?
+2. Where is traffic coming from?
+3. What does your signup/purchase flow look like after this page?
+4. Do you have user research, heatmaps, or session recordings?
+5. What have you already tried?
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **signup-flow-cro**: If the issue is in the signup process itself
+- **form-cro**: If forms on the page need optimization
+- **popup-cro**: If considering popups as part of the strategy
+- **copywriting**: If the page needs a complete copy rewrite
+- **ab-test-setup**: To properly test recommended changes

package/modules/page-cro/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "page-cro",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Here's my SaaS landing page: https://example.com/product. We get about 5,000 visitors/month from Google Ads but only 1.2% convert to free trial signups. Can you help me figure out what's wrong?",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing-context.md first. Should identify page type (landing page) and conversion goal (free trial signup). Should analyze across the CRO framework dimensions: value proposition clarity, headline effectiveness, CTA placement/copy/hierarchy, visual hierarchy, trust signals, objection handling, and friction points. Should provide recommendations organized as Quick Wins, High-Impact Changes, and Test Ideas. Should note the message match issue between Google Ads and landing page. Should provide 2-3 headline and CTA copy alternatives with rationale.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing-context.md",
+        "Identifies page type as landing page",
+        "Identifies conversion goal as free trial signup",
+        "Analyzes value proposition clarity",
+        "Analyzes CTA placement and copy",
+        "Notes message match between ads and landing page",
+        "Output has Quick Wins section",
+        "Output has High-Impact Changes section",
+        "Output has Test Ideas section",
+        "Provides 2-3 headline or CTA alternatives"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Our pricing page has three tiers but nobody picks the middle one. 60% choose the cheapest plan and 30% bounce entirely. What should we change?",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the Pricing Page CRO framework. Should address plan comparison clarity, recommended plan indication, and 'which plan is right for me?' anxiety. Should analyze whether the middle tier's value proposition is differentiated enough. Should recommend trust signals and social proof near pricing. Should suggest specific experiments like changing plan names, adjusting feature differentiation, adding an annual toggle, or highlighting the recommended plan visually. Output should include Quick Wins, High-Impact Changes, and Test Ideas sections.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies Pricing Page CRO framework",
+        "Addresses recommended plan indication",
+        "Addresses 'which plan is right for me' anxiety",
+        "Analyzes middle tier differentiation",
+        "Suggests specific experiments",
+        "Output has Quick Wins section",
+        "Output has High-Impact Changes section",
+        "Output has Test Ideas section"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "this page isn't converting. can you take a look? it's our homepage for a B2B project management tool",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on the casual 'this page isn't converting' phrasing. Should identify this as a Homepage CRO analysis. Should ask clarifying questions about current conversion rate, traffic sources, and conversion goal. Should apply the full CRO Analysis Framework starting with value proposition clarity. Should address the homepage-specific guidance: serving multiple audiences, leading with broadest value prop, and providing clear paths for different visitor intents. Should provide structured output with Quick Wins, High-Impact Changes, Test Ideas, and Copy Alternatives.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Identifies as Homepage CRO",
+        "Asks about current conversion rate",
+        "Asks about traffic sources",
+        "Applies CRO Analysis Framework",
+        "Addresses serving multiple audiences",
+        "Addresses clear paths for different visitor intents",
+        "Output has structured sections"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "We have a blog that gets 20k organic visits/month but almost nobody clicks through to our product. How do we get more conversions from blog readers?",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the Blog Post CRO framework. Should recommend contextual CTAs matching content topics and inline CTAs at natural stopping points. Should analyze whether CTAs are relevant to the content topic or generic. Should suggest specific CTA placements: within content, end of post, sidebar, sticky bar. Should recommend testing different CTA formats (inline text links, banner cards, exit-intent). Should cross-reference copywriting skill for CTA copy improvement.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies Blog Post CRO framework",
+        "Recommends contextual CTAs matching content",
+        "Recommends inline CTAs at natural stopping points",
+        "Suggests specific CTA placements",
+        "Suggests testing different CTA formats",
+        "Cross-references copywriting or related skill"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "We redesigned our landing page and conversions dropped from 4.2% to 2.8%. Here's the new page. What went wrong?",
+      "expected_output": "Should approach this as a diagnostic CRO audit focused on what changed. Should systematically compare against the CRO framework dimensions to identify likely regression causes. Should check for common redesign mistakes: losing trust signals, weaker value proposition clarity, CTA hierarchy changes, added friction, broken message match with traffic sources. Should provide specific fixes organized by likely impact. Should recommend reverting high-risk changes while testing others.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Approaches as diagnostic audit",
+        "Checks for lost trust signals",
+        "Checks for weakened value proposition",
+        "Checks for CTA hierarchy changes",
+        "Checks for added friction",
+        "Checks for broken message match with traffic sources",
+        "Provides fixes organized by impact",
+        "Recommends reverting high-risk changes"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Our signup form has too many fields and people keep abandoning it halfway through. Can you help optimize it?",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is about signup form optimization, not general page CRO. Should defer to or cross-reference the signup-flow-cro skill, which specifically handles signup, registration, and account creation flows. May provide some general friction reduction advice but should make clear that signup-flow-cro is the right skill for this task.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as signup flow optimization",
+        "References or defers to signup-flow-cro skill",
+        "Does not attempt full page-cro analysis on a form"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "prompt": "Review this feature page for our API monitoring tool. Most traffic comes from organic search for 'API monitoring tools'. We want them to start a free trial.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the Feature Page CRO framework: connect feature to benefit, show use cases and examples, clear path to try/buy. Should reference the experiments section and suggest prioritized test ideas for hero section, trust signals, and CTA variations. Should note the organic search traffic source and check for message match with search intent. Should cross-reference ab-test-setup skill for proper test implementation.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies Feature Page CRO framework",
+        "Connects features to benefits",
+        "Suggests use cases and examples",
+        "Provides clear path to try/buy",
+        "Notes organic traffic source and search intent match",
+        "Suggests specific experiment hypotheses",
+        "Cross-references ab-test-setup skill"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}