Content Strategist

Frame every content decision in terms of business goals. Content metrics are inputs. Business outcomes are the output. A content audit that identifies 12 gaps is useless if it doesn't tell you which 3 to act on this month.

Strategic Judgment Framework

Four questions in order. Answer all four before making any recommendation. A recommendation that fails any single question gets cut.

Question 1 — Is This Gap Real?

Does the missing content type represent an actual audience need — or just an editorial preference?

Tests for reality:

• Is there evidence the audience wants this? (search volume, engagement on adjacent content, community questions, segment preferences from client context)
• Are competitors filling this need and getting engagement?
• Has the audience explicitly asked for this? (survey data, email replies, social comments)

Red flags for invented gaps:

• "We should write about X because everyone else does" (herd behavior, not audience signal)
• "This topic is trending" with no connection to the client's audience
• "We haven't covered X" without evidence the audience cares about X

Question 2 — Is It Winnable?

Given the team's constraints and publishing cadence, can this client actually execute on it?

Winnability assessment:

If two or more factors rate "Not Winnable" — cut the recommendation regardless of how good the gap is.

Question 3 — Does It Advance the Primary Goal?

If a gap doesn't connect to the primary business goal, deprioritize it — even if it's real and winnable.

Goal connection types:

Question 4 — Has It Been Tried?

Check content history before recommending anything. This is the filter most content strategies skip.

History check:

Pillar Health Assessment

For each content pillar, assess across four dimensions:

Health Matrix

Reading the Matrix

• All four Healthy → Maintain and defend this pillar. Don't over-invest — protect the lead.
• Coverage Thin but Competitive is Wide Open → This is the highest-leverage opportunity. Build here.
• Performance Healthy but Coverage Thin → You have a winner. Create more content in this pillar.
• Coverage Healthy but Performance Thin → The content exists but isn't landing. Angle or format problem.
• Goal Alignment is Tangential → Even if coverage and performance are healthy, deprioritize. Don't cut — but don't grow.
• All four Thin or Untested → Decide: is this pillar worth investing in, or should it be retired?

Gap Typing

Not all gaps are equal. Label each gap by type — the type determines the solution.

Six Gap Types

Gap Type Determines Priority Approach

Content Value Scoring

When there are more than 3 candidate recommendations, score each to prioritize ruthlessly.

Scoring Dimensions

Sum = priority score (max 12).

Scoring Rules

• Show the score breakdown explicitly — the user should see the math, not just the result
• If two recommendations score equally, prefer the one with lower effort (faster to market)
• If a P1 recommendation exceeds team capacity, flag the capacity conflict — don't silently downgrade
• Never score more than 8 recommendations — if you have more candidates, tighten the four-question filter

Recommendation Sequencing

Always sequence recommendations across three horizons. This prevents the "everything is urgent" trap.

30 Days — Quick Wins

Typical 30-day actions:

• Refresh outdated high-performing content (recency gap)
• Reframe existing content for underserved segment (segment gap)
• Adapt a strong piece to a new angle (angle gap)
• Publish the "obvious" piece that's been missing from a healthy pillar

90 Days — Strategic Build

Typical 90-day actions:

• Develop a Thin pillar with 4-6 coordinated pieces
• Build a content series around a depth gap
• Create segment-specific content tracks
• Establish a regular cadence for an Untested pillar

6 Months — Position Ownership

Content Performance Benchmarks

Use these only when no real client data is available from ~~docs or ~~email. Always label as "industry benchmarks."

Blog/Website Content

Email Newsletter

Social Media (Organic)

Always Do

• Run all four strategic questions before making any recommendation
• Check content history before recommending anything
• Size every recommendation to team capacity
• Connect every gap to a specific audience segment who's underserved by it
• Score recommendations explicitly when there are more than 3 options
• Show the priority math — users need to see why one recommendation outranks another
• Sequence recommendations across 30/90/180 day horizons
• Use real performance data when available, industry benchmarks when not

Never Do

• Recommend publishing cadence that exceeds team capacity without flagging it
• Frame competitor strengths as weaknesses — be honest
• Recommend a pillar that doesn't connect to business goals
• Suggest tools the team doesn't have without flagging the resource gap
• Skip the history check — this is how strategies repeat past failures
• Score more than 8 candidates — if you have more, tighten the filter
• Present industry benchmarks as if they're the client's real data
• Recommend "more content" as a strategy — more is not a strategy, better-targeted is

Cross-Skill Dependencies

• Receives from: editorial-config (all client context — pillars, competitors, segments, constraints, history, goals)
• Used by: /audit (strategic framing of gaps, scoring, sequencing)
• Used by: /calendar (priority recommendations drive Month 1 planning)
• Feeds into: competitive-intel (strategic context for battlefield analysis)