The Claude Power Library

Six divisions, ten agents each. An agent holds a role and decides which skills to run. A skill does one task.

Save to .claude/agents/. Each has a remit, a boundary on what it does not decide, and the skills it calls.

Division 1: Research, 10 agents

01  ICP Analyst
    Owns who you sell to. Derives it from closed-won, re-derives
    quarterly, and flags the gap between stated and actual.
    Not their call: the offer, or the price band.

02  Persona Researcher
    Owns what the buyer is measured on. Every field needs a source
    or it is marked UNKNOWN.

03  Voice of Customer Miner
    Owns the twelve verbatim phrases. Never paraphrases into
    marketing language.

04  Competitor Analyst
    Owns the honest difference, including where they are better.
    Never characterises their team, pricing motive or roadmap.

05  Signal Scout
    Owns the dated trigger per lead. Writes NONE rather than
    stretching an attribute into intent.

06  Account Researcher
    Owns the brief on a target account before anyone writes to it.
    Fans out across site, content, hiring and reviews, then
    synthesises once.

07  Committee Mapper
    Owns who can say no. Economic buyer, champion, blocker,
    technical evaluator. UNKNOWN is a valid answer.

08  Title Mapper
    Owns the difference between the title you search and the title
    that signs. Those are frequently not the same.

09  Market Watcher
    Owns what the audience is currently arguing about. Ranks by
    comment-to-reaction ratio, not total engagement.

10  Proof Librarian
    Owns what can be claimed publicly. Maintains the permission
    column and refuses any claim without a row.

Agent 10 is the one that protects you. Every other agent pulls proof from its file, which is why no agent in the department can invent a number.

Division 2: Content, 10 agents

11  Content Strategist
    Owns the calendar. Kills ideas that serve no pillar.
    Not their call: the voice, or whether a claim is defensible.

12  Pillar Architect
    Owns the three repeatable topics. A fourth means one is not
    working and nobody has admitted it.

13  Hook Writer
    Owns lines one and two. Writes five per post and picks the one
    that is true, not the one that is loudest.

14  Post Writer
    Owns the body. Matches the three reference posts, never the
    adjective list.

15  Humaniser
    Owns the final pass. Numbers not all round, one genuine break
    in the flow, no perfect parallelism, no em dashes.

16  Carousel Builder
    Owns saveable content. One idea per slide, slide one carries
    the whole promise.

17  POV Extractor
    Owns the contrarian position inside a transcript. Founders say
    things in conversation they would never write down.

18  Lead Magnet Writer
    Owns the comment-CTA post. Three variants, three keywords, and
    the delivery planned before posting.

19  Repurposer
    Owns turning one long asset into a month. Nothing is written
    from a blank page.

20  Editorial Planner
    Owns four weeks visible at all times. One post a day maximum,
    because same-day multiples suppress each other.

Division 3: Engagement, 10 agents

21  Engagement Lead
    Owns the daily session. 25 minutes, six rules, every comment
    scored before posting.

22  Borrowed Reach Finder
    Owns the large-post list. Ranks by velocity, not total. A post
    at 200 after an hour beats one at 600 after two days.

23  Comment Scorer
    Owns quality. Below 7 gets rewritten, not posted. Target an
    8.0 session average.

24  Structure Rotator
    Owns variety. No two comments in a session share a shape.
    Repetition is the second strongest tell after promotion.

25  High Intent Scanner
    Owns the same-day signals. Five minutes every morning, before
    anything else. A two-day-old recommendation request is late.

26  Reciprocity Tracker
    Owns who engaged and was never reciprocated. The cheapest warm
    list available and the one nobody schedules.

27  Community Watcher
    Owns the groups and events where the ICP actually is.

28  Reply Commenter
    Owns answering every comment on your own posts, publicly.
    Keeps the post alive, which extends the import window.

29  Profile Optimiser
    Owns the nine checks and the rewrite. Runs before any sending,
    because every request drives a profile visit.

30  Social Selling Lead
    Owns the two-week engagement phase before any DM in a warm
    motion. The pitch never appears before touch three.

Agent 22's velocity rule is the one most people get wrong. Total reactions tells you a post already peaked. Velocity tells you it is still travelling.

Division 4: Outreach, 10 agents

31  List Builder
    Owns sourcing. Post engagers first, search last. Someone who
    commented has done something; someone matching a filter has not.

32  Filter Pass
    Owns keep, drop, unsure. Runs on the cheapest model. Keeps
    dropped.csv so the filter is auditable.

33  List Grader
    Owns the gate. A to F across eight dimensions. Below B,
    nothing sends.

34  Engager Scorer
    Owns the order. Depth times fit, maximum 9. At 20 a day, the
    order decides the quarter.

35  Account Tierer
    Owns effort allocation. Tier 1 gets one-to-one, tier 3 gets a
    template and whatever capacity is left.

36  Connection Note Writer
    Owns the note. Under 200 characters, no ask, specific and
    dated. Acceptance below 15% means this file, not the sequence.

37  Opener Writer
    Owns message one. Under 300 characters, one ask, the signal
    named specifically.

38  Sequence Builder
    Owns the node list. Four touches maximum, no wait node after a
    connection request, reply stops everything.

39  Merge Prompt Writer
    Owns per-lead personalisation at send time. Only the opening
    line varies; the ask stays identical so results are comparable.

40  Send Budget Splitter
    Owns the daily allocation across campaigns. Refuses any volume
    above the account ceiling.

Agents 38 to 40 produce specs rather than sends. Prosp is where the spec runs: the builder actions map one to one, and it imports commenters and likers straight from any post URL including future reactions, which is what agent 31 relies on.

Division 5: Conversation, 10 agents

41  Reply Classifier
    Owns routing. Seven categories, confidence 1 to 10, escalates
    below 8. Sarcasm and politeness read the same in text.

42  Register Matcher
    Owns tone. Matches their length, punctuation and formality
    before drafting. Mismatch is why warm threads cool.

43  One Question Filter
    Owns brevity. Two questions gets an answer to the easier one.
    Three gets nothing, because now it is work.

44  Objection Handler
    Owns the five to ten real objections. Agree with the true
    part, add one fact, ask one question.

45  Next Step Closer
    Owns the ask. Decides IF before HOW, names the length and the
    agenda, offers two concrete times.

46  Voice Note Scripter
    Owns the 20-second script. Written for speech, one filler
    word, never sent alone.

47  Timing Tracker
    Owns the not-now replies. Captures the date they named and
    diarises it rather than losing them.

48  Wrong Person Router
    Owns the most valuable and most binned category. Asks who owns
    it, feeds the answer back into the ICP.

49  Handoff Detector
    Owns when a human takes over. Price, scope, timeline,
    procurement, or any frustration: hand off same day.

50  Meeting Prepper
    Owns the brief before the call. What we know, the five gaps
    ranked, the two likely objections, the disqualifiers.

Agent 48 pays for itself. One corrected job title fed back into the ICP is worth more than the deal that prompted it.

Division 6: Reporting, 10 agents

51  Campaign Diagnostician
    Owns the weekly read. Works the chain in order, stops at the
    first failure, outputs ONE change.

52  Acceptance Diagnostician
    Owns stage one. Note, list, or profile. Checks the profile
    last and finds the problem there more often than expected.

53  Reply Diagnostician
    Owns stage two. Samples 20 sent messages and counts which
    checks each one failed.

54  Growth Diagnostician
    Owns content performance. Reach, comments, delivery,
    conversations, followers. Stops at the first failure.

55  Source Tagger
    Owns attribution. Lead source names the CAMPAIGN, never the
    channel. "LinkedIn" tells you nothing in three months.

56  CRM Hygienist
    Owns the record. Flags, never deletes. Stale is not the same
    as wrong.

57  Weekly Reporter
    Owns what goes out. Every metric pairs with an action, every
    percentage sits beside its absolute.

58  Win Loss Analyst
    Owns closed deals, both kinds. The question for a loss is what
    they chose instead, not whether price was a factor.

59  Account Health Checker
    Owns the sending account. Seven checks weekly, before it
    breaks rather than after.

60  Signal Attribution Analyst
    Owns the monthly question: which signal tier produced the
    booked meetings. That line changes next month's targeting.

Agents 51 to 53 need figures no CRM holds. Prosp supplies them per campaign and per account: requests sent and accepted, messages sent, replies received, pushed natively to HubSpot or out through 12 webhook events and a REST API.

Which ten to install first

Sixty agents is a triggering collision problem if you install them all at once.

01  ICP Analyst
10  Proof Librarian
29  Profile Optimiser
21  Engagement Lead
22  Borrowed Reach Finder
31  List Builder
33  List Grader
37  Opener Writer
41  Reply Classifier
51  Campaign Diagnostician

Those ten run a complete motion on their own. Add the rest as the gaps appear rather than in advance.

Five categories, ten each. A skill does one task. Save to .claude/skills/.

24 of these ship in the agency repo already. The rest are written out here.

Foundation, 10 skills

Skill	What it does, and the rule that matters
icp-from-closed-won	Derives the ICP from deals. Fewer than 10 closed-won means say so, not guess.
persona-builder	What the buyer is measured on. Every field sourced or marked UNKNOWN.
voice-of-customer	Twelve verbatim phrases. Never paraphrased into marketing language.
disqualifier-writer	Who this is not for. This is what the filter filters on.
proof-library-builder	One row per result, with a permission column. No permission, no name.
positioning-line	The one sentence. If it repels nobody, it is too broad to build on.
profile-optimizer	Nine checks then the rewrite. Headline truncates at 60 characters on mobile.
tam-sanity-check	The send maths. Under four weeks of sending means the ICP is too narrow.
title-mapper	The title that signs, not the one you search. Frequently different.
competitor-brief	The honest difference, including where they are better.

---
name: icp-from-closed-won
description: Derive an ICP from closed-won deals rather than a
  workshop. Use before any list building or targeting.
---
Pull closed-won, last 12 months. Per deal: company size, industry,
buyer job title, deal size, days to close, and the trigger.

OUTPUT to context/icp.md:
1. Three attributes correlating with fast closes
2. Three correlating with long or lost deals
3. Exact job titles that actually signed, verbatim
4. Size band with the highest win rate
5. A searchable filter string built from point 3
6. The gap between the stated ICP and the actual one
7. Who this is explicitly NOT for

FAIL CLOSED with fewer than 10 deals. Report the count and stop.
FAIL CLOSED if the export has no job titles. Name the missing field.

Point 6 is the deliverable. A real buyer who is a different title
from the one on the website changes everything downstream.

List building, 10 skills

Skill	What it does, and the rule that matters
list-builder	Sources ranked by intent. Post engagers first, search last.
competitor-engagers	Their commenters. Capture the post topic, not just the lead.
job-post-trigger	Hiring for the role you replace. Budget and need at once.
funding-trigger	30 to 90 days post-announcement. Reference what they said they would do with it, never the amount.
event-attendee-import	Attendees of a relevant event, with the event named in the opener.
fit-filter	Keep, drop, unsure, 12-word reason. Cheapest model. Keep dropped.csv.
list-grader	Eight dimensions, A to F. Below B nothing sends.
engager-scorer	Depth times fit, maximum 9. Sort descending. That order is the campaign.
account-tiering	Three tiers, three effort budgets. Tier 1 over 20% means the criteria are loose.
duplicate-detector	Within the list, against past campaigns, and across every active campaign.

---
name: engager-scorer
description: Score post engagers so the send budget goes in the right
  order. Cheapest model, lowest effort.
---
DEPTH x FIT, each 1 to 3, multiplied. Maximum 9.

DEPTH  1 reaction only
       2 short comment
       3 substantive comment, or engaged more than once

FIT    1 adjacent to the ICP
       2 right role wrong company, or the reverse
       3 exact match

6 to 9  contact this week
3 to 5  hold, watch for a second signal
1 to 2  no outreach. Keep the row, spend no send on it.

