landing-page-copy
Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user wants to draft landing page copy — product page, feature page, pricing page, lead magnet gate, or campaign page. Produces full copy for every standard section (hero, social proof, features, objections, FAQ, CTA) with optional variants.
14 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- clements23/marketing-agency-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-marketingtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- with-logic/crew-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 29, 2026
- skyf0xx/hedgehog-core-copywriting-prose-engineeringtheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- SkillMedev/gtm-launchtheir own version, first seen Oct 5, 2026
- SkillMedev/performance-marketingtheir own version, first seen Oct 5, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use direct-response-copy and pricing-strategy.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
MoizIbnYousafSkilldirect-response-copy
Write copy that converts. Use when writing landing pages, emails, sales copy, headlines, CTAs, social posts, cold emails, or any persuasive text. Triggers on 'copy', 'copywriting', 'sales copy', 'landing page copy', 'cold email', 'headlines', 'write me a page', 'make this convert', 'rewrite this copy', or any request involving persuasive writing. Three modes: Generate (write from scratch), Edit (improve existing copy with Seven Sweeps), Cold Email (outbound sequences). If someone has text that needs to sell harder, this is the skill.
Also in 3 projects that use this
silvainfmSkillpricing-strategy
When the user wants help with pricing decisions, packaging, or monetization strategy. Also use when the user mentions 'pricing,' 'pricing tiers,' 'freemium,' 'free trial,' 'packaging,' 'price increase,' 'value metric,' 'Van Westendorp,' 'willingness to pay,' or 'monetization.' This skill covers pricing research, tier structure, and packaging strategy.
Also in 5 projects that use this
Other versions14 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 14
- alexsmedile/hormozi-skills★ 208same name
- robpalmer99/claude-code-copywriting-skills★ 51same name
- with-logic/crew-skills★ 28same name
- skyf0xx/hedgehog-core-copywriting-prose-engineering★ 20same name
- brainbytes-dev/everything-claude-marketing★ 9same name
- impactbrussels/FounderOS★ 2same name
- kazuki-0418/agent-skills★ 2same name
- SkillMedev/content-marketing-engine★ 1same name
- SkillMedev/gtm-launch★ 1same name
- clements23/marketing-agency-skills★ 0same name
4 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- blog-postSkill
- competitor-analysisSkill
- content-briefSkill
- content-calendarSkill
- content-marketingSkill
- editorial-guidelinesSkill
- email-copySkill
- proofreading-style-checkSkill
- publish-webflowSkill
- publish-wordpressSkill
- repurpose-linkedin-carouselSkill
- repurpose-threads-xSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- social-postSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 14 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 29
Use AskUserQuestion for page type and awareness stage.
- Very specific: line 35
Read editorial-guidelines.md (or fall back).
- Distinctive: line 36
Read any linked assets (existing product page, competitor pages, internal brand doc).
- Distinctive: line 90
No hype adjectives in the hero — specificity beats enthusiasm.
- Distinctive: line 91
Every feature block must pass the "so what?" test — if the benefit isn't obvious, rewrite.
- Distinctive: line 92
Every claim tied to a number should cite the source (even if the source is "internal Q3 2026 data").
- Distinctive: line 204
Unclear ICP or awareness stage: ask before drafting. Generic copy is worse than no copy.
- Distinctive: line 213
Every CTA button text starts with a verb.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 14 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Landing Page Copy
Draft a full landing page section by section, matching the brand's editorial voice. Produces a structured markdown file a designer or CMS can implement against.
Setup
No keys required.
Inputs
- Page type — product / feature / pricing / lead magnet / campaign / use case / integration.
- Product or offer — one sentence.
- ICP / target visitor — who is this for and what problem brought them here? Inherit from
editorial-guidelines.mdif present. - Awareness stage — unaware, problem-aware, solution-aware, product-aware, most-aware (Eugene Schwartz).
- Primary outcome — the one thing the page must make happen (demo booked, free trial started, download, waitlist signup).
- Proof points — numbers, customer logos, quotes, case studies, awards, integrations. Ask the user to paste whatever they have.
- Key objections — the top 3–5 reasons a qualified visitor would still not convert.
- Competitive differentiator — what do we do that no one else does, in one sentence.
- Number of hero variants — default 3.
Use AskUserQuestion for page type and awareness stage.
Process
1. Load voice and context
- Read
editorial-guidelines.md(or fall back). - Read any linked assets (existing product page, competitor pages, internal brand doc).
