SkillVaultskills Browse all 500 skills

Marketing · Version 1.0.0 · Reviewed 2026-08-02

Landing Page Claim Evidence Auditor

Make claim-to-evidence mapping and message specificity review with evidence, explicit trade-offs, and a verification plan.

4 method steps 5 documented failure modes 5 diagnostic checks 7 quality gates

Reviews every landing-page claim for specificity, evidence, audience relevance, differentiation, and the risk of sounding impressive without being provable.

₹149 one-time

Get this skill archive

What this skill helps you do

  • Claim-to-evidence mapping
  • Message specificity review
  • Proof gap detection

How Landing Page Claim Evidence Auditor works

You provide

Obligations, data inventory, and current controls

It inspects

Requirement type and implemented control for claim-to-evidence mapping

It decides

A message specificity review gap register with accountable owners

You verify

Each control mapped to evidence an auditor would accept

What it checks first

Landing Page Claim Evidence Auditor reviews every landing-page claim for specificity, evidence, audience relevance, differentiation, and the risk of sounding impressive without being provable. Use it when the work involves Claim-to-evidence mapping, Message specificity review, Proof gap detection.

  1. Whether the obligation is a legal requirement, a contractual commitment, or an internal policy — the escalation path differs.
  2. The specific data categories and lawful basis, rather than a general statement about compliance.
  3. Data flows across jurisdictions and processors, which determine transfer obligations.
  4. Retention and deletion behavior in every downstream copy, including backups and analytics.
  5. Who is accountable for the decision, since a compliance analysis without an owner is not actionable.

Failure modes it recognizes

  • Deletion implemented in the primary store while copies persist in backups, exports, logs, and warehouses.
  • Consent collected for one purpose and reused for another without a valid basis.
  • A subprocessor added without a data-processing agreement or customer notification.
  • Retention policy defined but never enforced by an automated job.
  • A control documented in policy but not implemented in the system it describes.

Answers it will reject

  • Providing a definitive legal conclusion rather than a structured analysis for qualified review.
  • Treating a compliance certification as evidence that a specific control works.
  • Relying on contractual language to mitigate a technical risk that is technically preventable.
  • Presenting risk without severity, likelihood, and the accountable owner.

Decision rules it applies

  • Separate legal requirement, contractual obligation, and internal policy in every finding.
  • Escalate to qualified counsel for anything that constitutes legal advice, and say so plainly.
  • Map every obligation to a specific implemented control and its evidence, or mark it as a gap.
  • Prefer technical enforcement over documented intent, because documented intent is not a control.

Evidence it asks for

  • Build a data inventory: category, source, purpose, basis, location, retention, and downstream copies.
  • Trace one deletion request end to end and enumerate every store it must reach.
  • Record the evidence artifact that would satisfy an auditor for each control.

The method inside

  1. Start from audience evidence and the behavior to change
  2. Map each message to a problem, outcome, and proof
  3. Remove claims that are vague, duplicated, or unsupported
  4. Define the measurement and approval criteria before publication

Deliverables

  • Claim-to-evidence mapping evidence map
  • Message specificity review revision brief
  • Proof gap detection measurement checklist

Evidence requirements

  • Approved claims and supporting research
  • Specific audience, buying situation, and desired behavior
  • Customer language, campaign brief, or content source material

Quality gates

  • Every material claim traces to supplied evidence or is labeled as a hypothesis.
  • The response follows the declared deliverable contract.
  • No execution, access, measurement, or verification is invented.
  • Secrets and personal data are redacted rather than repeated.
  • The user receives a concrete independent verification step.
  • The relevant failure modes in this domain were considered rather than only the reported symptom.
  • No listed anti-pattern was recommended as a solution.

Example task

Input

Audit this landing page and mark every claim that is vague, unsupported, or indistinguishable from competitors.

Expected output

“Transform your workflow” has no measurable outcome or proof. The strongest defensible claim is 42% faster review completion, but its methodology needs a visible footnote before publication...

Boundaries and compatibility

Ideal for

  • Claim-to-evidence mapping: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Message specificity review: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.
  • Proof gap detection: produce a decision or artifact grounded in supplied evidence.

Out of scope

  • Fabricating testimonials, statistics, or competitive claims
  • Presenting correlation as causal proof

Agent compatibility

  • GitHub Copilot custom agents
  • Claude Agent Skills / SKILL.md
  • Any instruction-following chat model

Tool policy: Advisory by default. No tools are assumed. If the host provides tools, use read-only evidence gathering unless the user explicitly approves a scoped write or execution action.