Add a score column, sort descending.

At 20 connection requests a day, account-wide, a 400-row list is
five weeks of the entire budget. The order decides the quarter, not
the size.

Content, 10 skills

Skill	What it does, and the rule that matters
content-pillars	Three repeatable topics, never themes. A fourth means one is failing.
hook-writer	Five per post. Delete the body: if the hook still feels complete, rewrite it.
post-writer	Matches the three reference posts. One idea per line.
humanizer	Seven-point strip. Numbers not all round, one genuine break in the flow.
lead-magnet-post	Three variants, three keywords, CTA by connection state.
carousel-builder	8 to 12 slides. Slide one carries the whole promise.
pov-extractor	The one position they would defend under pushback. That is the post.
repurposer	One long asset into 10 to 12 standalone ideas. Never a blank page.
editorial-calendar	Four weeks visible. Status per row, pillar per slot.
trend-research	Ranks by comment-to-reaction ratio. High comments means a fight, and a fight is where attention is.

---
name: humanizer
description: Strip the tells of AI-generated writing. The final pass
  on every post before it publishes.
---
Write the body first, then the hook. A hook written first constrains
the body to fit it.

THEN STRIP:
- Numbers not all round. 85 to 11, not 85 to 9.
- No perfect parallelism in lists. One element differs in length
  or form.
- One genuine break in the flow of thought, not an inserted
  "anyway".
- Case studies carry one vague detail beside one hyper-specific
  one. Real memory is uneven.
- Not every post resolves. One a week ends open.
- No em dashes anywhere.
- One idea per line, three lines maximum per paragraph.

FINAL TEST: could a competent person have written this in five
minutes? If it reads like it took a committee, that is what it
reads as.

Messaging, 10 skills

Skill	What it does, and the rule that matters
signal-finder	Dated and verifiable, with the URL. No signal means NONE.
connection-note-writer	Under 200 characters, no ask. Sales Navigator required to send one.
opener-writer	Under 300 characters, one ask, signal named specifically.
sequence-builder	Four touches, no wait node after a connection request.
merge-prompt-writer	Only the opening line varies. Keep the ask identical.
voice-note-scripter	Under 20 seconds, roughly 50 words, never sent alone.
message-self-check	Seven checks, five must pass, or rewrite rather than send.
reply-classifier	Seven categories. Below 8 confidence, always escalate.
objection-handler	Agree with the true part, add one fact, ask one question.
next-step-closer	Decide IF before HOW. Tag after booking so the sequence stops.

---
name: message-self-check
description: Check a drafted message before it sends. The last gate.
  Run as a fresh reviewer, not as the writer.
---
SEVEN CHECKS. Five must pass.

[ ] Under 300 characters
[ ] One question only
[ ] References something specific and dated, not a category
[ ] No banned opener
[ ] No claim absent from context/proof.md
[ ] Register matches context/voice.md
[ ] No em dashes

Report pass or fail per check WITH the evidence. Never summarise as
"looks good".

Fewer than five passing means rewrite, not send. A message failing
three checks will not be rescued by the follow-up.

BANNED OPENERS, burnt:
"I came across your profile"
"I help [vertical] with [service]"
"Are you open to a quick chat"
"Quick question for you"

Engagement and diagnostics, 10 skills

Skill	What it does, and the rule that matters
engagement-session	25 minutes, six rules, every comment scored before posting.
comment-scorer	Below 7 rewritten, not posted. Target an 8.0 session average.
borrowed-reach	Ranked by velocity, not total. 200 after an hour beats 600 after two days.
high-intent-scanner	Five minutes daily. Signals 1 and 2 are same-day or not at all.
reciprocity-tracker	Who engaged twice and was never acknowledged. Cheapest warm list there is.
campaign-diagnostic	Five stages in order, stop at the first failure, ONE change.
acceptance-diagnostic	Five checks. Check five is the profile, and it is the one people miss.
growth-diagnostic	Reach, comments, delivery, conversations, followers. Stage five is the profile again.
source-tagger	Lead source names the campaign and the signal type, never the channel.
account-health-check	Seven checks weekly. Idle 7+ days gets parked and sends nothing.

---
name: campaign-diagnostic
description: Diagnose which stage is broken. Weekly. Stops at the
  first failure rather than reporting everything.
---
Pull: requests sent, accepted, messages sent, replied, meetings.

Work the chain IN ORDER. Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE BELOW 15%
  The connection note, or the list is off-ICP. NOT the sequence.
  Do not touch the sequence.
2 ACCEPTANCE FINE, REPLIES BELOW 10%
  The list is fine. The first message is the problem.
3 REPLIES FINE, MEETINGS LOW
  The ask is mistimed, or the offer is wrong.
4 MEETINGS FINE, NOTHING CLOSING
  Not an outreach problem. Price or offer fit.
5 ALL FINE, VOLUME LOW
  Not quality. Check the daily cap split across campaigns.

Output the failing stage, the evidence, and ONE change.

Never more than one change per week. Change three and a lift tells
you nothing about which one worked.

If figures are incomplete, name which stage cannot be assessed.

Stages 1 to 3 need figures no CRM holds. Prosp supplies them per campaign and per account, pushed natively to HubSpot or out through 12 webhook events including Message Replied and Connection Accepted.

Ten categories, ten each. No install needed. Paste and run.

Start here. If the prompts produce generic output, the problem is context/voice.md, not the prompt.

ICP and targeting, 10

01  Pull my closed-won from the last 12 months and tell me the
    three attributes that correlate with a fast close, with the
    evidence. If I have fewer than 10 deals, say so and stop.

02  From this export, list the exact job titles that signed,
    verbatim. Then list the titles I have been targeting. Show me
    the gap.

03  Build the searchable filter string from the titles that
    actually signed. Flag any title that reads right but never
    signed.

04  Who is this explicitly not for? Give me six disqualifiers,
    each with one line on why it fails.

05  Estimate how many companies match this filter. At 20
    connection requests a day, how many weeks to work the whole
    list? If it is under four, the ICP is too narrow.

06  Read these 20 headlines and return KEEP, DROP or UNSURE per
    row with a 12-word reason. Do not guess on ambiguous ones.

07  Grade this list A to F across ICP fit, title accuracy,
    affordability, completeness, deduplication, recency,
    reachability and signal strength. Name the two lowest.

08  Split this list into three tiers with a different effort
    budget each. If tier 1 is over 20% of the list, tell me the
    criteria are too loose.

09  Map the buying committee at this company: economic buyer,
    champion, blocker, technical evaluator. Mark UNKNOWN rather
    than assigning the nearest title.

10  Compare my stated ICP against my last 20 closed-lost deals.
    What do the losses have in common that the wins do not?

Signals and research, 10

11  Find one dated, verifiable reason to contact each of these
    leads now. Record the date and the URL. If there is no
    signal, write NONE rather than stretching an attribute.

12  Rank these signals into tier 1, 2 and 3 by how close they sit
    to a budget decision, and tell me why each one lands there.

13  Search job boards for companies hiring [ROLE] within my ICP.
    Quote the exact line in the posting that reveals the need.

14  Find companies that raised in the last 90 days in my ICP.
    Tell me what they said they would spend it on, not the amount.

15  Score each lead: signal tier, engagement depth, ICP fit, and
    recency of signal. Sum to 12. Sort descending.

16  Research this account across their site, their content, their
    hiring and their reviews. Synthesise once, at the end.

17  What is my audience arguing about right now? Rank by
    comment-to-reaction ratio, not total engagement. High
    comments means tension.

18  Read this competitor's last 10 posts. What is the position
    they hold that their audience pushes back on?

19  Find the twelve phrases my buyers actually use to describe
    this problem. Quote them exactly. Never paraphrase into
    marketing language.

20  This lead's signal is 90 days old. Is it still live? Tell me
    what would need to be true, and how to check.

Prompt 17 is the one that changes a content calendar. Reactions mean agreement. Comments mean a fight, and a fight is where attention sits.

Profile, 10

21  Audit this profile against nine checks: proof, empty
    adjectives, clarity, gaps, call to action, visual
    consistency, mobile readability, searchability, contact
    hygiene. PASS, WEAK or FAIL with evidence.

22  Write three headline options, each character-counted, each
    flagged for where it truncates at 60 characters on mobile.
    Never job-title-at-company.

23  Rewrite the About in four movements: hook, the problem they
    solve, proof, one CTA. First person. Keywords in the first
    two lines.

24  What should be pinned in Featured, and why that rather than
    the alternatives?

25  Rewrite each Experience entry as action plus method plus
    measurable outcome. If there is no outcome, ask me for one.

26  Cut the Skills section to 10 to 15 clusters that match the
    terms my buyer actually searches.

27  Count the words in this profile that could describe anyone.
    List them. Each one is a wasted line.

28  Does the banner say the same thing as the headline? If not,
    tell me which one is wrong.

29  Read this profile as the buyer I am targeting. What would
    stop you accepting a connection request from this person?

30  My acceptance rate is below 15%. Check the note, the list,
    and the profile, in that order. Stop at the first failure.

Content, 10

31  Define three content pillars. Each must be a repeatable topic,
    not a theme. If I cannot talk about one for twenty minutes
    without notes, tell me it is not mine.

32  Write five hooks for this post. Then delete the body and tell
    me which hooks still feel complete. Those are summaries, not
    hooks.

33  Write this post matching the three reference posts in my
    voice file. Not the adjective list. The actual posts.

34  Strip the AI tells from this draft: round numbers, perfect
    parallelism, no break in the flow, everything resolving, em
    dashes.

35  Turn this long asset into 10 to 12 standalone post ideas. One
    idea per line. No idea that needs the others to make sense.

36  Build a carousel from this. 8 to 12 slides, one idea each.
    Slide one carries the whole promise on its own.

37  Read this call transcript. Give me three claims my market
    agrees with, two it disagrees with, and one I would defend
    under pushback. The last one is the post.

38  Write a lead magnet post. Three variants, three different
    keywords in the same family. Never numbered variants.

39  Which of my last 20 posts produced conversations rather than
    reach? Tell me what those have in common.

40  Build a four-week calendar, three posts a week, one pillar
    named per slot. Never two posts on the same day.

Engagement, 10

41  Find five posts published in the last six hours, already at
    200+ reactions and climbing, on my pillar topics. Rank by
    velocity, not total.

42  Write five comments for this session. No two share a
    structure. At most two mention my own work. At least one is
    outside my niche.

43  Score this comment 1 to 10. Below 7, rewrite it rather than
    posting.

44  Rotate the structure: counterexample, specific number,
    narrowing question, mild disagreement, extension, short
    reaction. Which am I overusing this week?

45  Scan for same-day signals: someone in my ICP posting about
    the problem I solve, or asking for a recommendation in my
    category. Those are same-day or not at all.

46  Who has commented on my posts more than once and never been
    acknowledged? That is my warmest list.

47  This comment got 40 replies. Read them and tell me what the
    disagreement actually is.

48  Write a reply to every comment on this post. Vary the
    structure. Never the same acknowledgement twice.

49  My reach is falling. Is it the content, or is it that I
    stopped commenting before posting? Check the session log.

50  Find the three accounts whose posts my ICP reliably engages
    with. Those comment sections are my list.

Openers and sequences, 10

51  Write a connection note under 200 characters. Specific,
    dated, no ask. A request is not the place for one.

52  Write the opener: line one the signal dated and specific,
    line two the inference, line three the question. Under 300
    characters.

53  Write one opener per tier. Tier 1 leads with the signal, tier
    2 with the observable problem, tier 3 with the segment
    pattern and no personalisation claim I cannot back.

54  Check this message against the burnt openers: "I came across
    your profile", "I help X with Y", "Are you open to a quick
    chat", "Quick question".

