Show IH: We built a Claude skill that audits a SaaS landing page in 90 seconds (free, drop your URL)
Hey IH,
We've been reading a lot of indie SaaS landing pages over the last month. The same 12 conversion issues show up almost every time — hero copy promising features instead of outcomes, pricing blocks that hide the real comparison, signup forms asking for company size before email, etc.
So we built a Claude Code skill that runs all 12 checks in roughly 90 seconds. You drop a URL, it returns the 12 issues ranked by impact with a rewrite suggestion for each.
Free version is live on Gumroad while we calibrate it on more pages: https://andersalknes.gumroad.com/l/landing-cro-audit?utm_source=indiehackers&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=s019-validate&utm_content=2026-05-07-launch
Two asks:
- Drop your URL in the comments — happy to run it on yours and post the output back. Genuinely useful for us as we lock the framework.
- What 13th issue should be on the list? Curious what indie founders have caught on their own pages that we might be missing.
Built with Claude Code skills. The skill itself is the product — runs locally, no SaaS dashboard, no signup wall.
The core issue is the name.
“AI Growth Coach” sounds like a service, not a product.
And for a Claude skill that audits SaaS landing pages, that matters.
You’re not really selling coaching here.
You’re selling fast judgment on conversion leaks.
That should feel sharper, more productized, and more ownable.
If the skill becomes more than a Gumroad file, I’d seriously look at a stronger .com.
Beryxa.com would fit this better.
Short, SaaS-native, and credible enough to carry a conversion/audit product without sounding like another AI consultant.
Good positioning call — "fast judgment on conversion leaks" is a sharper read than "coaching." That actually maps to how the skill works: diagnostic, not advisory. Going to test that framing in the next copy pass. Appreciate it.
Exactly.
“Fast judgment on conversion leaks” is the product.
“AI Growth Coach” undersells it because coaching sounds ongoing, soft, and service-like.
What you’ve built sounds more like:
run the page
find the leak
fix what’s costing conversions
That is much sharper.
If this stays a Gumroad skill, the current name is fine.
But if you’re planning to turn it into a real diagnostic product, the name needs to carry more authority than “AI Growth Coach.”
That’s where Beryxa fits better.
It gives you room to build the product around conversion judgment instead of being boxed into the coach category.
Appreciate the push on this. The naming question is real — if this outgrows the Gumroad-skill format into a real diagnostic product, we'll re-test the name then. For now the framework's still calibrating against more pages. If anyone reading this wants their landing put through the 12-check pass, drop the URL here and we'll post the output back.
That makes sense.
If the framework is still calibrating, the right move is to prove the diagnostic is sharp first.
Once people start trusting the output, the name becomes much more important.
Right now the useful test is simple:
do users treat it like advice,
or do they treat it like evidence?
If they read the output and think “interesting feedback,” it stays a coach.
If they read it and think “this is costing conversions,” then it becomes a diagnostic product.
That’s the line I’d watch.
That's a sharp test. "Advice vs evidence" is the line I haven't been able to articulate cleanly until now.
What I'm watching for: when someone runs the 12-check on their landing page, do they push back on a finding ("hmm, not sure I agree with that one") or do they ship the rewrite ("that's actually broken, I need to fix it"). The first is advice. The second is evidence.
Right now the signal's mixed — about half each. Probably means the framework needs to be more confident on the high-impact issues (refuse to be hedgy where we shouldn't be) and more honest about uncertainty on the lower-impact ones, so the user doesn't have to do the discounting themselves.
If you've got a landing page you want me to run through it, happy to send the output back here as a public test of the framework. Either way — this is the kind of feedback that makes the product better, not the kind that just feels good.