Checklist
How to write an AI skill landing page
📌 TL;DR
- Lead with the result Name the buyer, their moment, and the useful output before describing the skill format or technical stack.
- Show the work Pair one representative input with the real output and its limits so readers can judge the promise.
- Make trust concrete State who built the skill, what it can access, where data goes, what it does not do, and how it is maintained.
- Use one next step Write a CTA that names the action and what happens after the click; vague buttons make the reader finish your thinking.
Your AI skill landing page has one job: let the right person understand the result, trust the boundary, and take the next step.
A museum of capabilities is not required.
Lead with the buyer's result. Show a representative input and real output. Then state who the skill fits, what the buyer receives, what the skill can access, where data goes, what can fail, who built it, and what happens after the button. That is enough structure for a serious decision.
The Agent Skills specification requires name and description in SKILL.md frontmatter. Those fields help an agent discover the package. A buyer-facing page has more work to do.
Lead with the result, not the file format
The first screen should answer four questions:
- Who is this for?
- What moment is it for?
- What useful output appears?
- Why does that output matter now?
Use this sentence:
For [specific buyer] who [has reached this moment], [skill name] turns [input] into [output] so you can [make a decision or complete an action].
One live example:
Check by Luke turns one proposed idea into a before-and-after analysis, a pattern, a verdict, and a concrete route.
Check by Luke is a current first-party page, not proof that the wording converts. It is useful because the promised output can be checked against the example on the same page.
Put the skill format, model, framework, and installation method below the promise. Technical detail matters when it changes access, compatibility, privacy, cost, or effort. Until then, it is backstage equipment.
Avoid claims such as “10x your work” or “guaranteed to convert” unless current, traceable evidence supports the exact statement. A precise output will usually do more useful work than a swollen adjective.
Prove the promise with an input and output
Show one representative use from start to finish.
The live Check page uses this input:
Should I add dark mode to my SaaS before launch? Feels unprofessional without it.
The displayed result includes:
Before: ship without dark mode. After: launch slips a week for a toggle nobody asked for. Verdict: Defer. Revisit when the first paying user asks.
That is real page evidence. It is still not a customer outcome or a general quality claim. The same page states a key limit: the Skill does not browse or run tools. It also names the access method, install shape, and last update.
When building your page, use the actual input and output from the skill. State the skill version, relevant inputs, edits, and test date when they affect the result.
Google's explainability and trust guide recommends helping people understand expected use and limitations. The principle is useful here: proof should calibrate trust, not inflate it.
Tell the right buyer when the skill fits
Good fit copy gives the right person recognition and everyone else a clean exit.
Write three short blocks:
Use this when
- the buyer has the named input;
- the decision or artifact repeats often enough to matter;
- the supported AI system and dependencies are available;
- a human can review the output where judgment remains necessary.
Bring this
- required documents, text, links, or files;
- the context the skill cannot infer;
- any account, model, key, or local tool needed for access.
Do not use this for
- tasks outside the skill's tested boundary;
- regulated or high-stakes decisions without qualified review;
- sensitive inputs the stated data path does not support;
- systems, versions, or file types you have not verified.
Specific rejection cases build trust because they cost the creator a few bad fits. “For anyone who wants better work” costs nothing and says about as much.
The category may also need one sentence. If the reader is unsure what this artifact is, link to the agent skill definition instead of turning the product page into a glossary.
Explain access, data, and limits
Do not make the buyer reverse-engineer the delivery model from a button label.
Answer these questions in plain language:
Scroll to see all columns →
| Buyer question | Page copy should state |
|---|---|
| What do I receive? | Files, hosted access, an install path, membership access, or a delivered result |
| What can it touch? | Files, folders, tools, network services, accounts, or nothing beyond the submitted text |
| Where does input go? | The runtime, model provider, storage, logs, and any human support path |
| What do I need? | Supported AI system, version, account, provider key, browser, terminal, or local dependency |
| What are the limits? | Calls, tokens, file size, formats, time window, excluded tasks, and known failure modes |
| What happens next? | Verification, review, payment, installation, delivery, or a reply from the creator |
If the buyer receives the rule file, say so. If private rules stay server-side, say what the buyer receives instead. Server-side delivery does not justify “impossible to copy” or “fully secure.”
Compatibility deserves the same restraint. “Tested with Claude Code on 2026-07-26” is useful. “Works everywhere” creates a support promise you have not tested.
Make the creator and maintenance visible
A skill packages someone's judgment. Show the someone.