55  Build the sequence as a node list. Action, delay, exact copy,
    exit condition per node. Four touches maximum.

56  Convert this copy into merge prompts. Only the opening line
    varies. State what to do when a variable is empty. Never
    allow "Hi ,".

57  Script a voice note under 20 seconds, roughly 50 words.
    Written for speech. One filler word, not two.

58  Run the seven checks on this message. Five must pass or I
    rewrite. Report each with evidence, not a summary.

59  I want to send 60 a day across three campaigns. Tell me why
    that is wrong and give me the correct split.

60  Write the close-out message for touch four. Permission to say
    no, and a specific date to check back.

Prompt 60 produces more replies than the two touches before it combined, because permission to say no removes the pressure that was stopping them answering.

Replies and objections, 10

61  Classify this reply into exactly one of: interested, timing,
    objection, wrong person, not interested, auto reply,
    escalate. Give me confidence 1 to 10 and the sentence that
    decided it.

62  Match their register before drafting. Length, punctuation,
    capitalisation, formality, emoji. Show me what you matched.

63  Count the questions in this draft. If more than one, keep the
    one whose answer changes what I do next and cut the rest.

64  This is an objection. Agree with the part that is true, add
    one fact they do not know, ask one question that moves it
    forward.

65  Should I ask for the meeting yet? Decide IF before HOW, and
    tell me which condition is or is not met.

66  Write the ask: name the length, name the agenda, offer the
    link and two concrete times. Never "let me know what works".

67  They said not now and named a month. Draft the diarised
    follow-up and tell me when to send it.

68  Wrong person. Draft the message asking who owns it, and tell
    me what to change in my ICP file when they answer.

69  They said "we already use [competitor]". That is information,
    not rejection. What is the one question to ask?

70  Review this thread and tell me whether to keep going or stop.
    If they have said no twice, say stop.

Lead magnets and delivery, 10

71  List what is literally inside this resource. Objects, counts,
    sections. If I cannot list objects, tell me it is not
    finished.

72  Write the CTA for mostly-connected and mostly-not-connected
    audiences. Both versions.

73  Pick three keywords in the same semantic family. Never
    numbered. Tell me why these three.

74  This post will pull 500 comments. At 20 connection requests a
    day, how long to deliver to everyone? Give me the split.

75  Score these commenters depth times fit. Who gets the resource
    this week and who waits?

76  Write the delivery message. Three lines: thanks, the link,
    one question. Never pitch here.

77  Write the follow-up for people who never opened it. Name the
    single most useful thing inside, specifically.

78  Which of my three post variants pulled? Tell me what that
    says about the angle, not just the number.

79  Draft a public reply to each comment on this post. Vary them.
    Public replies keep the post alive.

80  My magnet got 400 comments and no conversations. Diagnose it.
    Start with whether the resource and the offer are related.

Prompt 80 catches the most common failure. A magnet unrelated to what you sell produces a large list you cannot convert, and it feels like success for about three weeks.

Reporting and diagnostics, 10

81  Work the diagnostic chain in order and stop at the first
    failure. Do not report five stages when the first is broken.

82  My acceptance is 11%. Check in order: is a note attached, is
    it specific, does it contain an ask, is the list the ICP, is
    the profile optimised.

83  Sample 20 sent messages. Count how many failed each of the
    seven checks. Tell me which check fails most.

84  Give me one change for this week. One. Not three.

85  Which signal tier produced the booked meetings this month?
    That line changes next month's targeting.

86  Build the weekly report. Every metric pairs with an action.
    Every percentage sits beside its absolute. No impressions as
    a headline.

87  Set the lead source to the campaign name and the signal type,
    never the channel. "LinkedIn" tells me nothing in three
    months.

88  Run the seven account health checks. Is anything parked,
    capped, or duplicated across campaigns?

89  Read these closed-lost deals. What did they choose instead,
    and why? Price is the reason people give when they do not
    want to give the real one.

90  Compare this month to last. Tell me what changed, and whether
    it was the one thing I changed or something else.

Agency and multi-account, 10

91  Derive this client's ICP from their closed-won, not mine.
    Show me the gap between who they say they sell to and who
    signed.

92  Build this client's voice file. Three of their real posts,
    pasted in full. Tell me if three is not enough to work from.

93  Check for overlap between two client lists. Same prospect,
    two accounts, is a problem I need to see before sending.

94  This is a brand new client account. Give me the ramp: what
    daily volume in week one, week two, week three.

95  Split the daily budget across this client's three campaigns.
    Tier 1 gets the majority even though it is smallest.

96  Write the weekly client report. Categories not raw counts.
    Interested versus timing versus objection.

97  Rank this client's objections by frequency across the last
    five weeks. That ranking is a positioning insight.

98  Draft the handoff brief for this booked call: the signal, the
    thread, their problem in their words, what I committed to.

99  Who presses send on this account? Give me the three options
    and which belongs in a contract.

100 This client wants daily posts. Tell me why three a week is
    the right answer and how to say it without sounding like
    under-delivery.

30 workflows on a schedule. Daily, weekly, monthly.

Build these last. Automate what already works manually, or you automate a broken process and it breaks faster.

Daily, 12 workflows

Time	Workflow	What it does, and the stop condition
07:00	High intent scan	ICP posting about the problem, or asking for a recommendation. Same-day or not at all. Nothing found means one line, not a report.
07:15	Borrowed reach scan	Posts under six hours old, past 200 reactions, on a pillar topic. Ranked by velocity.
08:00	Daily post	Publishes today's scheduled post, then an auto-comment 20 minutes later. The gap is deliberate.
09:00	Engagement session	25 minutes. 8 to 10 likes, 5 comments, each scored before posting.
10:00	DM prep	Drafts replies for human review. Never sends.
11:00	Reply classification	Every inbound sorted into seven categories. Below 8 confidence escalates.
12:00	Connection top-up	Fills the daily allocation from the score-sorted list. Refuses to exceed the cap.
14:00	Post engager import	Pulls new commenters and likers from active posts, including late reactions.
15:00	Comment reply pass	Public replies to every comment on your own posts. Keeps the post alive.
16:00	Reply to replies	Second pass on threads that moved during the day.
17:00	Tag and log	Writes lead source, signal type and tier against every new lead.
18:00	Cap check	Sends used against allocation. Flags anything approaching the ceiling.

Start with three, not twelve. The 07:00 scan, the 09:00 session, and the 11:00 classification. Those three run a complete daily motion, and adding the rest before those are reliable just multiplies the failures.

The 20-minute gap in the 08:00 workflow is deliberate. The first comment on your own post lifts early engagement, and 20 minutes is late enough to read as a considered addition rather than a planted one.

Weekly, 12 workflows

Day	Workflow	What it does, and the stop condition
Mon 08:00	Campaign diagnostic	Five stages in order, stop at the first failure, output ONE change.
Mon 08:30	Growth diagnostic	Reach, comments, delivery, conversations, followers. Stage five is the profile.
Mon 09:00	Account health check	Seven checks. Parked, capped, restricted, 2FA, duplicates.
Mon 10:00	Warm signal scan	Anyone marked Contacted or Cold who has since engaged, viewed, or changed job.
Tue 09:00	List build	New rows from the week's best sources. Enrich nothing yet.
Tue 10:00	Filter and grade	Keep, drop, unsure. Then A to F. Below B, rebuild rather than proceed.
Tue 11:00	Signal pass	One dated trigger per surviving row, with the URL.
Wed 09:00	Content batch	Next week's three posts, drafted and humanised, status DRAFT.
Wed 15:00	Experiment audit	What changed last week, and whether the lift can be attributed to it.
Thu 09:00	Sequence top-up	New rows into the campaign, within the split.
Fri 16:00	Weekly report	Every metric paired with an action. Drafted, not sent.
Sat 17:00	Next week planner	Calendar for the coming week. Pillar named per slot.

One change per week, from Monday's diagnostic. Change three things and Wednesday's experiment audit tells you nothing, because there is no way to attribute the lift.

Monthly and quarterly, 6 workflows

Cadence	Workflow	What it does
Monthly	Signal attribution	Which signal tier produced the booked meetings. The single line that changes next month's targeting.
Monthly	Win loss review	Both kinds. For losses, what they chose instead and why.
Monthly	Objection ranking	The five most frequent, ranked. A positioning insight as much as a sales one.
Monthly	CRM hygiene sweep	Incomplete records, normalisation, duplicates, orphans. Flags, never deletes.
Quarterly	ICP re-derivation	Against the last quarter's closed-won. If the winning title moved, everything downstream needs rebuilding.
Quarterly	Content refresh	Keep, refresh, consolidate or kill across the back catalogue. Five to ten pages, not the whole site.

The monthly signal attribution is the highest-value workflow in the department and the one most likely to get skipped, because it produces one line rather than a dashboard.

The rules that keep 30 workflows readable

A quiet period produces one line, not a report. Any workflow that emits a full report every run regardless of findings gets ignored by week three. Build the nothing-found branch first.

Nothing auto-sends. Every workflow that touches a person drafts and routes. A human presses send.

Every workflow states what it could not assess. A diagnostic on partial data points at the wrong stage, which is worse than no diagnostic.

Errors notify with the full payload. A failed import you cannot replay is a lost list.

Where the sending workflows run

Seven of the thirty touch a real person: the connection top-up, the post engager import, the comment reply pass, the sequence top-up, the reply classification, the cap check and the account health check.

Prosp runs those. Cloud-based, so the schedule does not depend on a machine staying open, with a free dedicated residential proxy per connected account and activity paced under the platform's thresholds.

The import pulls commenters and likers from any post URL including future reactions, which is what makes the 14:00 daily import a setting rather than a task. The unified inbox spans every connected account, so the 11:00 classification runs over one queue.

Lead states drive the Monday warm signal scan directly: Not Contacted, In Campaign, Contacted, Not Accepted after 14 days with auto-withdraw, Replied which stops the campaign, Duplicate, Blacklist, Failed.

Ten playbooks. Where a skill does one task, a playbook sequences the rest across days or weeks.

Each names the components it calls and what exists at the end.

1. The first 30 days

WEEK 1, DAY 1
  icp-from-closed-won, then profile-optimizer.
  Nothing sends this week.

WEEK 1 TO 2
  engagement-session and borrowed-reach, daily. That is all.
  A post published into a feed where nobody recognises the name
  reaches only the followers you are trying to grow.

WEEK 3
  content-pillars, then post-writer and humanizer.
  Three posts. One a day maximum.

WEEK 3 ONWARD
  list-builder, fit-filter, list-grader, signal-finder.
  Below B, rebuild rather than send.
  Launch at 10 requests a day, not 20.

WEEK 4
  Raise to 20 if acceptance is above 25%.
  campaign-diagnostic. ONE change.

Running outreach in week one works. It just works worse, and the difference is two weeks of free commenting you did not do.

2. The lead magnet play

STEP 1  List what is literally inside. Objects, counts, sections.
        If you cannot list objects, it is not finished.
STEP 2  lead-magnet-post. Three variants, three keywords.
STEP 3  Post one. Order the other two a week apart.
STEP 4  Import commenters and likers, future reactions on.
STEP 5  engager-scorer. Deliver to 6+ first.
STEP 6  Five nodes: import, 1st-level condition, message on YES,
        connection request then message on NO, reply-comment.
STEP 7  Delivery message: thanks, link, one question. No pitch.
STEP 8  Follow up once at day four, naming the single most useful
        thing inside.

Step 4 is where this compounds or collapses. A post pulling 500 comments is 500 people expecting a link against a 20 a day ceiling, which is five weeks. Plan it before posting.

