agentleFS
moronireismoronireis/agent-system-partners/.claude/skills/copywriting-frameworks/SKILL.md

copywriting-frameworks

Skill0 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Direct-response copywriting toolkit — awareness levels, the 4 persuasion angles (more-good/less-bad/status/ease), headline formulas, the proof hierarchy, objection-handling patterns, and CTA construction. Use when mkt-copywriter or mkt-content is drafting any persuasive copy.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Default to problem-aware when the level is unclear — it's the safest assumption for cold-to-warm content.

    line 16
  2. Distinctive:

    Before/after contrast — two concrete states, no vague middle.

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Every major section making a claim needs proof at tier 2 or above.

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    Never argue with an objection in the reader's own voice.

    line 53

≈ “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

Copywriting Frameworks

Awareness Levels (determine the lead before anything else)

  1. Unaware — doesn't know they have the problem. Lead with story or a provocative observation, never with the offer.
  2. Problem-aware — knows the problem, not the solution category. Lead by naming and agitating the problem precisely.
  3. Solution-aware — knows solutions exist, hasn't picked one. Lead with the unique mechanism.
  4. Product-aware — knows this specific product, hasn't bought. Lead with proof and objection handling.
  5. Most aware — ready to buy, just needs the offer and the terms. Lead with the offer itself.

Default to problem-aware when the level is unclear — it's the safest assumption for cold-to-warm content.

Persuasion Angles (cover at least 2 before drafting)

  • More-good — what they gain: concrete upside, result, status if achieved.
  • Less-bad — what they avoid: the pain removed, the cost of staying where they are.
  • Status — how the decision itself changes how they're seen, by peers, a board, a team, a market.
  • Ease — how much less time, effort, or risk this path takes versus the alternative.

Generate one line of raw material per angle before writing a single sentence of final copy — angles are inputs, not the copy itself. A single piece rarely needs all four weighted equally, but should draw on at least two.

Headline / Hook Formulas

  • Startling statistic — a number that reframes the stakes.
  • Contrarian claim — states the opposite of common belief, then proves it.
  • Specific outcome promise — names the result and the timeframe.
  • Before/after contrast — two concrete states, no vague middle.
  • Curiosity gap — names that something exists without revealing it yet.
  • Direct question — one the reader can't help but answer in their head.

Generate multiple headline candidates across these formulas before picking one — never ship the first draft of a headline.

Proof Hierarchy (weakest to strongest — stack upward, never rely on one tier alone)

  1. Claim (unsupported assertion) — never sufficient alone.
  2. Testimonial (named, specific, ideally with a number attached).
  3. Data / aggregate results (sample size, percentages, before-after averages).
  4. Case study (a named journey, a specific mechanism, a specific outcome).
  5. Live demonstration (the reader can verify it happening in real time).

Every major section making a claim needs proof at tier 2 or above; a bold claim needs tier 3 or higher.

Objection-Handling Patterns

  • Universal objections to pre-handle in nearly every piece: cost, time, trust ("will this work for someone like me"), and fear of loss or change.
  • Map each objection to the specific proof or reframe that answers it — objections need evidence, not just reassurance.
  • Sequence objection-handling earlier in the funnel so it weakens resistance BEFORE the pitch arrives — a pitch that has to do all the objection-handling in real time starts from a deficit.
  • Never argue with an objection in the reader's own voice; reframe the premise behind it instead.

CTA Construction

  • One CTA per asset — competing calls to action reduce the effectiveness of both.
  • Name the specific next action, not a vague verb: "book a diagnostic call" beats "learn more."
  • Attach a reason to act now only when the reason is real (see offer-design's ethics section on scarcity/urgency) — never attach urgency that isn't real.
  • CTA copy should restate the outcome, not just the mechanics: "Yes, I want [outcome]" consistently outperforms "Submit."

Format Notes

  • Sales / landing pages: problem → agitation → mechanism → proof → offer → objections → CTA, repeated as scroll depth requires.
  • Email: one idea per email; subject line tested independently of body copy; CTA appears at least twice (mid and end) in longer emails.
  • VSL scripts: mark emotional beats and pacing explicitly (e.g., [PATTERN INTERRUPT], [PROOF MONTAGE], [OFFER REVEAL]) so the structure survives editing and re-recording.
  • Ads: the hook must land inside the platform's retention window (see format-hooks) before any persuasion architecture below it even gets read.

Pre-Delivery Checklist

  • Awareness level identified and the lead matches it
  • At least 2 persuasion angles present
  • Every major claim has proof at tier 2 or above
  • The top 2-3 objections are pre-handled
  • Single, specific CTA
  • No filler adjectives standing in for a concrete number or scenario

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.