메뉴
Diagnose and fix checkout abandonment — audit checkout flow for friction points, score abandonment risk, rank top friction sources by impact, and output specific copy/UX fixes using RMBC principles.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
Generate structured A/B test plans for DTC funnels — hypothesis, control vs variant, primary metric, sample size estimate, test duration, and success criteria using RMBC principles.
Generate 5-7 unique ad angles for paid media campaigns — each a full strategic positioning direction with headline, body, visual, and platform fit.
Audit paid media ad creative (copy + visual direction) against RMBC and DR principles — score hook, mechanism, proof, CTA, and visual-copy alignment with actionable fixes.
Generate RMBC-structured advertorial and native ad copy that reads like editorial content but drives direct response conversions.
Design bonus stacks that increase perceived value without increasing fulfillment cost — 3-5 bonuses with name, description, perceived value, actual cost, and core offer complement rationale using RMBC principles.
Generate one-off broadcast emails for list engagement — content, story, controversy, case study, or flash promo types with 3 subject line options using RMBC principles.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
| name | checkout-abandonment |
| description | Diagnose and fix checkout abandonment — audit checkout flow for friction points, score abandonment risk, rank top friction sources by impact, and output specific copy/UX fixes using RMBC principles. |
| model | sonnet |
| user-invocable | true |
Diagnose and fix checkout abandonment. The average DTC checkout abandonment rate is 70% — meaning 7 out of 10 people who start buying leave without paying. Every percentage point recovered is pure profit because you've already paid to acquire that traffic. This skill audits an existing checkout flow for friction points across five categories (form complexity, trust signals, shipping/pricing surprises, payment options, mobile UX), scores abandonment risk, ranks the top 5 friction points by estimated revenue impact, and outputs specific copy and UX fixes for each.
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
checkout_description | Yes | Detailed description of the checkout flow — number of steps, fields, page layout, what the buyer sees |
current_abandonment_rate | No | Current checkout abandonment rate (if known — enables benchmarking) |
product_type | Yes | Product category: supplement, physical_product, digital_product, subscription, service, course |
price_point | Yes | Price, payment plan options, and any discount framing currently shown |
target_audience | Yes | Who the buyer is — demographics, tech comfort, purchase sophistication |
Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Checkout abandonment is a Copy problem as much as a UX problem — Research reveals which objections kill conversions at the payment step, Mechanism reinforcement reminds them why they decided to buy, Brief structures the page to resolve doubt before asking for payment, Copy executes every micro-element to reduce friction.
Score each category 0-20 based on the audit findings:
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0-5 | Critical — this category is actively driving abandonment |
| 6-10 | Poor — significant friction, immediate fixes needed |
| 11-15 | Acceptable — minor issues, optimize when possible |
| 16-20 | Strong — this category is well-handled |
Abandonment Risk Score: Sum of all 5 categories (0-100). Invert for risk: Risk = 100 - Score.
| Risk Level | Score | Typical Abandonment Rate |
|---|---|---|
| Critical | 0-30 | 80%+ |
| High | 31-50 | 70-80% |
| Moderate | 51-70 | 60-70% |
| Low | 71-85 | 50-60% |
| Excellent | 86-100 | Below 50% |
From all findings across the five categories, identify the top 5 friction points ranked by estimated revenue impact:
For each friction point:
quick_win (< 1 hour), medium (1 day), requires_dev (1+ week)For each of the top 5 friction points, provide the exact fix:
## Checkout Abandonment Audit: [Product/Brand]
**Product Type:** [type]
**Price Point:** [price with framing]
**Current Abandonment Rate:** [rate or "unknown"]
**Audience:** [target audience summary]
---
### ABANDONMENT RISK SCORE
| Category | Score | Weight | Weighted |
|----------|:---:|:---:|:---:|
| Form Complexity | /20 | 25% | X |
| Trust Signals | /20 | 25% | X |
| Shipping & Pricing | /20 | 20% | X |
| Payment Options | /20 | 15% | X |
| Mobile UX | /20 | 15% | X |
| **TOTAL** | **/100** | | **X/100** |
**Risk Level:** [Critical / High / Moderate / Low / Excellent]
**Estimated Abandonment Rate:** [based on score]
---
### TOP 5 FRICTION POINTS
#### 1. [Friction Point Name]
- **Category:** [which of the 5]
- **What:** [specific element]
- **Why it kills conversions:** [psychological/practical reason]
- **Estimated impact:** [% of abandonment]
- **Effort:** [quick_win / medium / requires_dev]
**Fix:**
- Before: [current state]
- After: [exact copy/UX change]
#### 2-5. [Same format]
---
### QUICK WINS (implement today)
1. [Fix with exact copy/instructions]
2. [Fix with exact copy/instructions]
3. [Fix with exact copy/instructions]
### MEDIUM EFFORT (this week)
1. [Fix with exact copy/instructions]
### REQUIRES DEVELOPMENT (this sprint)
1. [Fix with exact copy/instructions]
---
### REVENUE RECOVERY ESTIMATE
- **Current estimated abandonment:** [rate]%
- **Post-fix estimated abandonment:** [rate]%
- **Revenue recovery:** [if traffic/AOV data provided, calculate monthly $ recovered]
All five friction categories must be audited — skipping "payment options" because it seems fine misses real revenue
Friction points must be ranked by revenue impact, not by how easy they are to spot
Every fix must include exact copy or specific UX instructions — "improve trust signals" is not a fix
Before/After must show the actual change, not a description of the change
Mobile UX must be evaluated independently — "it works on desktop" is irrelevant for DTC
Shipping surprise assessment is mandatory — surprise costs are the #1 documented cause of checkout abandonment
Revenue recovery estimate must show math, not just a percentage
Specificity gate: Every claim in the copy must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "get results" or "improve your business"
Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
Audience journey: The copy must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
Objection handling: The copy must address at least 2 likely objections with concrete responses (ROI math, proof of similar result, risk reversal)
/order-form-cro to rewrite the optimized checkout page copy/guarantee-writer for risk-reversal copy to place near payment fields/funnel-audit to evaluate the full funnel, not just checkout/ab-test-plan to test checkout fixes with statistical rigor/lander-copy to ensure the page before checkout sets correct expectations/rmbc-copy-auditGenerated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join