cart-abandonment-flow
Skill32 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Generate a 3-4 email cart abandonment recovery sequence with escalating urgency — from gentle reminder to final scarcity close using RMBC principles.
1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skillsedited, first seen Mar 20, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- Zenobia0000/dtc-copywriting-skills★ 449% same
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository41 other files it gives its agents.
- ab-test-planSkill
- ad-angle-generatorSkill
- ad-creative-auditSkill
- advertorial-writerSkill
- bonus-stackSkill
- broadcast-emailSkill
- checkout-abandonmentSkill
- competitor-offer-analysisSkill
- copy-rewriteSkill
- creative-briefSkill
- email-promoSkill
- email-retention-sequencesSkill
- fb-ad-copySkill
- free-offer-briefSkill
- funnel-architectureSkill
- funnel-auditSkill
- guarantee-writerSkill
- hook-batterySkill
- ingredient-researchSkill
- lander-copySkill
- lead-writerSkill
- mechanism-ideationSkill
- media-buying-briefSkill
- offer-stackSkill
- order-form-croSkill
- pdp-ecomm-templateSkill
- post-purchase-sequenceSkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- reengagement-sequenceSkill
- rmbc-contextSkill
- rmbc-copy-auditSkill
- scarcity-urgencySkill
- soap-opera-sequenceSkill
- thank-you-pageSkill
- ugc-briefSkill
- unified-research-synthesizerSkill
- upsell-scriptSkill
- upsell-sequence-writerSkill
- vsl-scriptSkill
- webinar-registration-copySkill
- welcome-sequenceSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
13 rules. About 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈8
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 30
Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions.
- Distinctive: line 45
Before writing, map the likely objections for this product and price point:
- Distinctive: line 70
Every email must show/reference the specific product they abandoned.
- Distinctive: line 75
Check that the sequence addresses:
- Distinctive: line 81
If any gap exists, revise.
- Distinctive: line 129
Every email must reference the specific product left in cart — not generic "items in your cart"
- Distinctive: line 133
Specificity gate: Every claim in the copy must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "get results" or "improve your business"
- Distinctive: line 134
Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
- Distinctive: line 136
Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
- Very specific: line 141
Run /mechanism-ideation to reinforce why this product is uniquely effective
- Very specific: line 142
Run /email-promo for promotional emails to non-abandoners
- Very specific: line 143
Run /post-purchase-sequence for customers who convert from this flow
- Very specific: line 144
Run /guarantee-writer for guarantee copy used in email 3
≈ “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.
Files
cart-abandonment-flow
Purpose
Generate a cart abandonment email sequence (3-4 emails) that recovers lost sales from shoppers who added to cart but did not complete checkout. Cart abandoners are the highest-intent non-buyers in your funnel — they wanted the product enough to add it. Something stopped them: price doubt, distraction, shipping concern, or comparison shopping. Each email addresses a different recovery angle with escalating urgency. RMBC applies as objection architecture: Research identifies why they left, Mechanism reinforces why this product is the right choice, Brief escalates the urgency arc, Copy recovers the sale.
Inputs
| Input | Required | Description |
product_name | Yes | Name and brief description of the product left in cart |
price_point | Yes | Product price — used for value framing and objection handling |
target_audience | Yes | Who the shopper is — demographics, pain points, desires |
guarantee | Yes | Money-back guarantee, return policy, or risk reversal offer |
shipping_info | Yes | Shipping cost, free shipping threshold, or delivery timeline |
discount_offer | No | Discount or incentive for completing purchase (e.g., 10% off, free gift) |
sequence_length | No | Number of emails: 3 or 4 (default: 4) |
Execution Protocol
Step 1 — Load Framework Context
Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Cart abandonment sequences invert typical RMBC — the prospect already wants the product. The job is removing friction, not building desire. Mechanism reinforces their original interest. Proof handles objections. CTA removes the final barrier.
