claude-code-config

PDF Marketing Report Generator

Skill Purpose

Generate a professional, visually polished PDF marketing report using the Python script scripts/generate_pdf_report.py. This skill collects all available audit and analysis data, structures it into the expected JSON format, invokes the script, and produces a branded PDF with score gauges, bar charts, comparison tables, findings, and a prioritized action plan.

When to Use

• User wants a PDF version of the marketing report (not just Markdown)
• User is preparing a deliverable for a client presentation
• User asks for a "polished report", "client-ready report", or "PDF report"
• User wants a visual report with charts and scores
• Triggered by /market report-pdf or /market report-pdf <domain>

When to Use PDF vs Markdown

| Format | Best For | Pros | Cons | |---|---|---|---| | PDF | Client presentations, email attachments, sales collateral | Professional appearance, consistent formatting, visual charts, printable | Harder to edit, requires Python script | | Markdown | Internal use, quick reference, iterative editing, version control | Easy to edit, readable in any editor, git-friendly | Less visually polished, no charts |

Rule of thumb: If the report is going to a client or prospect, use PDF. If it is for internal use or further editing, use Markdown.

How to Execute

Step 1: Collect All Available Data

Gather data from all previous skill runs. Check for these files in the project directory:

Primary data sources:

• MARKETING-AUDIT.md -- Overall audit results
• LANDING-CRO.md -- Landing page conversion analysis
• SEO-AUDIT.md -- SEO findings
• BRAND-VOICE.md -- Brand voice analysis
• COMPETITOR-ANALYSIS.md -- Competitor comparison data
• FUNNEL-ANALYSIS.md -- Funnel analysis
• SOCIAL-AUDIT.md -- Social media audit
• EMAIL-AUDIT.md -- Email marketing audit
• AD-AUDIT.md -- Advertising audit

If no previous data exists:

1. Recommend the user run /market audit <url> first for the best results
2. If the user insists on generating a report without prior audits, analyze the provided URL directly and build the data structure from scratch
3. Use the analyze_page.py script to gather automated data: python scripts/analyze_page.py <url>

Step 2: Build the JSON Data Structure

The scripts/generate_pdf_report.py script expects a JSON file as input with this exact structure:

{
  "url": "https://example.com",
  "date": "March 1, 2026",
  "brand_name": "Example Co",
  "overall_score": 62,
  "executive_summary": "A 2-4 sentence summary of the overall marketing health, key opportunities, and estimated revenue impact of implementing recommendations.",
  "categories": {
    "Content & Messaging": {
      "score": 68,
      "weight": "25%"
    },
    "Conversion Optimization": {
      "score": 52,
      "weight": "20%"
    },
    "SEO & Discoverability": {
      "score": 74,
      "weight": "20%"
    },
    "Competitive Positioning": {
      "score": 48,
      "weight": "15%"
    },
    "Brand & Trust": {
      "score": 70,
      "weight": "10%"
    },
    "Growth & Strategy": {
      "score": 55,
      "weight": "10%"
    }
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "severity": "Critical",
      "finding": "Description of the most important finding"
    },
    {
      "severity": "High",
      "finding": "Description of a high-priority finding"
    },
    {
      "severity": "Medium",
      "finding": "Description of a medium-priority finding"
    },
    {
      "severity": "Low",
      "finding": "Description of a lower-priority finding"
    }
  ],
  "quick_wins": [
    "First quick win action item",
    "Second quick win action item",
    "Third quick win action item"
  ],
  "medium_term": [
    "First medium-term action item",
    "Second medium-term action item",
    "Third medium-term action item"
  ],
  "strategic": [
    "First strategic action item",
    "Second strategic action item",
    "Third strategic action item"
  ],
  "competitors": [
    {
      "name": "Competitor A",
      "positioning": "Their market position",
      "pricing": "Their pricing model",
      "social_proof": "Their trust signals",
      "content": "Their content approach"
    },
    {
      "name": "Competitor B",
      "positioning": "Their market position",
      "pricing": "Their pricing model",
      "social_proof": "Their trust signals",
      "content": "Their content approach"
    }
  ]
}

Step 3: Field-by-Field Data Assembly Guide

url (string, required)

The target website URL. Use the full URL including protocol.

date (string, required)

The report generation date. Format: "Month DD, YYYY" (e.g., "March 1, 2026").

brand_name (string, required)

The company or brand name. Used in competitor comparison table headers.

overall_score (integer, 0-100, required)

The weighted average of all category scores. Calculate as:

overall_score = (content * 0.25) + (conversion * 0.20) + (seo * 0.20) + (competitive * 0.15) + (brand * 0.10) + (growth * 0.10)

executive_summary (string, required)

A 2-4 sentence summary covering:

• Current marketing health assessment
• Top 1-2 most impactful findings
• Estimated revenue impact of implementing recommendations
• Recommended first step

Keep it concise and impactful. This appears on the cover page right below the score gauge.

categories (object, required)

Exactly 6 categories with their scores. The categories map to these evaluation areas:

| Category | What It Measures | Scoring Guidance | |---|---|---| | Content & Messaging | Copy quality, value proposition, headline clarity, CTA text, brand voice consistency | 80+: Clear, benefit-driven, specific. 60-79: Adequate but generic. <60: Vague, feature-focused, unclear | | Conversion Optimization | Social proof, form design, CTA placement, objection handling, urgency | 80+: Multiple proof types, optimized forms, clear CTAs. 60-79: Some elements present. <60: Missing critical elements | | SEO & Discoverability | Title tags, meta descriptions, headers, schema, internal linking, page speed | 80+: Fully optimized. 60-79: Mostly present with gaps. <60: Major issues or missing elements | | Competitive Positioning | Differentiation, pricing clarity, comparison content, market awareness | 80+: Clear positioning, comparison pages exist. 60-79: Some differentiation. <60: No clear positioning | | Brand & Trust | Design quality, trust badges, security indicators, professional appearance | 80+: Modern design, trust signals throughout. 60-79: Adequate design. <60: Outdated or unprofessional | | Growth & Strategy | Lead capture, email marketing, content strategy, acquisition channels | 80+: Multi-channel strategy in place. 60-79: Some channels active. <60: No clear growth strategy |

findings (array, required)

An array of finding objects, each with severity and finding fields.

Severity levels:

• Critical -- Directly losing revenue or customers. Fix immediately.
• High -- Significant impact on growth. Fix within 1-2 weeks.
• Medium -- Meaningful improvement opportunity. Fix within 1 month.
• Low -- Nice-to-have improvement. Fix when time allows.

Writing effective findings:

• Be specific: "Homepage headline says 'Welcome to Our Platform'" not "Headline needs improvement"
• Quantify impact: "Missing meta descriptions on 8 of 12 landing pages"
• Reference benchmarks: "Page load time is 4.2s (benchmark: under 2s)"
• Include evidence: "No testimonials found on homepage, pricing page, or signup page"

Aim for 5-10 findings. Order from most to least severe.

quick_wins (array, required)

3-5 action items that can be implemented within one week with minimal effort. Each should be a specific, actionable instruction.

Good quick win: "Rewrite the homepage headline from 'Welcome to Our Platform' to 'Cut Your Reporting Time by 75% -- Automated Analytics for Growth Teams'"

Bad quick win: "Improve the headline" (too vagu