Include:
- creator name and a relevant, verifiable reason they built the skill;
- a link to work that supports the claimed expertise;
- skill version or last meaningful update;
- tested systems and check date;
- changelog or update policy when updates are part of the offer;
- support channel and scope;
- current status, known limitations, and material dependencies.
Do not invent a founder story, customer result, certification, review, install count, or “trusted by” strip. Empty social proof is still empty after you give it a tasteful gray background.
If the skill changes often, name the update trigger. A tax skill may change with the rules it relies on. A framework skill may change with the framework. A stable writing rubric may need less frequent revision. “Maintained” should point to a behavior the buyer can verify.
Write one CTA that says what happens next
The button completes a sentence in the buyer's head. Write the action and the handoff.
Scroll to see all columns →
| Offer state | Button | Helper copy |
|---|---|---|
| Reviewed access | Request access | We review the request and reply by email with the next step. |
| Free verified access | Verify email to get access | We send a confirmation link; access starts after you confirm it. |
| Paid download | Buy the skill | Payment is followed by the stated download and receipt. |
| Hosted trial | Start the trial | The next screen creates access and explains the trial limit. |
| Not ready | Join the update list | We send release and maintenance updates; this does not grant access. |
Use only a handoff that exists. “Get started” asks the reader to guess whether they will meet a form, checkout, calendar, download, or smoke signal.
Keep one primary action. A secondary link can answer a genuine next question, but it should not compete with the decision. Once the copy is ready, use the one-link sharing guide to build the handoff.
Use this one-page copy template
Fill each bracket with product truth. Delete any section the decision does not need.
Hero
[Skill name] For [buyer] at [moment], turn [input] into [specific output] so you can [decision or action]. ****[Primary CTA that names the action]** [One sentence explaining what happens next.]
Proof
You provide: [Representative input.] **The skill returns: [Actual output or faithful excerpt.] **Tested: [Skill version, system, model if material, and date.] **Human step: [Review or decision the buyer still owns.]
Fit
Use this when: [Specific moment and required input.] **Do not use this for: [Unsupported or unsafe jobs.]
Access and trust
You receive: [Files, hosted access, install path, or delivered result.] **Permissions: [Files, tools, network, or accounts the skill can access.] **Data path: [Processors, storage, logging, retention, and deletion.] **Limits: [Usage and material failure boundaries.] **Built by: [Named creator and relevant, verifiable context.] **Maintained: [Version, last update, update policy, and support path.]
CTA
[Action label] [Exact handoff after the click.]
Here is the same template completed from the live Check page.
Completed example: Check
Check For a founder sorting new product ideas, turn one proposed idea into a before-and-after analysis, classification, pattern, verdict, and concrete route. **Get /check Enter an email and the access flow sends a private install link.
You provide: One proposed idea and the reason it feels important. **The skill returns: A one-screen decision block. The displayed dark-mode example returns a defer verdict and a condition for revisiting the idea. **Checked: Public page and example checked July 26, 2026; the page names a Claude Code slash command and lists its last update as July 9, 2026. **Human step: The founder can disagree, state why, and own the final choice.
Use this when: A new idea needs a fast test against current priorities. **Do not use this for: Browsing, tool use, or a multi-step autonomous job.
You receive: A private link to install the local command after verified email access. **Permissions and data: The public page says the method runs server-side and links its Terms and Privacy Notice; those documents own the full data facts. **Limits: One-shot judgment; no browsing or tools. **Built by: Luke Toledo, with the creator identity visible on the page. **Maintained: The page shows the last update and provides a route back to the creator.
Get /check The access dialog asks for an email and explains that a private install link follows.
This completed example proves that every slot can be filled from a real surface. It does not prove customer outcomes, conversion, or paid demand.
Before release, run the page past someone who matches the stated buyer. Ask them what they receive, what they must provide, what could go wrong, and what the button does. Do not explain the page while they read it. The silence is part of the test.
FAQ
How long should an AI skill landing page be?
Long enough to answer the purchase or access decision, and no longer. A narrow skill may need only a promise, example, fit, access facts, trust details, and CTA. Add sections only when they resolve a real objection.
Should a request-only page show a price?
State the current commercial status. If the alpha is free, say free. If pricing is decided after review, say that no price is offered yet. Do not publish a placeholder number that looks like a live offer.
Where should the skill changelog live?
Put a short current version and date on the page. Link to a fuller changelog when changes affect results, access, compatibility, data, or buyer action. The page should not become a release-note archive.
Can one page serve a buyer and a technical evaluator?
Give both readers the same primary promise and decision. Keep the buyer-critical access and data facts on the page, then link to deeper technical documentation instead of splitting the main action.