3. The competitor harvest

1  Pick by audience overlap, not size. Top two only.
2  Commenters first, followers last.
3  CAPTURE THE POST TOPIC per lead, not just the lead.
4  Filter hard. Their employees, their customers, other
   competitors. Expect 60% to drop.
5  Score depth times fit.
6  Opener leads with the TOPIC. Never the competitor.
7  Touch three differentiates, still without naming them.

Never name the competitor anywhere. It reads as surveillance and it gets screenshotted.

If a prospect asks how you found them, answer honestly and briefly. Evasion at that point is worse than the question.

4. The content engine

MONTH START
  One long asset. The only original writing in the month.

THEN REPURPOSE
  8 to 12 standalone posts, one idea each
  4 to 6 comment-ready opinions for engagement sessions
  1 carousel from the strongest section

WEEKLY
  Mon  campaign-diagnostic and growth-diagnostic. One change.
  Tue  Publish. engagement-session.
  Wed  Publish. engagement-session.
  Fri  Publish if the week has earned it. Log what performed.

QUARTERLY
  Content refresh. Five to ten pieces, prioritised.

Never write channel content from a blank page. A missed day beats a thin post.

5. The warm engagement motion

For high-value accounts where a cold message would be wasted.

WEEKS 1 TO 2, NO MESSAGE AT ALL
  3 substantive comments per person, spread across days
  Each adds a perspective, a counterpoint or a number
  At least one on a post with 200+ reactions
  Never mention what you do. Not once.
  Score every comment. Below 7 gets rewritten, not posted.

THEN
  1  DM referencing the specific exchange, not the profile
  2  Wait 4 days. Answer substantively, no pitch.
  3  Wait 5 days. The relevance of what you do, one line.
  4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

The pitch does not appear until touch three. Earlier and the two weeks reads as a manoeuvre, which it then was.

This caps throughput long before the send ceiling does. Two weeks per prospect is the constraint, not 20 a day.

6. The job-post trigger play

The strongest budget signal available, and the least worked.

1  Search job boards for companies hiring the role your offer
   replaces or supports, within the ICP.
2  Capture the exact line in the posting that reveals the manual
   work or the gap. Verbatim.
3  Drop anything older than 45 days. Either it is filled or the
   budget moved.
4  The hiring manager is usually the buyer. Where not visible,
   run the committee mapper.
5  Opener line one QUOTES the posting, in quotation marks.
6  Line two names what that role will actually spend its week on.
7  Line three asks whether that is the bottleneck or a symptom.

A company posting for the role has budget allocated and an unmet need at the same time. Those two rarely coincide this visibly.

The quote is load-bearing. Paraphrasing loses the whole effect, because the point is that you read their actual posting.

7. The re-engagement play

The cheapest pipeline available and the one almost nobody runs.

SCAN WEEKLY for anyone marked Contacted or Cold who has since:
- Changed job
- Viewed your profile
- Engaged with a post
- Appeared in a funding or hiring announcement

A JOB CHANGE is the strongest. They arrive with ninety days to
show a change, no loyalty to the incumbent, and you already have
a relationship.

ROUTE into a fresh sequence referencing the NEW signal. Never the
old thread. "Following up on my message from March" is the worst
possible opener.

THREE SEGMENTS, three treatments:
  Went quiet after a call    reference the problem they named
  Never replied at all       treat as cold, new signal only
  Said not now, named a date diarised, land two weeks before

Most systems miss these entirely, because the lead is already marked Contacted and never re-enters the sequence.

8. The multi-account agency play

PER CLIENT, THREE FILES
  icp.md     from THEIR closed-won, never yours
  voice.md   three of THEIR posts, pasted in full
  proof.md   their results, with a permission column

NEVER SHARE A VOICE FILE. Two accounts that sound like the same
person is the fastest way to lose both.

PER ACCOUNT, ITS OWN CEILING
  New account starts at 10 a day, not 20
  Build to 20 over the first fortnight
  Never aggregate. Eight clients is eight budgets.

DEDUPLICATE ACROSS CLIENTS, not just within a list. Two clients
in adjacent niches will share prospects.

SETTLE WHO PRESSES SEND before the first reply arrives. You draft
and they approve, you send under their name with written
permission, or you hand off every reply. One of those goes in the
contract.

NEVER COMMIT to price, scope or timeline on their behalf.

The mechanics: Prosp runs one account per client profile, each created in its own browser session because cookies conflict, all managed from one workspace. White-label with your own domain plus a sub-workspace per client. The unified inbox spans every account with filters for campaign, replied and unread, which makes the daily reply pass one task rather than eight logins.

9. The diagnostic loop

EVERY MONDAY, IN ORDER, STOP AT THE FIRST FAILURE

1 ACCEPTANCE BELOW 15%
  The note, or the list is off-ICP. Then check the profile.
  Do not touch the sequence.
2 ACCEPTANCE FINE, REPLIES BELOW 10%
  The first message. Sample 20 and count the failed checks.
3 REPLIES FINE, MEETINGS LOW
  The ask is mistimed, or the offer is wrong.
4 MEETINGS FINE, NOTHING CLOSING
  Not outreach. Price or offer fit.
5 ALL FINE, VOLUME LOW
  The cap split across campaigns.

ONE CHANGE. Not three.

MONTHLY, ONE QUESTION:
Which signal tier produced the booked meetings?

The monthly question changes next month's targeting more than anything else in any report, and it is the one most likely to be skipped because it produces one line rather than a dashboard.

10. The 90-day build

All 250 components, in the order that survives contact.

DAYS 1 TO 7
  The three context files. Two hours on voice.md specifically.
  Run 10 prompts. If the output is generic, fix voice.md.

DAYS 8 TO 30
  Playbook 1, the first 30 days.
  Install the 10 starter skills only.

DAYS 31 TO 45
  Add the three daily workflows: high intent, engagement
  session, reply classification.
  Add playbook 2, the lead magnet.

DAYS 46 TO 60
  Add the weekly workflows. Monday diagnostic, Tuesday list
  build, Wednesday content batch.
  Add playbook 4, the content engine.

DAYS 61 TO 75
  Install the 10 starter agents.
  Add playbooks 3, 6 and 7.

DAYS 76 TO 90
  Remaining workflows and agents, as gaps appear.
  First quarterly ICP re-derivation.

Installing all 250 on day one produces a triggering collision problem you will spend a fortnight debugging, and none of it will be the work.

Three things to remember

1. Build the three context files first. 250 components reading one set of files behave like a department. 250 reading nothing behave like 250 tools.
2. Comments are free, sends are not. Which 20 people you contact on Monday decides the quarter, not how many rows you built.
3. One change per week. Change three and a lift tells you nothing about which one worked, which is the difference between a system and a habit.

250 components write it. Prosp sends it 💜

↳ Start a 14 Day Free Trial 💜 ↳ Watch Full Tutorial ▶️

Ten categories, five each. No install needed. Paste and run.

Start here. If these produce generic output, the problem is content-os.md, not the prompt.

Strategy and research, 5

01  Read my last quarter's numbers and tell me the one thing I
    should try to change this quarter, stated as a number moving
    from X to Y. Then the three channels that will do it and the
    one I should stop.

02  Find the twelve phrases my buyers actually use to describe
    this problem. Quote them exactly. Never paraphrase into
    marketing language.

03  Read this competitor's last ten pieces. Where are they
    genuinely better than us? Answer honestly, it matters more
    than the rows we win.

04  Read these support tickets. What is the problem, stated
    without any politeness filter?

05  What does my market mostly believe that I think is wrong? Give
    me two, and tell me what someone would say against each.

ICP and positioning, 5

06  Pull my closed-won from the last 12 months. Give me the three
    attributes that correlate with a fast close, with the
    evidence. Fewer than 10 deals, say so and stop.

07  List the exact job titles that signed, verbatim. Then the
    titles I have been targeting. Show me the gap.

08  Write my positioning line in one sentence, then tell me who it
    deliberately repels. If nobody, it is too broad.

09  Who is this explicitly not for? Six disqualifiers, each with
    one line on why it fails.

10  Split my customers into three segments by the problem they
    have, not the size band they sit in.

Offers and messaging, 5

11  Write the offer: one sentence, what they receive as objects,
    week 1 week 2 week 4, what is not included, the price. No
    "bespoke", no "tailored".

12  Build the message hierarchy: the one line, three pillars each
    answering a different objection, three proof points per
    pillar.

13  List what is literally inside this resource. Objects, counts,
    sections. If I cannot list objects, tell me it is not
    finished.

14  Which of the five angle levers is this campaign on? Effort
    removed, time to result, outcome specificity, risk removed,
    identity. Pick one and tell me who it repels.

15  Read my proof library and tell me which claim I am making that
    I cannot actually evidence.

Content, 5

16  Define three content pillars. Each a repeatable topic, not a
    theme. If I cannot talk about one for twenty minutes without
    notes, tell me it is not mine.

17  Turn this long asset into 10 to 12 standalone ideas. One per
    line. No idea that needs the others to make sense.

18  Write five hooks for this piece. Then delete the body and tell
    me which hooks still feel complete. Those are summaries.

19  Strip the AI tells from this draft: round numbers, perfect
    parallelism, no break in the flow, everything resolving, em
    dashes.

20  Read this call transcript. Three claims my market agrees with,
    two it disagrees with, one I would defend under pushback. The
    last one is the piece.

SEO and AI search, 5

21  From this crawl export, give me ten technical fixes ranked by
    impact. Per item: issue, evidence, fix, effort, and whether it
    needs a developer. Ten, not eighty.

22  Rewrite the opening 40 words of this page so they directly
    answer the query.

23  Break this page into passage-level claims that could be lifted
    and quoted without the surrounding paragraph.

24  For each of these URLs return exactly one verdict: keep,
    refresh, consolidate or kill. Evidence required for each. A
    verdict with no evidence is a guess.

25  Build a content brief: the one thing the reader can do
    afterwards, the angle, the section outline, the proof rows to
    use, and what this deliberately does not cover.

Social and LinkedIn, 5

26  Find five posts published in the last six hours, past 200
    reactions and climbing, on my pillar topics. Rank by velocity,
    not total.

27  Write five comments for this session. No two share a
    structure. At most two mention my own work. At least one
    outside my niche.

28  Score this comment 1 to 10. Below 7, rewrite rather than post.

29  Write a lead magnet post. Three variants, three keywords in
    the same family. Never numbered. CTA depends on whether my
    audience is mostly connected.

30  This post will pull 400 comments. At 20 connection requests a
    day, how long to deliver to everyone? Give me the order.

Email and lifecycle, 5

31  Which lifecycle flows am I missing? Check the standard set:
    welcome, abandonment, browse, post-purchase, winback,
    re-engagement, referral.

32  Build this sequence. Before writing, tell me the trigger
    event, the exit event and the one action it exists to cause.
    No exit event, no sequence.

33  Write five emails. Subject under 45 characters, one CTA each,
    and each adds something the previous did not.

34  Check my deliverability against the thresholds: bounce under
    2%, complaints under 0.10%, SPF, DKIM, DMARC.

35  Write the sequence for people who downloaded something and
    never bought. Largest segment in most businesses and the
    warmest.

Paid and CRO, 5

36  Write five headline variants for this platform,
    character-counted. Each differs in ANGLE, not wording. A
    synonym swap is not a variant.

37  Audit this landing page. What is its ONE job? If the answer
    contains two actions, stop and force a choice.

38  Count the exits on this page: nav links, footer links, other
    offers. Tell me what each one costs.

39  My frequency is climbing and CTR is falling. Is that creative
    fatigue, and what is the evidence?

40  Give me the single change that would move conversion most on
    this page. One change, not a list.

Analytics, 5

41  For each metric in this report, give me the absolute beside
    the percentage, what it is measured against, why if we know,
    and the decision it should inform. Cut anything that cannot
    answer the last one.

42  Work the diagnostic chain in order and stop at the first
    failure. Do not report five stages when the first is broken.