Step 2 — Map the Recovery Arc
| Timing | Role | Approach | |
| 1 — Reminder | 1 hour | Gentle nudge — "You left something behind" | Helpful, not pushy. Show the product. Simple CTA to return to cart. |
| 2 — Social Proof | 24 hours | Build confidence — "Here's why others love it" | Testimonials, ratings, results. Address the unspoken "is it worth it?" |
| 3 — Objection Handling | 48 hours | Remove barriers — address price, shipping, quality | Name the top objection directly. Deploy guarantee. Answer FAQ. |
| 4 — Scarcity/Final Offer | 72 hours | Last chance — urgency + sweetener | Stock warning, discount (if applicable), deadline. Final CTA. |
For 3-email sequences: combine emails 2+3 (social proof + objection handling in one email).
Step 3 — Identify the Abandonment Objections
Before writing, map the likely objections for this product and price point:
| Price Range | Primary Objection | Secondary Objection |
| Under $30 | "Do I really need this?" (impulse doubt) | Shipping cost exceeds perceived value |
| $30-$100 | "Is this the best option?" (comparison shopping) | "Can I find it cheaper elsewhere?" |
| $100-$300 | "Can I justify this expense?" (budget concern) | "What if it doesn't work for me?" |
| $300+ | "This is a big decision" (commitment anxiety) | "I need to think about it / ask someone" |
Email 3 must address the primary objection for the given price range directly.
Step 4 — Write Each Email
For each email, produce:
- Subject line (under 50 characters, appropriate to urgency level)
- Preview text (40-90 characters, complements subject)
- Body copy following the email's role from the arc
- CTA — always links back to their cart with item(s) preserved
Rules:
- Email 1: NO discounts, NO urgency. Just a helpful reminder.
- Email 2: NO discounts. Let social proof do the work.
- Email 3: Deploy the guarantee prominently. Address objections by name.
- Email 4: Deploy discount (if provided) and scarcity. This is the last touch.
- Tone: empathetic throughout. They are not leads — they are almost-customers.
- Every email must show/reference the specific product they abandoned.
- Short and focused: cart emails compete with every other recovery email. Respect attention.
Step 5 — Validate Recovery Coverage
Check that the sequence addresses:
- Simple forgetfulness (email 1 — "you left this behind")
- Social validation need (email 2 — "others love this")
- Specific purchase objections (email 3 — named and resolved)
- Decision urgency (email 4 — reason to act now, not later)
If any gap exists, revise.
Output Format
## Cart Abandonment Flow: [Product Name]
**Product:** [product name] — $[price]
**Sequence Length:** [3-4] emails
**Send Schedule:** 1h → 24h → 48h → 72h
**Audience:** [target audience summary]
**Primary Objection:** [identified objection for this price point]
---
### Email 1: Reminder — 1 Hour
**Subject:** [subject line]
**Preview:** [preview text]
[Full email body — gentle, helpful, product image reference]
[CTA: Return to cart]
---
### Email 2: [Role Label] — 24 Hours
[...continue for each email...]
---
## Recovery Strategy Notes
- **Primary objection:** [what stops this audience at this price point]
- **Guarantee placement:** Email [3] — [type of guarantee and how it's framed]
- **Discount strategy:** [if discount offered: which email, what %, why delayed]
- **Expected recovery rate:** [benchmark: 5-15% of abandoners for well-optimized flows]
- **Exit behavior:** Non-converters after email 4 → add to retargeting audienceQuality Criteria
- Email 1 must be purely helpful — no urgency, no discount, no pressure
- Social proof in email 2 must be specific — star ratings, testimonial quotes, unit counts
- Email 3 must name the actual objection for the price point — not a vague "still thinking?"
- Guarantee must be prominently displayed — not buried in a PS line
- Discount (if used) must only appear in the final email — never reward early abandonment
- Every email must reference the specific product left in cart — not generic "items in your cart"
- Tone must be empathetic throughout — these are almost-customers, not cold leads
- CTAs must link back to the preserved cart, not to a product page
- Specificity gate: Every claim in the copy must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "get results" or "improve your business"
- Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
- Audience journey: The copy must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
- Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
- Objection handling: The copy must address at least 2 likely objections with concrete responses (ROI math, proof of similar result, risk reversal)
Related Skills
- Run
/mechanism-ideationto reinforce why this product is uniquely effective - Run
/email-promofor promotional emails to non-abandoners - Run
/post-purchase-sequencefor customers who convert from this flow - Run
/guarantee-writerfor guarantee copy used in email 3 - Validate with
/rmbc-copy-audit
Attribution
Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join
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.

