LearnGrokUse this workflow to turn a draft landing page into a clear review record and a change list that an approver can act on. It is for content leads and web marketers reviewing launch copy against an agreed brief, rather than rewriting from personal preference.
The output is a one-page review pack: a decision, prioritised changes, evidence gaps and items that need an owner.
Key point
Review against the agreed job
A landing page is ready when its message hierarchy, claims and actions match the brief, not when every reviewer would have written it differently.
1. Gather the review pack
Create one working document named Landing page review - [campaign] - [date]. Add these source materials before you ask the model to assess anything:
- The approved campaign brief.
- The positioning or messaging framework.
- The current landing-page draft, including headings, form labels, buttons, legal lines and image captions.
- The evidence pack: product notes, approved claims, customer proof, research findings or case-study extracts.
- The intended page URL or page template, if known.
- The target audience, traffic source and primary conversion action.
Do not paste several changing versions of the draft without labels. Mark the review version at the top, for example Draft v3, supplied by Web, 21 August.
If you are using file upload or workspace features, the available controls can differ by interface. Check the relevant options in the xAI documentation overview.
Watch out
Keep evidence separate from copy
A convincing sentence is not evidence. Give the model the source that supports each material claim, or tell it that no source has been supplied.
2. Extract the brief into review criteria
Read the brief once without looking at the page. In your working document, make a short table with the criteria the page must meet. Use the wording from the brief where possible.
| Review area | Record | Example question |
|---|---|---|
| Audience | Role, need and awareness level | Does the opening recognise the visitor's actual problem? |
| Primary action | One conversion action | Is the main button clear and visible before secondary actions? |
| Message hierarchy | Core promise, supporting points, proof | Does the page lead with the approved promise? |
| Positioning | Difference from alternatives | Does it state why this offer is the right choice? |
| Evidence | Approved facts and proof | Can each meaningful claim be traced to a source? |
| Constraints | Required wording, banned claims, tone | Has the draft followed mandatory language? |
Limit the table to what will affect approval. Do not add generic checks such as “make it engaging” unless the brief defines what that means.
Check
Your criteria are usable when another reviewer could read the table and reach the same pass or fail result without asking what “better copy” means.
3. Map the draft before judging it
Break the draft into page sections in the order a visitor sees them. Use a simple list such as:
- Eyebrow and headline.
- Opening paragraph.
- Primary call to action.
- Benefit sections.
- Product or service explanation.
- Proof points.
- Objection handling.
- Form, final call to action and footer copy.
For each section, note its intended job in one line. The headline may establish the main promise. A proof section may reduce perceived risk. A form section may explain what happens after submission.
This step exposes repeated messages and missing jobs. If three blocks make the same benefit claim but none explains the offer, the issue is structural, not a sentence-level edit.
4. Run a structured review
Give the model the brief criteria, evidence pack and mapped draft. Ask for findings in a fixed format so you can check them quickly. Use this prompt:
Review the landing-page draft against the campaign brief, message hierarchy and supplied evidence.
For each finding, provide:
- page section
- issue type: brief, hierarchy, clarity, evidence, action or constraint
- exact quoted copy
- why it fails or risks failing
- source from the brief or evidence pack
- recommended change
- priority: blocker, high, medium or low
Do not invent facts, customer outcomes, competitor claims or proof. If a claim lacks evidence, mark it “evidence missing”. Separate required changes from optional copy improvements.
End with: approval status, the three largest risks, and questions that must be answered before launch.
Read the output alongside the source documents. Treat it as a first review, not an approval decision.
Look first for blockers:
- The page promises an outcome that the evidence pack does not support.
- The headline leads with a secondary benefit rather than the core campaign promise.
- The primary call to action differs from the brief.
- A required audience, offer condition or qualification is absent.
- The page asks the visitor to take two competing primary actions.
Then assess high-priority issues, such as unclear terms, unsupported comparisons, weak sequencing or proof placed too late to support the claim above it.
5. Test whether the output is wrong
Check every finding that could change copy, design or approval status. The common failure is not poor grammar. It is a review that sounds certain while pointing to the wrong source or missing context.
Use this test for each blocker and high-priority item:
| If the review says | Check | Mark as wrong when |
|---|---|---|
| “This claim is unsupported” | Search the evidence pack and approved source copy | The supporting source exists and applies to the stated audience or offer |
| “The hierarchy is wrong” | Compare headline, subheading and first proof block with the brief | The draft follows the approved order, even if the wording differs |
| “The action is unclear” | Read button, nearby copy and form as one unit | The next step and value exchange are already explicit |
| “This is a competitor claim” | Check the exact wording and source | The text describes your own offer without an unverified comparison |
Also check quoted text character by character. A missing qualifier such as “may”, “selected” or “for teams” can reverse the meaning of a finding.
Stop
Do not accept invented proof
Remove any suggested statistic, testimonial, comparison or outcome that is not in your supplied evidence. Replace it with a request for evidence, not a polished claim.
6. Prepare the approval-ready change list
Create a final table titled Required changes before launch. It should contain only decisions that someone can own and complete.
| Priority | Page section | Change required | Reason and source | Owner | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blocker | Headline | Replace unsupported outcome claim | Evidence pack has no support for this outcome | Copy lead | Open |
| High | First CTA | Use the approved action wording | Brief, primary conversion action | Web marketer | Open |
Use these priority rules:
- Blocker: cannot approve without a decision or change.
- High: likely to reduce message accuracy, conversion clarity or campaign consistency.
- Medium: improves comprehension or sequencing but does not alter the approval decision.
- Low: stylistic preference. Keep these out of the required list unless the owner asks for them.
Add a short decision line above the table: Not ready for approval, Ready subject to blockers closing, or Ready for approval. Name the person who must answer each open question. Do not write “marketing to confirm”. Write Product marketing lead to confirm whether [claim] is approved for [audience].
7. Hand over and resolve failures
Send the review pack with the draft version, decision line and change table. Ask the copy owner to return a revised draft with each blocker marked resolved, not resolved or needs decision. Re-run only the affected sections after substantive changes.
If the model produces vague feedback, narrow the prompt to one section and require quoted text plus a brief source reference. If it misses evidence, place the relevant source directly under the related claim. If reviewers disagree, return to the brief table and ask the campaign owner to decide the criterion, then update the change list. Do not settle a positioning dispute by averaging comments.