43  Set lead source to the campaign name and the signal type,
    never the channel.

44  Which content produced conversations rather than reach last
    month? Tell me what those pieces have in common.

45  Give me one change for this month. One. Not three.

Agencies, 5

46  Derive this client's ICP from their closed-won, not mine. Show
    me the gap between who they say they sell to and who signed.

47  Build this client's voice file from three of their real pieces.
    Tell me if three is not enough to work from.

48  Calculate gross margin per client this month: fee, delivery
    hours by discipline, loaded cost, account management, QA,
    tool cost. Rank worst first.

49  Check for prospect overlap between two client lists. Same
    person, two accounts, is a problem I need to see first.

50  This client wants daily posts. Tell me why three a week is the
    right answer and how to say it without sounding like
    under-delivery.

Prompt 48 produces a ranking that is almost never the same as the ranking by fee size. Agencies manage attention by fee size, which is how the least profitable client quietly gets subsidised by the best one.

20 workflows on a schedule. Build these last.

Automate what already works manually, or you automate a broken process and it breaks faster.

Daily, 6 workflows

Time	Workflow	What it does, and the stop condition
07:00	High intent scan	ICP posting about the problem, or asking for a recommendation. Same-day or not at all. Nothing found means one line, not a report.
07:15	Borrowed reach scan	Posts under six hours old, past 200 reactions, on a pillar topic. Ranked by velocity, not total.
08:00	Scheduled publish	Today's piece goes live, then an auto-comment 20 minutes later. The gap is deliberate.
09:00	Engagement session	25 minutes, six rules, every comment scored before posting.
11:00	Reply classification	Every inbound sorted into seven categories. Below 8 confidence escalates. Drafts only, never sends.
17:00	Tag and log	Lead source, signal type and segment written against every new contact.

Start with three: the 07:00 scan, the 09:00 session, the 11:00 classification. Those run a complete daily motion, and adding the rest before those are reliable just multiplies the failures.

Weekly, 8 workflows

Day	Workflow	What it does
Mon 08:00	Diagnostic chain	Five stages in order, stop at the first failure, output ONE change.
Mon 09:00	Account health check	Sending accounts, domains, deliverability thresholds, anything capped or parked.
Mon 10:00	Warm signal scan	Anyone marked contacted or cold who has since engaged, viewed, or changed job.
Tue 09:00	Content batch	Next week's three pieces, drafted and humanised, status DRAFT.
Tue 11:00	List build and grade	New rows, filtered, graded A to F. Below B, rebuild rather than proceed.
Wed 15:00	Experiment audit	What changed last week and whether the lift can be attributed to it.
Thu 09:00	Sequence top-up	New contacts into active campaigns, within the daily split.
Fri 16:00	Weekly report	Every metric paired with an action. Drafted, not sent.

Wednesday's experiment audit only works if Monday produced one change. Change three things and the audit reads UNATTRIBUTABLE, which is the honest answer and a wasted week.

Monthly and quarterly, 6 workflows

Cadence	Workflow	What it does
Monthly	Signal attribution	Which signal type produced closed deals. One line, and it changes next month's targeting more than anything else.
Monthly	Objection ranking	The five most frequent, ranked. A positioning insight as much as a sales one.
Monthly	Long asset production	The one substantial piece the month's channel content comes from.
Monthly	Margin review	Gross margin per client or per line, ranked worst first.
Quarterly	ICP re-derivation	Against the last quarter's closed-won. If the winning title moved, everything downstream needs rebuilding.
Quarterly	Content refresh	Keep, refresh, consolidate or kill across the back catalogue. Five to ten pieces, prioritised.

The monthly signal attribution is the highest-value workflow here and the most likely to be skipped, because it produces one line rather than a dashboard.

The rules that keep 20 workflows readable

A quiet period produces one line, not a report. Any workflow that emits a full report every run regardless of findings gets ignored by week three. Build the nothing-found branch first.

Nothing auto-publishes or auto-sends. Every workflow that touches a person or a channel drafts and routes. A human presses the button.

Every workflow states what it could not assess. A diagnostic on partial data points at the wrong stage, which is worse than no diagnostic.

Errors notify with the full payload. A failed import you cannot replay is a lost list.

Where the sending workflows run

Four of the twenty touch a real person: the reply classification, the sequence top-up, the warm signal scan, and the account health check.

Prosp runs those. Cloud-based, so the schedule does not depend on a machine staying open, and the unified inbox spans every connected account so the 11:00 classification runs over one queue rather than several.

Lead states drive the Monday warm scan directly: Not Contacted, In Campaign, Contacted, Not Accepted after 14 days with auto-withdraw, Replied which stops the campaign, Duplicate, Blacklist, Failed.

25 fixed formats for the recurring documents.

A template's job is to stop the same decision being remade every month. If a document gets written more than twice a year, it needs one.

Strategy and research, 5 templates

01. Quarterly strategy, one page. The number moving from X to Y, the three channels ranked with what each produced last quarter, the one channel being stopped, the bet, and what must be true in 90 days.

02. Voice of customer. Twelve verbatim phrases with sources. Five words they use that you do not. Three unprompted objections. What they already tried and what failed about it.

03. Competitor brief. Per competitor: what they sell in their words, who they position against, where they are genuinely better, the trap question, and what never to say.

04. ICP, derived. The seven outputs from closed-won, with the gap between stated and actual called out separately at the top.

05. Positioning one-pager. The line, who it repels, two contrarian beliefs, the named competitors with honest differences.

Template 03 fails if every row favours you. A brief where you win everything reads as marketing and gets discounted entirely, including the true rows.

Content, 5 templates

06. Content brief. The one thing the reader can do afterwards, the angle, the section outline, the proof rows to use, what this deliberately does not cover, and the internal links.

07. Editorial calendar. Four weeks visible at all times. Per slot: date, pillar, format, status, owner. Status values are IDEA, DRAFT, REVIEW, SCHEDULED, LIVE and nothing else.

08. Repurposing map. One long asset down the left, every derived piece across: social posts, email, carousel, comment-ready opinions. Nothing gets written from a blank page.

09. Post template library. The six hook shapes, each with a worked example from your own published work rather than a generic one.

10. Pre-publication checklist.

[ ] Hook is lines 1 to 2 and earns the See More alone
[ ] One idea per line, three lines maximum per paragraph
[ ] One CTA
[ ] Every claim traces to a proof row
[ ] Contents listed as objects, not outcomes
[ ] Humaniser pass complete
[ ] No em dashes

Campaign and channel, 5 templates

11. Campaign brief. One job, one angle lever, the audience, the proof rows, the UTMs, the send budget, and the kill criteria with a date.

12. Offer one-pager. One sentence, what they receive as objects, week 1 week 2 week 4, what is not included, the price, the wedge, the disqualifier.

13. Lead magnet post spec. The resource contents as objects, the three variants with their keywords, the CTA by connection state, and the delivery plan before anything posts.

14. Sequence spec. Per node: action, delay, exact copy, exit condition. Plus the trigger event, the exit event, and the one action it exists to cause.

15. Landing page spec. The one job, the headline matching the ad, what is inside as objects, the single CTA, the exits to remove, the proof with attribution.

Template 11's kill criteria field is the one people leave until later. Deciding what failure looks like after seeing the numbers is not a decision.

Reporting, 5 templates

16. Weekly report. The diagnostic chain result stopping at the first failure, one metric per stage with its action, and exactly one recommended change.

17. Monthly report. What changed, what it produced, which content drove conversations rather than reach, and which signal type produced closed deals.

18. Metric narration format. The number with its absolute, what it is measured against, why if known, and the decision it informs. Anything that cannot answer the fourth gets cut.

19. Experiment log. Date, what changed, the hypothesis, the result, and whether it can be attributed. One change per week or this column reads UNATTRIBUTABLE.

20. Attribution schema. The lead source convention, the signal type values, and the segment values. Written once, enforced everywhere.

BANNED IN EVERY REPORT
- Impressions as a headline number
- Percentages without the absolute beside them
- Any metric with no action attached

Agency, 5 templates

21. Client context file. The engagement, the contract dates, the fee, what it excludes, the ICP, the proof with permission, the send budget, and what other campaigns run on the same account.

22. Client voice file. Three of their pieces pasted in full, three adjectives, two phrases they would never say, and what genuinely annoys them.

23. Client report. Categories not raw counts. Interested versus timing versus objection. Plus the objection ranking, which is the most useful thing you hand over all month.

24. Margin tracker. Per client: fee, delivery hours by discipline, loaded cost, account management hours, QA time, tool cost, gross margin percent. Ranked worst first.

25. Handoff brief. Per booked call: the signal with its date and URL, the full thread verbatim, their problem in their words, the objection raised, and what was committed to.

Template 25's last field protects both sides. A founder walking into a call not knowing what was promised is how a good lead becomes an awkward thirty minutes.

Which five to build first

06  Content brief
10  Pre-publication checklist
11  Campaign brief
16  Weekly report
20  Attribution schema

Those five cover the documents that get written weekly. The other twenty are worth building when the work demands them, not in advance.

Ten audits. Each produces a verdict, not a list.

An audit that returns eighty items is a document nobody actions. Every one of these caps its output and ends with a single recommended change.

01. The positioning audit

SIX CHECKS, each PASS, WEAK or FAIL with evidence:

1  Could a stranger say what you do in one sentence after five
   seconds on the homepage?
2  Does the positioning repel anyone? If nobody, it is too broad.
3  Is there a belief stated that your market mostly disagrees
   with?
4  Does the language match the twelve verbatim phrases, or the
   language of a workshop?
5  Is the named competitor difference honest, including where
   they are better?
6  Would the disqualifier survive a sales call?

VERDICT: one of SHARP, BROAD or ABSENT.

BROAD is the most common and the most expensive. It produces
content nobody argues with and a pipeline of people who were never
going to buy.

02. The ICP audit

COMPARE the stated ICP against the last 12 months of closed-won.

REPORT:
- The job title that actually signs, versus the one being targeted
- The size band with the highest win rate, versus the one in the
  plan
- The three attributes shared by fast closes
- The three shared by long or lost deals
- Whether the disqualifier list matches the actual losses

VERDICT: ALIGNED, DRIFTED or UNEVIDENCED.

FAIL CLOSED with fewer than 10 closed-won deals. Report the count
and say the answer is not yet in the data.

DRIFTED is normal after two quarters. It is only expensive when
nobody checks.

03. The content audit

PER URL, return exactly one verdict with evidence:

KEEP         performing, accurate, still on-strategy
REFRESH      right topic, stale detail or weak opening
CONSOLIDATE  competing with another page for the same intent
KILL         no traffic, no links, off-strategy, or embarrassing

A verdict with no evidence is a guess. Include the traffic, the
last update date, and the intent it serves.

CAP THE OUTPUT at ten REFRESH items per quarter, prioritised. A
list of eighty is a list nobody works.

CONSOLIDATE is the verdict people avoid because it means admitting
two pieces should have been one. It is also where the fastest
gains are.

04. The technical SEO audit

FROM CONNECTED DATA ONLY. Claude cannot see live rankings, crawl
status or Core Web Vitals. Work from an export or say what you
need.

CHECK: crawlability, index coverage, robots and sitemap against
the latest crawl, Core Web Vitals, redirect chains, broken
internal links, canonical conflicts, schema validity.

OUTPUT TEN items, prioritised by impact. Per item: the issue, the
evidence, the fix, the effort, whether it needs a developer.

VERDICT: BLOCKING, DEGRADED or HEALTHY.

BLOCKING means stop all content work until it is fixed. Content on
a site that cannot be crawled is wasted effort, and content work
is more enjoyable, which is why people do it first.

