agentleFS
coleschaffercoleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc/skills/lander-copy/SKILL.md

lander-copy

Skill32 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub

Generate RMBC-structured landing page copy — mobile-first, conversion-optimized, with value-stack pricing and full page architecture.

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

11 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 4 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈7

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 4

    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 to load RMBC framework definitions.

    line 31
  2. Distinctive:

    One idea per mobile screen: If a section runs long, break it into sub-sections.

    line 60
  3. Distinctive:

    Problem: Use prospect's own language.

    line 68
  4. Distinctive:

    No section should require more than 2 thumb-scrolls on mobile

    line 136
  5. Distinctive:

    Every CTA button must use action language ("Get [Result] Now"), never generic ("Submit", "Click Here")

    line 138
  6. Distinctive:

    Specificity gate: Every claim in the copy must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "get results" or "improve your business"

    line 142
  7. Distinctive:

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

    line 143
  8. Distinctive:

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

    line 145
  9. Very specific:

    Run /mechanism-ideation for the core mechanism

    line 150
  10. Very specific:

    Run /hook-battery for hero headline options

    line 151
  11. Very specific:

    Run /lead-writer for alternative hero section approaches

    line 152

≈ “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

lander-copy

Purpose

Generate complete landing page copy structured around RMBC principles. Landing pages are where traffic converts — every element must earn its place. Mobile-first is non-negotiable: 80-90% of DTC traffic arrives on phones. This skill outputs full page copy with section-by-section structure, ready for a designer or page builder. Enforces value-comparison pricing (anchor high, reveal real price as contrast) and includes all conversion elements: social proof, guarantee, FAQ, and multiple CTAs.

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
price_pointYesProduct price, payment plans, and any discounts
traffic_sourceYesWhere traffic comes from: paid_social, native, search, email, organic
key_mechanismYesThe product's unique mechanism (output from /mechanism-ideation)
guaranteeNoMoney-back guarantee details (default: assume 60-day guarantee)
proof_pointsNoTestimonials, reviews, clinical data, media mentions
page_typeNoOne of: long_form (full sales page), short_form (squeeze/lead gen), hybrid (default: long_form)

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md to load RMBC framework definitions. Landing pages deploy RMBC in a scrollable format — each section maps to a phase: Research informs audience targeting and proof selection, Mechanism drives the core value proposition, Brief structures the page architecture, Copy executes each section.

Step 2 — Define Page Architecture

Map sections based on page_type:

Long Form (Full Sales Page)

SectionMobile ScreensPurpose
Hero1Headline + subhead + CTA + hero image
Problem1-2Agitate pain, build urgency
Failed Solutions1Disqualify alternatives
Mechanism Reveal2-3Introduce unique mechanism with visual
Features → Benefits2-3Translate features into outcomes
Social Proof Block 11-2Testimonials or case studies
Value Stack1-2List everything they get with anchor pricing
Price Reveal1Contrast anchor vs actual price
Guarantee1Risk reversal
Social Proof Block 21Additional proof (different type from Block 1)
FAQ1-2Handle remaining objections
Final CTA1Restate offer, guarantee, urgency

Short Form (Squeeze/Lead Gen)

Hero → Problem (brief) → Solution Promise → CTA → Social Proof → CTA

Step 3 — Write Each Section

Rules for all sections:

  • One idea per mobile screen. If a section runs long, break it into sub-sections.
  • Headlines for every section. Scanners read headlines only — each must standalone.
  • CTAs appear 3+ times on long-form pages (hero, mid-page, final).
  • Value stack must anchor high. Total perceived value should be 5-10x the actual price.
  • Price reveal uses contrast framing. "Not $297... not $197... just $97 today."

Section-specific guidance:

  • Hero: Headline states the outcome. Subhead names the mechanism. CTA is visible without scrolling.
  • Problem: Use prospect's own language. Be specific — name the frustration, the cost, the emotional toll.
  • Mechanism: Explain WHY this works, not just WHAT it does. Use analogy or metaphor.
  • Features → Benefits: 3-column or icon grid. Each feature gets a "which means..." benefit translation.
  • Social Proof: Mix types — testimonial quotes, star ratings, logos, numbers ("10,000+ customers").
  • FAQ: 5-7 questions. Each answer is a disguised objection handler.

Step 4 — Traffic Source Alignment

Adjust copy tone and structure for traffic source:

  • Paid Social: Hook-heavy hero, shorter sections, more visual cues
  • Native: Editorial tone in hero, softer sell, more proof
  • Search: Intent-matched headline, features prominent, comparison-friendly
  • Email: Assumes pre-awareness, can skip problem section, go straight to offer
  • Organic: SEO-friendly headlines, longer mechanism section, educational tone

Output Format

## Landing Page: [Product Name]

**Page Type:** [long_form | short_form | hybrid]
**Traffic Source:** [source]
**Price:** [price point]
**Guarantee:** [guarantee summary]

---

### SECTION 1: HERO
**Headline:** [headline]
**Subhead:** [subhead]
**CTA Button:** [button text]
**Supporting text:** [1-2 lines below CTA]

---

### SECTION 2: PROBLEM
**Section Headline:** [headline]
[Copy — 100-200 words]

---

[...continue for each section...]

---

### VALUE STACK

| What You Get | Value |
|-------------|-------|
| [Item 1] | $XX |
| [Item 2] | $XX |
| [Item 3 — Bonus] | $XX |
| **Total Value** | **$XXX** |
| **Today's Price** | **$XX** |

---

## Page Summary

- **Total sections:** X
- **Estimated word count:** X,XXX
- **CTA placements:** 3 (hero, mid-page, final)
- **Mobile screens:** ~XX

Quality Criteria

  • Hero headline must communicate the core outcome in under 10 words
  • No section should require more than 2 thumb-scrolls on mobile
  • Value stack total must be 5-10x the actual price — if not, add bonuses
  • Every CTA button must use action language ("Get [Result] Now"), never generic ("Submit", "Click Here")
  • FAQ must address price objection, skepticism objection, and "is this for me?" objection
  • Social proof must appear before AND after the price reveal
  • 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-ideation for the core mechanism
  • Run /hook-battery for hero headline options
  • Run /lead-writer for alternative hero section approaches
  • Drive traffic to this page from /advertorial-writer or /email-promo
  • Validate 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.