wireframe-reviewer

Wireframe Reviewer

Reviewing a page = checking whether it tells a clear story that pulls one scroll toward one action.
Critique against five axes, then return structured findings + a concrete fix for each.
Built on the six levers — see storytelling-hooks. Recap: 1. Curiosity gap · 2. Emotional mirror · 3. Conflict engine · 4. Relatability · 5. Pattern + surprise · 6. Three-act.

When to Use

Axis	Question	Common failure
Narrative flow	Does each section earn the next scroll?	Sections in random order; no loop
Visual hierarchy	Does the eye land on what matters first?	Everything equal weight; buried CTA
Clarity	Is the message understood in 5 seconds?	Vague hero; jargon; feature dump
Conversion path	Is there one obvious next action?	Many/competing CTAs; no CTA above fold
Friction	What makes a visitor hesitate or leave?	Unanswered objections; cognitive load

A review without context grades against guesses. Know before reviewing: the page's one conversion goal, the target visitor in a sentence, and the main traffic source.
If these are inferable from the request (a freelancer's services page → goal is inquiries), state your assumptions inline and proceed; only ask first when the goal is genuinely undecidable — don't block a review on intake theater.

5-second test: Look only at the hero. Can you state what it offers and what to do next? If not, that's finding #1.
Scroll the arc: Does it move hook → problem → solution → proof → offer → objections → CTA? Note any missing or out-of-order section.
Score each axis per section (works / weak / missing) — an internal diagnostic pass, not a grid to render in the output.
Trace the eye: Is hierarchy guiding to headline → value → CTA? Or competing for attention?
Find the friction: List every reason a visitor hesitates (unanswered question, weak proof, too many choices).
Write findings: For each issue — what's wrong, why it hurts, the fix.

For each issue, return:
- Section — where it is.
- Severity — critical (blocks conversion) / major (leaks conversions) / minor (polish).
- Issue — what's wrong.
- Why it matters — impact on flow/conversion.
- Fix — concrete change (and which lever it restores, where one applies — pure-polish fixes don't need a lever tag).
Order by severity first, position second (hero/CTA issues usually are the critical ones, but a critical mid-page issue outranks a minor hero one). Cap the list at the ~5–8 findings that matter; a 20-item list buries the critical three. Missing objection-handling before the CTA is usually worth a slot — don't let polish findings crowd it out.
End with the single change you'd make first if only one were allowed.

Hero: no curiosity gap or promise; CTA missing above the fold; headline about the company, not the visitor.
Problem: doesn't mirror the visitor's pain → no relatability, no conflict.
Proof: absent, generic, or placed far from the claims it supports.
Benefits: feature lists instead of outcomes/feelings.
Objections: common "buts" left unaddressed before the CTA.
CTA: multiple competing actions; vague labels; high friction.
Hierarchy: uniform weight, no focal point, CTA visually lost.
Flow: a section that closes a loop without opening the next (dead end where users drop).
Bookend: ending doesn't echo the opening promise.

Passes the 5-second hero test?
Sections follow a deliberate narrative arc?
Clear visual focal point per section guiding to the CTA?
One primary action, obvious and repeated?
Proof sits beside its claims?
Top objections handled before the final CTA?
Every finding paired with a concrete fix (+ the lever it restores, where applicable)?