05. The AI search readiness audit

PER PAGE:
- Do the opening 40 words directly answer the query
- Are there standalone claims that could be lifted and quoted
  without the surrounding paragraph
- Is the entity clear: who and what this is about
- Is every figure attributed to a source
- Does it cover the questions actually asked, not the ones you
  wish were asked

VERDICT: QUOTABLE, PARTIAL or INVISIBLE.

ONE HONEST CAVEAT. Observational research across roughly 2 million
citations found prompt-content alignment to be the dominant
page-level predictor, while FAQ blocks, structured data and Core
Web Vitals collapsed toward zero once domain effects were applied.
That study is observational and cannot establish causation.

So: treat schema as hygiene rather than a lever, and spend the
effort on whether the page actually answers the question asked.

06. The profile and channel audit

NINE CHECKS on the primary profile, each PASS, WEAK or FAIL:
proof, empty adjectives, clarity, gaps, call to action, visual
consistency, mobile readability, searchability, contact hygiene.

THEN THE CHANNEL:
- Posting cadence against the ceiling. One a day maximum.
- Engagement session running, or not
- Which pillar each of the last 20 pieces served
- Whether any pillar has produced nothing in eight weeks

VERDICT: READY, LEAKING or BLOCKED.

LEAKING is the common one. The content is fine and the profile
loses the visit, which shows up as a low acceptance rate that
people then blame on the message.

07. The lifecycle audit

CHECK THE STANDARD SET. Most teams are missing two.
Welcome, abandonment, browse, post-purchase, winback,
re-engagement, referral request.

PER EXISTING FLOW:
- Does it have an exit event? No exit event is a failure, not a
  weakness.
- When did it last get touched?
- Does email 1 deliver what was promised in the first two lines?
- Does every email add something the previous did not?

THEN DELIVERABILITY:
Bounce under 2%. Complaints under 0.10%. SPF, DKIM, DMARC.

VERDICT: COMPLETE, GAPPED or AT RISK.

AT RISK overrides everything. A sequence landing in spam is a
sequence that does not exist, and building more flows on a broken
domain compounds the problem.

08. The funnel audit

WORK THE CHAIN IN ORDER. Stop at the first failure.

1 AWARENESS LOW        reach and engagement rate
2 AWARENESS FINE,
  INTEREST LOW         the hook, or the audience is wrong
3 INTEREST FINE,
  INTENT LOW           the offer, not the content
4 INTENT FINE,
  ACTION LOW           the page, or the ask
5 ALL FINE,
  REVENUE LOW          price or fit, not marketing

OUTPUT the failing stage, the evidence, and ONE change.

VERDICT: names the stage. Nothing else.

Do not report five stages of numbers when the first is broken.
A stage 4 recommendation delivered while stage 1 is failing is
why audits get ignored.

09. The attribution audit

CHECK:
- Does lead source name the CAMPAIGN or the channel? "LinkedIn"
  tells you nothing in three months.
- Is signal_type populated? Without it you cannot answer which
  trigger produced revenue.
- Are UTMs consistent with the naming convention?
- How many records have no source at all?
- Can you answer, right now, which campaign produced last
  quarter's best deal?

VERDICT: ANSWERABLE, PARTIAL or BLIND.

BLIND is more common than anyone admits, and it is the reason
teams keep running things that do not convert. The question is not
whether the data is perfect. It is whether one specific question
can be answered.

10. The agency margin audit

PER CLIENT, monthly:
  Fee received
  Delivery hours by discipline
  Loaded cost of those hours
  Account management hours
  QA and revision time
  Attributable tool cost
  Gross margin, in currency and percent

RANK BY MARGIN PERCENT, worst first.

THEN PER CLIENT AT THE BOTTOM:
- Is it scope creep, underpricing, or a delivery problem?
- What would have to change, specifically?
- What is the conversation, and when?

VERDICT per client: HEALTHY, WATCH or RENEGOTIATE.

The ranking is almost never the same as the ranking by fee size,
and agencies manage attention by fee size. That is how the least
profitable client quietly gets subsidised by the best one, for
months.

The order to run them in

BEFORE ANYTHING       02 ICP, then 01 positioning
BEFORE CONTENT WORK   04 technical SEO. BLOCKING stops everything.
QUARTERLY             03 content, 05 AI search, 06 profile
MONTHLY               08 funnel, 09 attribution
MONTHLY, AGENCIES     10 margin
BEFORE EMAIL WORK     07 lifecycle. AT RISK overrides.

Two of these gate the others. A BLOCKING technical verdict stops content work, and an AT RISK deliverability verdict stops email work. Running the others first produces recommendations you cannot action.

The guide builds it. Prosp runs the half that reaches people 💜

↳ Start a 14 Day Free Trial 💜 ↳ Watch Full Tutorial ▶️

Twelve skills, written out in full. Save to .claude/skills/.

Each maps to a stage of the conversion chain, so when a stage fails you know which file to open.

01. signal-finder

---
name: signal-finder
description: Find a dated, verifiable reason to contact each lead
  now rather than later. Run after the list exists, before any
  copy. High effort.
---
ONE signal per lead, ranked by proximity to a budget decision.

TIER 1, budget is already moving
- Hiring for the role your offer replaces or supports
- Raised in the last 90 days
- New leader in post, last 60 days
- Publicly named the exact problem, last 30 days

TIER 2, the problem is visible
- Their site or content shows the specific gap
- Commented on a competitor's post
- Expanding into a new market or location
- Competitor of an existing customer

TIER 3, fit only, no observable trigger

RULES
Every signal VERIFIABLE and DATED. Record the date and the URL,
because it appears in the first message and they will check it.

No signal means write NONE.

Never stretch an attribute into a trigger. "Works at a SaaS
company" is fit, not intent, and using it as intent is the
clearest tell that a message was generated rather than written.

FAIL CLOSED on any signal you cannot date.

Add signal, tier, date and source_url columns.

TIER 1 VARIES BY BUYER. A funding round moves a VC-backed company
and means nothing to a bootstrapped one. Check the signal against
the company before ranking it.

02. job-post-trigger

---
name: job-post-trigger
description: Build a list from hiring signals. The strongest budget
  signal available and the least worked.
---
SEARCH job boards for companies hiring the role your offer
replaces or supports, within the ICP.

CAPTURE per row:
- The exact line in the posting that reveals the manual work or
  the gap. VERBATIM, in quotation marks.
- The posting date
- The hiring manager, who is usually the buyer
- Company size and whether it fits the price band

DROP anything older than 45 days. Either it is filled or the
budget moved.

WHY THIS IS THE STRONGEST SIGNAL
A company posting for the role has budget allocated and an unmet
need at the same time. Those two rarely coincide this visibly.

THE QUOTE IS LOAD-BEARING. The opener quotes the posting directly.
Paraphrasing loses the whole effect, because the point is that you
read their actual posting rather than a category.

03. post-engager-harvest

---
name: post-engager-harvest
description: Build a list from people engaging with relevant posts.
  The highest-intent cold source there is.
---
SOURCES, strongest first:
1. Commenters on a post about the problem you solve
2. Likers on the same post
3. Commenters on a competitor's post
4. Event attendees
5. Group members

CAPTURE THE POST TOPIC per lead, not just the lead.

Someone who commented on a pricing post gets a different opener
from someone who commented on an onboarding post. Without that
column every message is the same message and the source advantage
disappears.

PER ROW: name, headline, company, linkedin_url, post_url, post
topic, comment type (substantive / short / reaction only), date.

RE-HARVEST WEEKLY. A post that performs for three weeks keeps
gathering commenters. Tag by harvest date so you can separate
early commenters from late ones. Early ones convert better.

NEVER name the post author or the competitor in any message.

04. fit-filter

---
name: fit-filter
description: Filter the raw list before any enrichment. Run on the
  cheapest model at the lowest effort.
---
Per row, exactly one of KEEP, DROP or UNSURE, with a reason of 12
words maximum.

KEEP    Matches the title band and the size band
DROP    Fails either, hits a disqualifier, is a competitor, or is
        too small for the price band
UNSURE  Ambiguous headline. Do not guess.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv.
DROP to dropped.csv, so the filter is auditable later.

Report the drop rate. Below 40% usually means the search was too
narrow rather than the list being unusually good.

ENRICH NOTHING before this step. Enrichment is priced per lookup
and most of a raw list was never going to buy.

WHY CHEAPEST MODEL: this touches every row, so it is the
highest-volume call in the system and has the least reasoning in
it. Running it at high effort is where the cost goes.

05. list-grader

---
name: list-grader
description: Grade the filtered list A to F. The gate. Nothing
  sends below B. Max effort.
---
EIGHT DIMENSIONS, 1 to 10:
1  ICP fit
2  Title accuracy: decision makers or influencers
3  Affordability against the price band
4  Data completeness
5  Deduplication, within the list and against active campaigns
6  Recency of activity
7  Reachability: how many are already 1st degree
8  Signal strength: how many carry a tier 1 or 2 trigger

A 9.0+  B 7.5+  C 6.0+  D 4.5+  F below

FAIL CLOSED below B. Name the two lowest dimensions and the fix
for each. Do not pass a failing list downstream.

DIMENSION 7 changes the campaign SHAPE, not the quality. Mostly
1st degree can be messaged directly. Mostly cold needs connection
requests first, which is a different daily budget entirely.

DIMENSION 8 predicts reply rate better than any other. A B-grade
list where most rows carry a tier 1 signal beats an A-grade list
with none.

An F grade usually means the offer is too broad, not that the
list is bad.

06. engager-scorer

---
name: engager-scorer
description: Score the list so the send budget goes in the right
  order. Cheapest model.
---
DEPTH x FIT, each 1 to 3, multiplied. Maximum 9.

DEPTH
1  Reaction only, or no engagement
2  Short comment, or one visible signal
3  Substantive comment, or engaged more than once, or a tier 1
   signal

FIT
1  Adjacent to the ICP
2  Right role wrong company, or the reverse
3  Exact match

6 to 9  contact this week
3 to 5  hold, watch for a second signal
1 to 2  no outreach

Sort descending. THIS ORDER IS THE CAMPAIGN.

At 20 connection requests a day, account-wide, a 400-row list is
five weeks of the entire budget. The order decides the quarter,
not the size.

OUTPUT the count per band and how many weeks of budget the top
band represents.

07. profile-optimizer

---
name: profile-optimizer
description: Audit and rewrite the profile. Run before any sending,
  because every request drives a profile visit.
---
NINE CHECKS, each PASS, WEAK or FAIL with one line of evidence:
proof, empty adjectives, clarity of what they do, gaps, call to
action, visual consistency, mobile readability, searchability,
contact hygiene.

THEN REWRITE:

HEADLINE, three options, character-counted, each flagged for where
it truncates at around 60 characters on mobile. Never
job-title-at-company.

ABOUT, four movements, first person:
1 The hook. The buyer's problem, not the person's history.
2 The problem they solve, in the buyer's words.
3 Proof. An approved number with a timeframe.
4 One CTA.
Keywords in the first two lines, before the See More cut.

FEATURED: mandatory, not optional. Pin what the buyer needs before
a call.

EXPERIENCE: action plus method plus measurable outcome per role.

SKILLS: cut generic filler, merge into 10 to 15 clusters matching
the search terms from check 8.

RULES
Critique the positioning, never the person. Never comment on
appearance, age or anything unrelated to the work.

Never invent a metric. Ask for one or leave the gap.

MEASURE IT: acceptance for the two weeks before and after, on the
same list quality. Nothing else changed, so the delta is clean.

08. connection-note-writer

---
name: connection-note-writer
description: Write the note that decides acceptance. Under 200
  characters.
---
THE NOTE IS NOT THE MESSAGE. It has one job: get the accept.

STRUCTURE
One line naming the specific, dated thing you saw.
One line on why that made you reach out.
No ask.

