agentleFS
Sign inStart free
christianoblakechristianoblake/fan-development-skills/skills/awareness/SKILL.md

awareness

Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Diagnoses how a named audience segment currently discovers this product or business, names the specific discovery gap, and recommends the channel and message that closes it — grounded in real information about the segment when a search capability is available, LOW_EVIDENCE-flagged when it isn't. Reads using-fan-development-skills first for the toolkit's operating behaviors and mode detection. Use when the bottleneck is that people who'd care about this segment don't know it exists yet — whether arriving from a research diagnosis, chained in the full flow, or invoked directly on a segment the operator already has in mind.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. fabioc-aloha/alex-cognitive-architecture★ 0same name

    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 repository4 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Before anything else, read and apply using-fan-development-skills/SKILL.md — it defines the Core Operating Behaviors, detects Single-Skill …

    line 28
  2. Very specific:

    Establish the segment: If a segment or audience hasn't been named yet — this skill invoked cold — ask which one to focus on.

    line 38
  3. Distinctive:

    Ground the brief: Ask for any metrics, resource considerations, or priorities that would shape the recommendation.

    line 49
  4. Very specific:

    If a search capability is available, use it to ground this in real information about the segment or comparable programs.

    line 58
  5. Distinctive:

    Before treating a run as complete, confirm:

    line 110

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Awareness

Overview

awareness answers one question for a named segment: how does discovery actually break down for them right now, and what closes it? Not "more awareness" in the abstract — the specific point where a segment that would plausibly care never encounters the product or business at all.

When to Use

  • People who'd care about this segment don't know the product/business exists — that's the specific bottleneck this skill addresses.
  • Arriving from a research diagnosis (full-flow or a prior standalone run) that named awareness as the bottleneck.
  • Invoked directly on a segment the operator already has in mind, with or without a research diagnosis behind it.
  • Not for a segment that already knows about the product but hasn't taken a first step — that's engagement.

Read First

Before anything else, read and apply using-fan-development-skills/SKILL.md — it defines the Core Operating Behaviors, detects Single-Skill vs. Full-Flow Mode, and defines Session Continuity & File Output. Check for an existing business-level research.md and, once the segment is established, this segment's own awareness.md (and any awareness-*.md options) before proceeding, and read in whatever exists. Everything below assumes those behaviors are already active.

Resolve the Intake

  1. Establish the segment. If a segment or audience hasn't been named yet — this skill invoked cold — ask which one to focus on. If the operator doesn't know, mention that research would diagnose this first, but don't force it; proceed with whatever segment they name directly.
  2. Mode.
    • Build mode — designing an awareness approach fresh for this segment.
    • Thought-partner/refine mode — an awareness program already exists for this segment and the operator wants it refined or pressure-tested, not designed from scratch. Capture what already exists and the specific refinement question instead of starting from zero.
  3. Ground the brief. Ask for any metrics, resource considerations, or priorities that would shape the recommendation. Missing answers don't block the brief — flag the gap and proceed with what's known.

Diagnose the Discovery Gap

  1. Reason out how this segment most plausibly encounters — or fails to encounter — the product or business today, given what's been shared about them.
  2. If a search capability is available, use it to ground this in real information about the segment or comparable programs. A channel recommendation with no basis beyond a guess is exactly what LOW_EVIDENCE flagging exists to catch.
  3. Name the specific gap — not "more awareness," but the point where this segment's actual discovery path breaks down.

Recommend Channel and Message

  • The channel(s) that actually reach this segment where they already are, not a generic list.
  • The message framing that closes the specific gap named above, not a generic pitch.
  • State the reasoning behind the recommendation, not just the recommendation.

Output the Brief

Assemble: the situation (the discovery gap as diagnosed), the recommended approach with reasoning (channel plus message), the resourcing implication, the outcome metric to defend (per the router's Core Operating Behavior #4 — something tied to an outcome, like a qualified first contact, stated plainly), risks or watch-outs, and a check-in question posed back to the operator. Close per the router's Mode Detection: Single-Skill Mode ends with a stated next-step recommendation; the Full-Flow check-in stop is the router's job, not this skill's. Save per the router's Session Continuity & File Output — the canonical fan-development/<business-slug>/<segment-slug>/awareness.md for a refinement, or a distinctly-slugged option file when the operator asked for alternatives — and state the path in the close.

Common Rationalizations

RationalizationReality
"This segment obviously uses [channel], I don't need to check.""Obviously" is exactly the assumption Core Operating Behavior #1 exists to catch — ground it or flag it.
"The operator named the segment, that's enough context to design the whole recommendation."Naming a segment isn't the same as sharing what would shape the recommendation — ask for resourcing and priorities before finalizing.
"A reach or impressions number is an easy metric to hand back."It's also a vanity metric. Name what happens after the impression — a qualified first contact, a completed action — not the impression itself.
"This is a refinement request, I can skip straight to a tweak without confirming what's already there."Thought-partner mode still needs to capture what exists before refining it — confirm the current approach before recommending a change to it.

Red Flags

  • A channel or message recommendation with no stated reasoning behind it.
  • A claim about how the segment behaves with no LOW_EVIDENCE flag and no source backing it.
  • A metric that's an activity or vanity count rather than an outcome.
  • Thought-partner mode producing a from-scratch design instead of a refinement.
  • A brief produced without ever asking for resourcing or priority context.

Verification

Before treating a run as complete, confirm:

  • The segment was established before any diagnosis began — asked for, or already provided
  • Mode (build vs. thought-partner) was resolved and respected
  • The discovery gap is named specifically, not just "more awareness needed"
  • Search was used to ground the channel/message recommendation when available; LOW_EVIDENCE flagged when it wasn't
  • The brief includes situation, approach with reasoning, resourcing, an outcome metric, risks, and a check-in question
  • Missing context was asked for explicitly and/or flagged as a gap, not silently assumed
  • Existing files (business-level research.md, this segment's awareness.md/option files) were checked for and read first; the brief was saved to the correct path per Session Continuity & File Output

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free