MAudit framework
Every audit ClawniLab delivers is built on the same 10-point grid. Same questions, same scoring, same friction map structure. No vibes-based feedback. No "I think this could be stronger." Just a grid, a score, and a ranked list of fixes.
Each criterion scores 0–10. Total clarity score is /100. Anything under 70 means a buyer is leaving the page confused.
In one sentence, can a stranger explain what you sell, to whom, and why it matters? If your hero needs three paragraphs to land, you're already losing.
Are outcomes concrete (numbers, timelines, before/after) or vague ("better", "powerful", "intelligent")? Vague claims read as noise. Specific claims build trust.
Does the primary CTA deliver what the hero promised? Mismatch ("Get a demo" after "Save 10 hours/week") creates friction even when both are well-written.
Logos, testimonials, case studies, founder credibility — visible above the fold or buried six scrolls down? Where trust signals sit determines whether they get seen.
How many clicks, fields, or unanswered questions between intent and conversion? Every extra step is a survival check the page can fail.
Does the visual flow lead the eye where the buyer's question is, in the order they ask? A well-structured page answers questions before they're asked.
Are the top 3 buyer doubts addressed before the second CTA? "How is this different?" "Will it work for me?" "What if it doesn't?" — those answers can't wait until the FAQ.
Can a 7-second skim leave the reader with the right summary? Most B2B buyers scan first, read second. If the scan misses, the read never happens.
Does the page hold its message on a 390px viewport? If hero stacks awkwardly, CTAs get pushed below the fold, or copy reflows poorly, half your traffic sees a worse pitch.
Is the path from page → next step → outcome visible without scrolling? Buyers who can't visualize the path don't take it.
Anonymized example from a Series A B2B SaaS landing page (workflow automation category).
| # | Criterion | Score | One-line note |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 | Positioning sharpness | 6 / 10 | Hero says "automate your work" — too generic for a Series A page |
| 02 | Value proposition specificity | 4 / 10 | No numbers. "Save time", "boost productivity" — verifiable claims missing |
| 03 | Headline–CTA alignment | 8 / 10 | "Start free" CTA aligned with "try free" hero promise — clean |
| 04 | Trust signal density | 5 / 10 | Logos exist but below fold; no customer quote in first viewport |
| 05 | Friction in the next step | 7 / 10 | 4-field signup with SSO option — acceptable for free tier |
| 06 | Information hierarchy | 6 / 10 | Pricing sits above use cases — order optimized for analyst, not buyer |
| 07 | Objection handling | 3 / 10 | "Why this vs. Zapier?" answered only in FAQ — too late for first scan |
| 08 | Scannability | 7 / 10 | Strong subheadings; copy paragraphs trail off into walls |
| 09 | Mobile-first integrity | 5 / 10 | Hero CTA pushed under fold on 390px; second CTA also off-screen |
| 10 | Conversion path clarity | 6 / 10 | Free signup clear; what happens after signup is invisible from page |
| Total clarity score | 57 / 100 | Below 70 threshold — buyers leave confused on key dimensions |
Every audit ships the same six pieces. No add-ons, no upsells, no "premium tier."
The 10-point grid scored on your page, with one-line notes on each criterion (like the example above).
The 3–5 specific issues costing you conversions, ranked by impact and fix-effort.
A drop-in hero alternative showing the clearer direction. Not a full rewrite — a directional sample.
What's missing that paying customers expect to see — by ICP segment.
Dev-ready notes so your team can ship the fixes in days, not weeks.
One round of clarification questions over email or marketplace messages, within 7 days of delivery.
Setting expectations matters more than overselling.
Send us the URL. Get the audit in 48h. One flat price.
Get my clarity audit →