product-appeal-analyzer

✅ Use for:

• Evaluating landing pages, product pages, app store listings
• Positioning a product against alternatives
• Crafting messaging, tone, visual identity direction
• Assessing emotional resonance with target personas
• Pre-launch "will this convert?" analysis

❌ NOT for:

• UX friction audits (→ use ux-friction-analyzer)
• Visual design execution (→ use web-design-expert)
• A/B test implementation (→ use frontend-developer)
• Market size estimation or financial forecasting
• Feature comparison matrices

---

All three must be present. Missing any one kills conversion:

```

IDENTITY FIT

"This is for people like me"

/\

/ \

/ \

/ ★ \

/ DESIRE \

/ \

/______________\

PROBLEM TRUST

URGENCY SIGNALS

"I need this now" "This will actually work"

```

| Missing Element | User Reaction |

|-----------------|---------------|

| Identity Fit | "Seems useful, but not for me" |

| Problem Urgency | "Cool, maybe someday" |

| Trust Signals | "Looks sketchy / too good to be true" |

Decision tree: When analyzing, score each vertex 1-10. If any is <5, that's your priority fix.

---

Within 5 seconds of landing, a visitor should know:

1. What is this? (Category recognition)
2. Who is it for? (Identity signal)
3. What's the core promise? (Value proposition)
4. What do I do next? (Clear CTA)

How to run it:

• Show landing page to someone unfamiliar for exactly 5 seconds
• Hide it, then ask: "What was that? Who's it for? What would you do there?"
• Record verbatim—don't coach or clarify

Scoring:

| Result | Score | Action |

|--------|-------|--------|

| All 4 clear in <3 sec | 9-10 | Ship it |

| All 4 clear in 3-5 sec | 7-8 | Minor polish |

| 3 of 4 clear | 5-6 | Fix the gap |

| 2 or fewer clear | 2-4 | Significant rework |

| Confusing/unclear | 0-1 | Start over |

---

Step 1: Identify Target Personas

For each persona, document:

• Who: One-sentence description
• Problem: What's broken + how it feels
• Current workaround: What they do today (and why it sucks)
• Identity: How they see themselves, who they want to become

Step 2: Score the Desirability Triangle

For each persona:

```

PERSONA: [Name]

IDENTITY FIT [/10]

Visual identity match [/10] "Does this look like my kind of tool?"

Language resonance [/10] "Do they speak my language?"

Implied user match [/10] "Are people like me shown?"

PROBLEM URGENCY [/10]

Pain point acknowledged [/10] "They understand my problem"

Emotional resonance [/10] "They get how frustrating it is"

Solution clarity [/10] "I see how this fixes it"

TRUST SIGNALS [/10]

Professional execution [/10] "This looks legitimate"

Social proof [/10] "Others like me use it"

Risk reduction [/10] "What if it doesn't work?"

OVERALL APPEAL SCORE: [/90]

```

Step 3: Map Objections

| Objection | Type | How Addressed? |

|-----------|------|----------------|

| "Is this legit?" | Trust | [Answer] |

| "I've tried things before" | Skepticism | [Answer] |

| "Too expensive" | Value | [Answer] |

| "Too complicated" | Effort | [Answer] |

| "Not for people like me" | Identity | [Answer] |

| "What if it doesn't work?" | Risk | [Answer] |

| "I'll do it later" | Urgency | [Answer] |

Step 4: Generate Recommendations

Use priority formula: Impact = (Users Affected × Severity) / Fix Difficulty

Categorize into:

• Immediate (ship this week)
• Medium-term (this sprint)
• Long-term (roadmap)

---

Feature Soup Headline

Novice thinking: "List all capabilities to show value"

Reality: Visitors scan for 2-3 seconds. Feature lists feel generic.

What to use instead:

| Bad | Good |

|-----|------|

| "AI-Powered Recovery Planning Tool with Analytics" | "Know exactly what to do next in your recovery" |

| "Comprehensive Legal Document Platform" | "Find out in 2 minutes if your record can be expunged" |

Detection: Headline contains 3+ nouns or buzzwords like "AI-powered", "comprehensive", "platform"

Screenshot Hero

Novice thinking: "Show the product interface so people know what they're getting"

Reality: Strangers don't understand your UI. They care about outcomes.

What to use instead:

• Person experiencing the benefit
• The outcome/result they'll get
• Abstract visualization of the transformation

Detection: Hero image is a product screenshot with no context

Trust Ladder Violation

Novice thinking: "Get their email immediately, then convert them"

Reality: Trust builds in stages. Asking for too much too early kills conversion.

The Trust Ladder (each rung requires more trust):

1. Land on page → Professional design, no broken elements
2. Click/explore → Clear navigation, fast load
3. Spend >2 min → Demonstrated value, clear progress
4. Enter info → Why you need it explained, no dark patterns
5. Create account → Privacy visible, minimal fields, clear benefit
6. Pay money → Guarantee, testimonials, recognizable processor

Detection: Asking for account creation before demonstrating value

Identity Mismatch

Novice thinking: "Broad appeal = more users"

Reality: When everyone is the target, no one feels targeted.

What to use instead:

| Signal Type | How It Works |

|-------------|--------------|

| Visual identity | Dark mode = "power user"; Soft pastels = "wellness" |

| Language/tone | "Crush your goals" vs "Find your balance" |

| Social proof | Company logos vs individual testimonials |

| Complexity | Minimal = simplicity-seeker; Feature-rich = power user |

Detection: Homepage tries to appeal to 3+ different personas

---

Analysis Workflow

1. Read the landing page content and structure
2. WebFetch the target URL to analyze live content
3. Write analysis results to a markdown file
4. Edit recommendations into actionable copy changes

Appeal Scorer Script

Run: python scripts/appeal_scorer.py

Produces structured JSON output with scores and recommendations.

Reference Files (See for deep dives)

| File | When to Use |

|------|-------------|

| references/scoring-templates.md | Full scoring matrices and templates |

| references/trust-ladder.md | Deep dive on trust building stages |

| references/identity-signals.md | Visual/verbal identity signal catalog |

| references/objection-catalog.md | Common objections by product type |

---

When running this skill, produce:

1. Executive Summary - 3 bullet key findings
2. Desirability Triangle Scores - Per persona
3. 5-Second Test Assessment - What's clear, what's not
4. Top 3 Objections - And how to address them
5. Priority Recommendations - Immediate / Medium / Long-term

---

Appeal + Friction = Complete picture

| This Skill Answers | ux-friction-analyzer Answers |

|--------------------|------------------------------|

| "Do they want it?" | "Can they use it?" |

| Will they choose this over alternatives? | Can they complete the task? |

| Does it feel made for them? | Does the flow make sense? |

| Is the promise compelling? | Is the experience smooth? |

Run both: High appeal + high friction = frustrated users. Low friction + low appeal = abandoned product.

---

Philosophy: A product with low friction but low appeal gets abandoned. A product with high appeal but high friction gets frustrated users. You need both.