How to Fix a Landing Page With Claude (Before You Hire Anyone)

Your landing page for that ad campaign is a piece of shit. There, someone said it.

Here is the short version before I get into it. You do not need a bloke like me to tell you what is wrong with your landing page. You can point Claude (or ChatGPT) at the page, ask it to run a CRO audit, and it will hand you a scored list of exactly what is broken and what order to fix it in. Free. In about ninety seconds.

I run paid ads for a living. $25M+ in ad spend over 9+ years across Sydney trades, dental, finance and eCom. Landing pages are where most of that budget lives or dies. So watching an AI do a first-pass audit that used to be a paid job still does my head in a bit. But it works, and if you are spending money on Google or Meta right now with a page that leaks, you should be doing this today.

Here is exactly how.

What is a landing page CRO audit?

A CRO audit is a review of your landing page against the things that make people convert or bounce. CRO stands for conversion rate optimisation. The audit looks at your headline, your call to action, your form, your proof, your load feel and your message match, then tells you where the leaks are.

Normally you pay an agency for this. Or you guess. Both are expensive in different ways.

The point of the audit is not a vibe. It is a prioritised list. What is costing you the most conversions, fixed first. Everything else after that.

Can Claude actually audit a landing page?

Yes. Give Claude your landing page URL (or paste the copy and describe the layout) and ask it to score the page for CRO and list the fixes in priority order. It reads the page the way a first-time visitor would, flags the friction, and ranks it.

I tested this on a well-known bathroom renovator here in Sydney. Simple page, bathroom renovations, nothing fancy. Claude gave it a CRO score of 4.8 out of 10 and then listed the problems one after another. The headline asked too much of the reader. No price signal anywhere. The primary CTA competed with three other buttons. On and on, a real list, not fluff.

Best part is the bottom of the output. It gives you an impact summary for each fix and a priority order. So you are not staring at twenty things wondering where to start. You start at the top and work down.

That is the whole trick. The list is the deliverable.

The prompt to use

Keep it simple. Something like this:

“Here is my landing page: [URL]. It is the page I send my Google Ads / Meta Ads traffic to. Act as a CRO specialist. Give it a score out of 10, list every conversion problem you find, and put the fixes in priority order with the likely impact of each one.”

Then read what comes back. If a fix is unclear, ask it to explain why that thing hurts conversions. It will.

One tip from someone who does this for money. Tell it what the page is for and where the traffic comes from. A page taking cold Meta traffic and a page taking high-intent Google search traffic need different things, and the audit is sharper when it knows.

What does the audit actually check?

The good ones cover the same ground I check by hand. Here is the short list.

• Message match. Does the page headline match the ad that sent them there? If your ad says “bathroom renovations Sydney” and the page opens with “Welcome to our website”, you are bleeding clicks you already paid for.
• The primary CTA. Is there one clear action, or five competing ones? Every extra button is a decision, and decisions cost conversions.
• Proof. Reviews, ratings, real numbers, near the button. People convert when they see other people did first.
• The form. Every field is a barrier. If you ask for twelve things to get a quote, most people leave.
• Price or offer clarity. Not always a price, but some signal of what it costs and what they get. Silence makes people assume the worst.
• Load feel and mobile. Slow and clunky on a phone is most of your traffic having a bad time.

Claude checks these, scores them, and tells you which one is costing you the most right now.

Should you just do it yourself then?

Honest answer. For the audit, yes. Run it yourself. It is free and it is genuinely good at spotting the obvious leaks that most pages have.

Where it stops being a solo job is the fix and the proof. The audit tells you the CTA is weak. It does not rewrite it in a way you have tested against real traffic, wire up the tracking so you know the change actually worked, or know that a two-step form beats a one-step form for trades but not for dental. That is the part you learn from spending $25M, not from a prompt.

So use Claude for the diagnosis. It is a brilliant, free second opinion. Then decide whether the fixing is worth your Saturday or worth handing over to a paid ads specialist.

When it is worth handing over

If you are spending real money on ads and the page is the bottleneck, the maths usually favours getting it fixed properly. A page that converts at 3% instead of 2% is 50% more leads on the same ad spend. Nothing changed upstream. Same clicks, same budget.

That is the lever. It’s not by fluke. A chunk of that is the page, not just the ads. The two are the same job, which is exactly why I don’t hand my Google Ads clients a great campaign pointed at a broken page.

But run the audit first. Always. Even if you hand the fixing to someone, walking in knowing your own page scored 4.8 and why beats walking in blind.

FAQ

Right, that is the play. Point Claude at your page, get the scored list, fix from the top down. Costs nothing and it will tell you more about your page in a minute than most agencies do on a discovery call.

If you would rather someone who has spent $25M+ getting pages to convert just handle the whole thing, that is what I do.

Google and Meta ads, and the pages behind them. No middlemen. No contracts. No fluff.