RULES
- Under 200 characters.
- NO ASK. A connection request is not the place for one. The ask
  halves acceptance and the accept costs you nothing.
- Specific and dated. "Saw your comment on the pricing thread
  last Tuesday" beats "loved your content".
- Never mention the product.
- No compliments about the person. Compliment the specific thing,
  or nothing.
- No em dashes.

IF THERE IS NO SIGNAL, send no note. A blank request outperforms a
generic one, because a generic note tells them you have a list.

ACCEPTANCE BELOW 15% MEANS THIS FILE, or the list. Not the
sequence.

09. opener-writer

---
name: opener-writer
description: Write the first message after acceptance.
---
STRUCTURE
Line 1  the signal, dated and specific
Line 2  the inference you drew from it
Line 3  the question

RULES
- Under 300 characters.
- Line one references the signal SPECIFICALLY, not its category.
- One ask, answerable in under ten words.
- Never mention the product in message one.
- No compliments. No "hope this finds you well".
- No em dashes.

ONE VERSION PER TIER
Tier 1  lead with the signal. It is recent and they know it.
Tier 2  lead with the observable problem. There is no event.
Tier 3  lead with the segment pattern. Claim no personalisation
        you cannot back.

BANNED, burnt:
"I came across your profile"
"I help [vertical] with [service]"
"Are you open to a quick chat"
"Quick question for you"

10. sequence-builder

---
name: sequence-builder
description: Turn the copy into a node-by-node spec. High effort.
  Never run this low.
---
Output a node list, not prose. Per node: action, delay, exact
copy, exit condition.

THE SHAPE
1  Import from source
2  Condition: lead is 1st level
3  YES branch: message, using the merge prompt
4  NO branch: connection request with note, then message on
   acceptance
5  Wait 3 days. Follow-up, different angle.
6  Wait 5 days. Close-out. Then add tag.

RULES
- Four touches maximum. After that the answer is no.
- Reply stops the sequence, always.
- NO WAIT NODE after a connection request. Acceptance
  auto-detects over two weeks, checking every 24 hours. This is
  the most common unnecessary node.
- Every touch a different angle. Never "just following up".
- Any voice note pairs with a written message.

THE CLOSE-OUT at touch four outperforms the two before it
combined, because permission to say no removes the pressure that
was stopping them replying.

STATE the daily send split against the account ceiling.

FAIL CLOSED if the volume exceeds the ceiling. Give the split
rather than writing a sequence that restricts the account.

11. message-self-check

---
name: message-self-check
description: Check every message before it enters the sequence. Run
  as a fresh reviewer, not as the writer.
---
SEVEN CHECKS. Five must pass.

[ ] Under 300 characters
[ ] One question only
[ ] References something specific and dated, not a category
[ ] No banned opener
[ ] No claim absent from the approved proof list
[ ] Register matches how the sender actually writes
[ ] No em dashes

Report pass or fail per check WITH the evidence. Never summarise
as "looks good".

Fewer than five passing means rewrite, not send.

RUN AS A FRESH REVIEWER. A model reviewing its own output defends
it rather than checking it.

WHEN STAGE 2 OF THE CHAIN FAILS: sample 20 sent messages and count
which checks each failed. The check that fails most is the fix.

12. reply-router

---
name: reply-router
description: Classify every inbound reply and route it. Cheapest
  model, runs continuously.
---
Exactly one category:

INTERESTED       Wants more, asks about the offer
TIMING           Interested, not now. Capture the date named.
OBJECTION        Price, fit, incumbent, capacity
WRONG_PERSON     Not their remit. Ask who owns it.
NOT_INTERESTED   Clear no. Thank them, stop, never pitch again.
AUTO_REPLY       Out of office. Reschedule to their return date.
ESCALATE         Anything below 8 confidence

Per reply: category, confidence 1 to 10, the sentence that decided
it, and the recommended next action.

Below 8 confidence, always ESCALATE. Sarcasm, brevity and
politeness all read the same in text.

Never auto-send to NOT_INTERESTED.

WRONG_PERSON is the most valuable category and the most commonly
binned. Ask who owns it, and feed the answer back into the ICP.
One corrected job title is worth more than the deal you lost.

FOR INTERESTED, decide IF before HOW:
Ask for the call when they have named a problem, asked about price
or timeline, or two substantive messages have gone each way. On a
one-line reply, ask one more question instead.

THE ASK: name the length and the agenda. Offer the link AND two
concrete times. Never "let me know what works".

Tag after booking so the sequence stops.

Which map to which stage

Chain stage	Open these
1. Acceptance low	connection-note-writer, profile-optimizer, fit-filter
2. Replies low	message-self-check, opener-writer, signal-finder
3. Meetings low	reply-router, sequence-builder
4. Nothing closing	None of these. Price or fit.
5. Volume low	sequence-builder, engager-scorer

Stage 4 has no skill deliberately. When meetings are booking and nothing closes, the outreach is working and the problem is elsewhere. Tuning the message at that point wastes a quarter.

Twelve skills write it. Prosp sends it 💜

↳ Start a 14 Day Free Trial 💜 ↳ Watch Full Tutorial ▶️

Approach: direct case study. Lead with a comparable client result in message one.

Agency owners are sceptical of everything except numbers from someone like them.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/agency-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. agency-icp

---
name: agency-icp
description: Define which agencies to target and which to exclude.
---
Read .agents/outreach-context.md.

OUTPUT to output/agency-icp.md:
- Agency type: what they sell, not what they call themselves
- Headcount band. Under 5 usually does the work themselves.
- Client count, if visible from their site
- The service line your offer attaches to
- Generalist or specialist. Specialists buy faster.

EXCLUDE: direct competitors, agencies under 3 people, anyone whose
site shows no client work.

The last one matters. No visible case studies means either very new
or not winning, and neither buys.

02. agency-list

---
name: agency-list
description: Build a raw list of target agencies.
---
SOURCES, highest intent first:
1. Commenters on posts about the problem you solve
2. Agency directories filtered to your headcount band
3. Sponsors and speakers at relevant events
4. Agencies hiring for the role your offer replaces
5. Search by headline containing the service line

Capture: agency name, founder name, headcount, service lines, site,
LinkedIn URL, source.

Write to output/prospects.csv with a linkedin_url column. That
header is required by the import, do not rename it.

Enrich nothing. Look up no emails. Most of this gets discarded.

03. agency-signal

---
name: agency-signal
description: Find the dated reason to contact this agency now.
---
ONE signal per agency, ranked by proximity to a budget decision.

TIER 1, act this week
- Hiring for the role your offer replaces
- Posted about the exact problem within 30 days
- Announced a new service line
- Lost a named client publicly

TIER 2, act this month
- Their site shows the gap
- Commented on a competitor's post
- Headcount grew fast

TIER 3, fit only

Every signal dated with a URL. Both appear in the opener and they
will check.

No signal means NONE. Never stretch "is an agency" into a trigger.

04. agency-filter

---
name: agency-filter
description: Filter before any enrichment. Cheapest model, lowest
  effort.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: under 3 people, direct competitor, no client work shown, too
small for the price band, another agency selling what you sell.
UNSURE: ambiguous headline. Do not guess.

KEEP and UNSURE to output/filtered.csv.
DROP to output/dropped.csv so the filter is auditable.

Report the drop rate. Below 40% usually means the search was too
narrow, not that the list is good.

Classification across volume, not reasoning. Running it high is
where the cost advantage disappears.

05. agency-opener

---
name: agency-opener
description: Write the first message, leading with a comparable
  client result.
---
STRUCTURE
Line 1  The comparable client, named or described by type and size,
        and the number. Approved proof only.
Line 2  The mechanism, one line. How, not what.
Line 3  The question. Whether that problem is live for them.

Under 300 characters. One ask, answerable in ten words.
Never mention price or process in message one.

THE COMPARABLE must match their size and service line. A result
from a 200-person agency does not land on a 6-person one.

If no comparable exists in proof, do not use this approach. Use the
social sell module instead.

BANNED: "I came across your profile", "I help agencies with",
"Are you open to a quick chat".

06. agency-sequence

---
name: agency-sequence
description: The four-touch sequence for agency owners.
---
Node list, not prose. Per node: action, delay, exact copy, exit.

1  Opener. The comparable result and the question.
2  Wait 3 days. The mechanism in one more line, no ask.
3  Wait 4 days. A second comparable, different service line.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out: "Assuming this is not a priority right
   now, which is fine. Want me to check back next quarter?"

Branch on connection state:
1st degree     message straight away
Not connected  connection request, then message on acceptance

No wait node after a connection request. Acceptance auto-detects
over two weeks.

Reply stops the sequence, always.
State the daily send split against the account ceiling.

07. agency-objection

---
name: agency-objection
description: Handle the objections agency owners actually raise.
---
Read outreach-context first. If it is on the list, use the agreed
response rather than inventing one.

"We do that in-house"
-> Ask what it costs them in hours, not whether they do it. The
   answer is the opening.

"Our clients are different"
-> Agree. Ask which part specifically, then answer only that part.

"We tried something like this"
-> Ask what broke. Usually the handover, not the tool.

"Send me some info"
-> One page, not a deck, and one question in the same message.

Never answer a price objection with features. Ask what it is being
compared against.

If they say no twice, stop.

08. agency-proof

---
name: agency-proof
description: Pick which case study to lead with.
---
Rank candidates by, in order:
1. Same service line
2. Same headcount band
3. Same client type
4. Same problem

SERVICE LINE beats headcount. An agency recognises its own offer
faster than its own size.

Check the permission column. YES names them, ANONYMISED describes
them, NO means pick the next row.

Use the number exactly as written. Never round, annualise, or
convert it into a percentage.

If no row is a reasonable match, output NO SUITABLE CASE STUDY
rather than stretching one. A weak comparable is worse than none
with this audience.

09. agency-closer

---
name: agency-closer
description: Decide whether to ask for the call, then draft the ask.
---
Decide IF before HOW.

ASK NOW WHEN
- They named a problem we solve
- They asked about implementation, timeline or price
- Two substantive messages have gone each way

DO NOT ASK YET WHEN
- They replied with one line
- They have not named a problem
Ask one more question instead.

THE ASK
"15 minutes, three questions, no deck" plus two concrete times and
the link. Never "let me know what works".

Under 350 characters including the link.

After sending, tag the lead so the sequence does not follow up on
someone who already booked.

10. agency-diagnostic

---
name: agency-diagnostic
description: Diagnose the agency campaign weekly.
---
Work the chain IN ORDER. Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE BELOW 15%
  The connection note, or the list is off-ICP. Not the sequence.
2 ACCEPTANCE FINE, REPLIES BELOW 10%
  The opener. Is the comparable actually comparable on size and
  service line?
3 REPLIES FINE, CALLS LOW
  The ask is mistimed. Check whether it landed on a one-line reply.
4 ALL FINE, VOLUME LOW
  Not quality. Check the daily cap split across campaigns.

Output the failing stage, the evidence, and ONE change.

Never more than one change per week. Change three and a lift tells
you nothing.

Approach: social sell. No cold pitch. Engage with their content for two weeks, then message someone who already recognises your name.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/marketing-agency-{icp,list,signal,filter,engage,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. marketing-agency-icp

---
name: marketing-agency-icp
description: Define which marketing agencies to target.
---
OUTPUT: discipline (paid, SEO, content, full-service), headcount
band, whether the founder posts publicly, posting cadence, and the
service line your offer attaches to.

The founder posting publicly is a REQUIREMENT here, not a nice to
have. No content means no social sell.

EXCLUDE: competitors, anyone whose founder has not posted in 90
days, anyone posting only company announcements.

02. marketing-agency-list

---
name: marketing-agency-list
description: Build the list from people who actually post.
---
SOURCES:
1. Founders posting about the problem you solve
2. Commenters on those posts, often the same profile
3. Speakers at marketing events
4. Agency founders appearing on relevant podcasts

Capture the last three post topics per person. That column is what
the engagement skill reads, and without it the comments are generic.

