agentleFS
coleschaffercoleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc/skills/hook-battery/SKILL.md

hook-battery

Skill32 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Generate 10 scroll-stopping hooks across 5 psychological trigger types — the opening lines that determine whether a prospect reads or scrolls past. One of the 3 core RMBC skills.

1 other project uses a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    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:

    Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for framework overview.

    line 28
  2. Distinctive:

    Must promise a specific revelation, not vague intrigue

    line 44
  3. Distinctive:

    Must name a real, specific threat — not manufactured anxiety

    line 49
  4. Distinctive:

    Must include at least one concrete detail (number, timeframe, or named result)

    line 54
  5. Distinctive:

    Must reference a real or plausible proof point — never fabricate

    line 59
  6. Distinctive:

    Must target advice the audience has actually heard and believed

    line 64
  7. Distinctive:

    Every hook must name something specific — no "improve your life" or "get better results"

    line 113
  8. Distinctive:

    Specificity gate: Every hook must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "improve your life" or "get better results"

    line 119
  9. Distinctive:

    Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)

    line 120
  10. Distinctive:

    Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

    line 122
  11. Very specific:

    Run /mechanism-ideation first for mechanism-driven hooks

    line 127
  12. Very specific:

    Run /unified-research-synthesizer for audience language patterns

    line 128

≈ “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

hook-battery

Purpose

Generate 10 hooks (2 per type) across 5 psychological trigger categories. A hook is the FIRST thing a prospect sees — the opening line of an ad, email, landing page, or video. It determines whether they engage or scroll past. Stefan's standard: if a hook could apply to any product, it's too generic. Every hook must be specific to the product, reference its mechanism when possible, and work in 1-2 lines on a mobile screen.

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
product_descriptionYesWhat the product is, what it does, key features/ingredients/components
target_audienceYesWho the prospect is — demographics, pain points, desires, sophistication level
key_mechanismNoThe product's unique mechanism (output from /mechanism-ideation)
key_resultNoThe specific transformation or outcome the product delivers
toneNoOne of: aggressive, conversational, professional (default: conversational)

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for framework overview. Hooks sit at the top of the copy funnel — they must earn the next line of reading.

Step 2 — Extract Hook Fuel

From inputs, identify:

  • Specific numbers — stats, timeframes, dollar amounts, percentages
  • Mechanism language — named processes, compounds, or systems to reference
  • Audience pain language — exact words the prospect uses to describe their problem
  • Desire language — exact words the prospect uses to describe their ideal outcome
  • Contrarian angles — common advice in this space that can be challenged

Step 3 — Generate 10 Hooks (2 Per Type)

Curiosity (×2)

Pattern: Open a knowledge gap the reader must close.

  • "The weird trick that..." / "Why [unexpected thing] works better than..."
  • Must promise a specific revelation, not vague intrigue

Fear (×2)

Pattern: Surface a cost or danger the reader hasn't considered.

  • "Are you making this [specific cost] mistake?" / "The hidden danger in..."
  • Must name a real, specific threat — not manufactured anxiety

Desire (×2)

Pattern: Paint the outcome so vividly the reader self-selects.

  • "How to [specific outcome] in [timeframe]" / "What if you could..."
  • Must include at least one concrete detail (number, timeframe, or named result)

Social Proof (×2)

Pattern: Leverage credibility or crowd behavior.

  • "[X] people already..." / "The method [credible person/group] uses to..."
  • Must reference a real or plausible proof point — never fabricate

Contrarian (×2)

Pattern: Challenge conventional wisdom to stop the scroll.

  • "Stop [common advice]" / "Everything you know about [topic] is wrong"
  • Must target advice the audience has actually heard and believed

Step 4 — Validate Each Hook

For every hook, check:

  1. Specificity — Could this apply to a different product? If yes, rewrite.
  2. Mobile fit — Does it work in 1-2 lines on a phone screen? If no, shorten.
  3. Mechanism tie-in — Does it reference the product's mechanism (when provided)? Prefer hooks that do.
  4. Scroll-stop power — Would this make YOU stop scrolling? Be honest.

Output Format

## Hook Battery: [Product Name]

**Audience:** [target audience summary]
**Mechanism:** [key mechanism, if provided]
**Tone:** [aggressive | conversational | professional]

---

| # | Hook Type | Hook Text | Why It Works | Platform Fit |
|---|-----------|-----------|-------------|-------------|
| 1 | Curiosity | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 2 | Curiosity | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 3 | Fear | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 4 | Fear | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 5 | Desire | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 6 | Desire | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 7 | Social Proof | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 8 | Social Proof | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 9 | Contrarian | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |
| 10 | Contrarian | [hook] | [1 line] | Meta / Native / Email / YouTube |

---

## Top 3 Picks

1. **Hook #X** — [why this is the strongest] — Best for: [platform]
2. **Hook #X** — [why] — Best for: [platform]
3. **Hook #X** — [why] — Best for: [platform]

## Testing Notes

[1-2 lines on which hooks to A/B test first and why]

Quality Criteria

  • Every hook must name something specific — no "improve your life" or "get better results"
  • At least 4 of 10 hooks should reference the product's mechanism (when provided)
  • Platform Fit must vary — not all hooks suit all platforms
  • Hooks must be mobile-first: 1-2 lines max on a phone screen
  • Each "Why It Works" must name the psychological lever, not restate the hook
  • Specificity gate: Every hook must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "improve your life" or "get better results"
  • Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
  • Audience journey: Hooks 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: Hooks must address at least 2 likely objections with concrete responses (ROI math, proof of similar result, risk reversal)

Related Skills

  • Run /mechanism-ideation first for mechanism-driven hooks
  • Run /unified-research-synthesizer for audience language patterns
  • Feed hooks into copy formats: /pdp-ecomm-template, /webinar-registration-copy
  • Validate copy using these hooks with /rmbc-copy-audit

Attribution

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join

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.