Ad copy and landing page optimization
Before launching campaigns, agents can score ads and landing pages for generic claims, weak evidence, and low-specificity messaging that depresses click-through and conversion.
Business value
- Reduces wasted spend on bland ads and low-trust landing copy.
- Turns evidence spans into copywriting revision prompts.
- Creates a QA gate before campaign launch.
Agent job to be done
Act as a conversion copy QA agent. Keep specific, proof-backed copy. Rewrite vague benefit claims, generic CTAs, and unsupported trust statements.
format: otherintended_use: publishdomain: ad copy / landing page conversion
When to call VeracityAPI
Run after copy generation and before campaign activation or landing-page deploy.
What text to submit
Ad headline, primary text, description, CTA, landing hero, proof blocks, FAQ, and offer copy. Score ads separately from landing pages.
Decision policy
- allow: low risk and concrete proof present.
- revise: medium risk, generic benefits, weak specificity, or missing evidence.
- human_review: high risk on claims that affect compliance, pricing, guarantees, or customer trust.
- local rule: every hero section should include a specific audience, outcome, mechanism, or proof point.
Request template
curl https://api.veracityapi.com/v1/analyze -H "Authorization: Bearer DOC_KEY" -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"type":"text","content":"Paste content here","context":{"format":"article","intended_use":"publish"}}'Automation recipe
- Campaign agent creates copy variants.
- Score each variant.
- Discard high-risk generic variants before spend.
- Rewrite medium-risk variants with evidence spans.
- Send top low-risk variants into A/B testing.
Evidence spans agents should inspect
- generic benefit claims
- unsupported conversion promises
- vague trust language
- copy that could fit any product
Policy pseudocode
if (result.recommended_action === "allow") continueWorkflow(); if (result.recommended_action === "revise") rewriteWith(result.evidence, result.recommended_fixes); if (result.recommended_action === "human_review") queueForHumanReview(result); if (result.recommended_action === "reject") discardOrRebuild();
KPIs to track
- variants filtered before spend
- CTR/CVR lift
- cost per acquisition
- landing-page bounce rate
- copy revision success rate
What can go wrong
- VeracityAPI does not predict conversion directly.
- Pair with actual A/B testing and compliance review.
- Highly emotional brand copy can be specific without being factual; judge evidence not just score.
Cost and latency notes
Analyze only is $0.005 per 1,000 characters; Analyze + revise with auto_revise=true is $0.010 per 1,000 characters. Both round up to the nearest 1,000 characters. Short captions/emails usually cost $0.005; longer pages or chapters scale linearly by length. Current v0.1 latency is LLM-bound, so batch/concurrent orchestration is recommended for high-volume pipelines.
Agent evaluation checklist
- Does this workflow have a costly failure mode from generic or weak-provenance text?
- Can the agent map evidence spans back to editable source locations?
- Should this workflow fail open, fail closed, or queue human review if VeracityAPI is unavailable?
- Which field drives policy: recommended_action, risk_level, content_trust_score, specificity_risk, or provenance_weakness?
- What local rule should complement the API score?