2. Map awareness to message strategy
- Unaware: lead with the problem, not the product. The hero is a story or observation, not a feature claim.
- Problem-aware: lead with agitation + name the outcome. Product appears mid-page.
- Solution-aware: lead with the differentiator. Compare to alternatives within the page.
- Product-aware: lead with proof. The reader already knows what you are — they need reasons to pick you today.
- Most-aware: lead with the offer and remove friction. Shorter page, bigger CTA.
3. Draft sections
Standard section stack (include only the ones that fit the page type and awareness stage):
Hero
- Headline — the promise. Specific, outcome-focused, ≤12 words. Never generic ("Grow faster").
- Subheadline — the mechanism ("by doing X") and the proof or differentiator. ≤25 words.
- Primary CTA — verb + outcome ("Book a demo", "See it live", not "Learn more").
- Secondary CTA (optional) — low-commitment alternative.
- Hero visual description — one sentence for the designer.
Social proof bar — 4–6 customer logos or 1 strong stat.
Problem / agitation (unaware and problem-aware only) — 2–3 short paragraphs.
Solution / how it works — 3 steps, each with a one-line headline and a 1–2 sentence explainer.
Features — 3–6 feature blocks. Each block:
- Feature name (product language, not marketing fluff)
- One-sentence benefit (what the reader gets, not what the feature does)
- 2–3 bullet details
- Optional: small visual description
Proof section — customer quote + stat + linked case study. Repeat 2–3 times.
Comparison (solution-aware and product-aware) — head-to-head table against 1–2 named or unnamed alternatives.
Objection handling — 3–5 FAQ-style blocks addressing the objections the user provided. Phrase as the objection itself ("Isn't this just a spreadsheet with a pretty UI?") followed by a direct answer.
FAQ — 5–8 genuine questions, each with a 2–4 sentence answer. Good for schema.
Closing CTA — second pass at the primary CTA with a different framing. End the page on action, not a footer.
Trust signals — security, compliance, uptime, number of customers, integrations.
4. Variants
For the hero:
- Produce 3 headline + subheadline variants across different angles (outcome-led, mechanism-led, contrarian).
- Mark one as the recommended default with a one-line reason.
5. Voice and constraints
- Obey editorial guidelines banned words and voice.
- No hype adjectives in the hero — specificity beats enthusiasm.
- Every feature block must pass the "so what?" test — if the benefit isn't obvious, rewrite.
- Every claim tied to a number should cite the source (even if the source is "internal Q3 2026 data").
- Buttons always start with a verb.
6. Write the file
Write to landing/<page-name>.md:
# Landing — {page name}
**Type:** {product/feature/…}
**Audience:** {ICP}
**Awareness stage:** {stage}
**Primary outcome:** {goal}
**Differentiator:** {one sentence}
## Hero variants
### Variant 1 (recommended) — {angle}
- **Headline:** {…}
- **Subheadline:** {…}
- **Primary CTA:** {…}
- **Secondary CTA:** {…}
- **Visual:** {…}
- **Why this one:** {1 line}
### Variant 2 — {angle}
{…}
### Variant 3 — {angle}
{…}
## Social proof bar
{content}
## Problem
{content}
## How it works
**Step 1 — {name}**
{explainer}
**Step 2 — {name}**
{explainer}
**Step 3 — {name}**
{explainer}
## Features
### {Feature name}
**What you get:** {benefit}
- {detail}
- {detail}
- {detail}
**Visual:** {one line for designer}
{repeat}
## Proof
> {customer quote}
> — {name}, {role}, {company}
**Stat:** {number + context}
**Case study:** [{title}]({url})
{repeat}
## Comparison
| | Us | Alt 1 | Alt 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| {dimension} | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
## Objections
### "{objection phrased as the reader would say it}"
{answer, 2–4 sentences}
{repeat}
## FAQ
### {question}
{answer}
{repeat}
## Closing CTA
**Headline:** {…}
**Subhead:** {…}
**CTA button:** {…}
## Trust signals
- {signal}
- {signal}7. Print summary
One block: path, section count, recommended hero variant, any sections skipped.
Fallbacks
- Unclear ICP or awareness stage: ask before drafting. Generic copy is worse than no copy.
- No proof points provided: include
{TODO: proof needed}placeholders and list them explicitly at the end of the file so the user can backfill.
Verification
- File exists under
landing/. - Contains all applicable sections for the page type.
- 3 hero variants with one marked recommended.
- No banned words.
- Every CTA button text starts with a verb.
- Proof/stat placeholders explicitly called out if proof wasn't provided.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