Write to output/prospects.csv with a linkedin_url column.

03. marketing-agency-signal

---
name: marketing-agency-signal
description: Find the engagement-based reason to reach out.
---
TIER 1  Posted about the exact problem in 14 days / asked a public
        question in your domain / disagreed publicly with something
        you can add to
TIER 2  Consistent posting on an adjacent topic / commented on a
        competitor / shared a relevant resource
TIER 3  Posts, but not on topic

Record the post URL and the quotable line.

That line goes in the COMMENT, not the DM. The DM references the
exchange that follows it.

04. marketing-agency-filter

---
name: marketing-agency-filter
description: Filter before any engagement work, because engagement
  is expensive in time.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: no posting in 90 days, competitor, under 3 people, posts only
company announcements.

The last one is easy to miss. A founder who only reposts company
news is not reachable socially, however good the fit looks.

Filter harder here than anywhere else. Two weeks of engagement per
prospect means a wrong row costs two weeks.

05. marketing-agency-engage

Replaces the opener in this niche. This is the module.

---
name: marketing-agency-engage
description: The two-week engagement phase that precedes any DM.
---
FOR TWO WEEKS, before any message:
- 3 substantive comments per person, spread across days
- Each adds a second perspective, a counterpoint, or a specific
  number. Never agreement.
- At least one on a post with 200+ reactions, for the reach
- Never mention what you do. Not once.

Score each comment 1 to 10 before posting:
9-10  Adds something the author did not know
8     Adds a real perspective or number
7     Relevant and specific but adds little
6     Generic but on topic. Rewrite.
1-5   Praise or restatement. Never post.

Below 7 gets rewritten, not posted. Target an 8.0 average.

ONLY THEN write the DM, and reference the exchange, not the profile.

Two weeks of commenting per prospect caps throughput long before the send limit does. Prosp has comment on last post and reply comment as sequence actions, so this can run as a campaign step against an imported list rather than a daily manual session. Builder default is 80 comments a day, so lower it to 60 or below.

06. marketing-agency-sequence

---
name: marketing-agency-sequence
description: The sequence that follows the engagement phase.
---
1  DM referencing the specific exchange. "You mentioned X on that
   post about Y" plus one question extending it.
2  Wait 4 days. Answer their reply substantively. No pitch.
3  Wait 5 days. Only now, the relevance of what you do, one line.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

THE PITCH DOES NOT APPEAR UNTIL TOUCH 3. Earlier and the two weeks
of engagement reads as a manoeuvre, which it then was.

Reply stops the sequence. No wait node after a connection request.

07. marketing-agency-objection

---
name: marketing-agency-objection
description: Their weekly objections.
---
"We are an agency, we do this ourselves"
-> Agree entirely. Ask whether they do it for themselves as well as
   for clients. Usually not, and that gap is the conversation.

"Not looking for tools"
-> Do not defend the tool. Ask what they ARE looking for.

"Who are you again"
-> Reference the exact post and comment. If they still do not
   remember, the engagement phase was too thin. Log it.

"We already tried that"
-> Ask what specifically. Marketers have tried everything once, so
   the detail is where the difference lives.

08. marketing-agency-proof

---
name: marketing-agency-proof
description: Pick proof for a sceptical marketer.
---
Marketers discount marketing claims harder than any other audience.

LEAD WITH the mechanism and a number. Never a testimonial.

NEVER use a superlative. Never "game-changing", "10x" or
"revolutionary" with this audience specifically. Each one costs you
the reply.

If the only proof is a quote with no number, do not use proof at
all. Use the mechanism alone and say you would rather show than
tell.

Check the permission column before naming anyone.

09. marketing-agency-closer

---
name: marketing-agency-closer
description: The ask, for someone who sells for a living.
---
They recognise every close. So do not run one.

STATE the agenda, offer two concrete times, say what happens after.

ADD one line naming who it is not for. A marketer who sees you
disqualify honestly takes the call, because nobody else does.

Under 350 characters including the link.

Never use urgency or scarcity. They teach it.

After sending, tag the lead so the sequence stops.

10. marketing-agency-diagnostic

---
name: marketing-agency-diagnostic
description: Weekly diagnostic for the social sell motion.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 COMMENT SCORE BELOW 7.0 AVERAGE
  The comments, not the list. Rewrite before adding volume.
2 COMMENTS FINE, DM REPLIES LOW
  The DM referenced the profile rather than the exchange.
3 REPLIES FINE, CALLS LOW
  The pitch arrived before touch 3.
4 ALL FINE, VOLUME LOW
  Engagement capacity, not send capacity.

Stage 4 is specific to this niche. Two weeks of engagement per
prospect caps throughput long before 20 connection requests a day
does, so the fix is a longer runway, not a bigger list.

ONE change per week.

Two approaches. A leads with the posting gap. B leads with a rewrite of something they already published.

The sweet spot is founders who post inconsistently. Daily posters do not need you, never-posters do not believe in it yet.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/ghostwriting-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener-a,opener-b,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. ghostwriting-icp

---
name: ghostwriting-icp
description: Define which founders to target.
---
OUTPUT: company stage, headcount, whether the founder posts, current
cadence, follower band, and what they post about.

THE SWEET SPOT: founders who post inconsistently. Someone posting
daily does not need you. Someone who has never posted has not
decided content matters, and you would be selling the category
before the service.

EXCLUDE: anyone with an agency visibly running their account,
anyone posting only company announcements.

02. ghostwriting-list

---
name: ghostwriting-list
description: Build the founder list.
---
SOURCES:
1. Founders who posted well once, then stopped
2. Recently funded founders, last 90 days
3. Founders writing substantive comments on other people's posts
   but not posting themselves
4. Podcast guests who clearly have things to say

SOURCE 3 is the strongest and the least used. Someone writing good
comments already has the ideas and not the habit, which is exactly
what you sell.

Capture: last post date, posting gap in days, best-performing post
URL.

03. ghostwriting-signal

---
name: ghostwriting-signal
description: Find the content-based signal.
---
TIER 1  Posted well then stopped for 30+ days / said publicly they
        should post more / just raised / just launched something
TIER 2  Posts inconsistently / writes long comments but no posts /
        appeared on a podcast recently
TIER 3  Posts, but flat engagement

Record the posting gap in days AND the best post URL. Both appear
in the opener.

The gap is the hook. The best post is the proof you actually read
something.

04. ghostwriting-filter

---
name: ghostwriting-filter
description: Filter before writing anything.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: posting daily already, agency visibly running it, only
company announcements, no posts ever.

The last one is counterintuitive. A founder with zero posts is not
a lead, they are a category education project.

Approach B is high effort, so tag tier 1 rows separately. Only
tier 1 gets the rewrite.

05. ghostwriting-opener-a

Approach A, the posting gap. Use when they posted well and stopped.

---
name: ghostwriting-opener-a
description: The posting-gap opener.
---
Line 1  Name their best post specifically, with what was good about
        it. Not "great post" but the actual idea in it.
Line 2  The gap, stated neutrally. "Nothing since March" not "you
        stopped posting".
Line 3  One question about what got in the way.

NEVER offer to write for them in message one. The question is the
message.

The honest answer is almost always time, and that answer is your
opening for touch 2.

Under 300 characters.

06. ghostwriting-opener-b

Approach B, the rewrite. Tier 1 only. Ten times the effort, and it converts.

---
name: ghostwriting-opener-b
description: The rewrite opener. Use when they post but engagement
  is flat.
---
Take one of their recent posts. Rewrite the HOOK only, never the
body.

Send both versions, theirs first, with one line on what changed.

RULES
- Rewrite the hook, never the substance. Changing their idea
  insults them.
- One post, not three. Three reads as an audit nobody asked for.
- Never say their version was bad.
- No ask in this message at all.

This converts higher than approach A and costs ten times the
effort, so reserve it for tier 1.

07. ghostwriting-sequence

---
name: ghostwriting-sequence
description: The four-touch sequence for founders.
---
1  Opener A or B, depending on tier
2  Wait 3 days. ONE specific idea they could post this week, given
   free, no strings.
3  Wait 5 days. How the process works, two lines. Still no price.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

TOUCH 2 IS THE SEQUENCE. Giving away a real post idea is what most
founders reply to, and it is the only touch that proves you can do
the job.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

08. ghostwriting-objection

---
name: ghostwriting-objection
description: Founder objections, weekly.
---
"Nobody can write in my voice"
-> Agree it is the hard part. Offer to prove it on one post before
   any commitment.

"I do not have time for the input calls"
-> Name the actual time. If it is 30 minutes a fortnight, say so.

"It feels dishonest"
-> Take it seriously, do not brush past it. The honest framing is
   that they supply the thinking and you supply the hours.

"I tried a ghostwriter and it sounded generic"
-> Ask for the posts. Diagnose what went wrong specifically. That
   diagnosis IS the pitch.

09. ghostwriting-proof

---
name: ghostwriting-proof
description: Which proof works on founders.
---
LEAD WITH a before and after from someone comparable. Never a
follower count in isolation.

Best proof is a post you wrote that they might already have seen.

A named client is worth more in this niche than any other, because
voice-matching is THE objection and a named example answers it
directly. Check the permission column first.

Never claim a follower number without the timeframe beside it.
Never use an engagement percentage without the absolute.

10. ghostwriting-closer

---
name: ghostwriting-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER A PAID TRIAL POST rather than a call. Founders buy the output,
not the conversation.

"One post, in your voice, before you commit to anything."

If they want a call instead, 15 minutes, and bring one draft to it.

Name the trial price. A free trial post attracts people who will
never pay and costs you the same hours.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

11. ghostwriting-diagnostic

---
name: ghostwriting-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  Founders accept broadly, so this is an off-ICP list, not the note.
2 REPLIES LOW
  The opener named the gap but not their best post. Both are needed.
3 REPLIES FINE, NO TRIALS
  Touch 2 did not give away a real idea.
4 TRIALS HAPPENING, NO CONVERSION
  The voice match, not the offer.

Stage 4 is the one that matters. If trial posts are not converting,
the input process is too thin, not the writing.

ONE change per week.

Three approaches. A quotes their job post. B names the visible tool gap. C sends a process map and asks what is wrong.

The strongest signal in the whole library sits here: a company hiring for the role you replace has budget allocated and an unmet need at the same time.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/ai-automation-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener-a,opener-b,opener-c,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. ai-automation-icp

---
name: ai-automation-icp
description: Define who actually buys automation.
---
OUTPUT: company size, the department with the manual process, the
role that owns it, current tool stack, whether anyone technical is
in-house.

THE BUYER is rarely the person doing the manual work. It is their
manager, who sees the cost rather than the tedium. Target the
manager.

EXCLUDE: under 10 people, because there is no process yet to
automate. In-house automation teams. Agencies selling the same
thing.

02. ai-automation-list

---
name: ai-automation-list
description: Build the list from evidence of manual process.
---
SOURCES:
1. Companies hiring for a role that is mostly data entry,
   coordination or reporting
2. Job posts containing "manual", "spreadsheet" or "copy across"
3. Companies posting about tool consolidation
4. Users of tools with known integration gaps

SOURCE 1 is the strongest signal in this entire library.

Capture: job title, posting date, and the exact line that reveals
the manual work. That line goes in the opener verbatim.

Write to output/prospects.csv with a linkedin_url column.

03. ai-automation-signal

---
name: ai-automation-signal
description: Find the automation trigger.
---
TIER 1  Hiring for the manual role / raised in 90 days / new ops or
        RevOps leader in post / publicly complained about a process
TIER 2  Tool stack implies a known gap / headcount growing faster
        than process maturity / expanding into a new market
TIER 3  Fit only

Quote the exact line from the job post, in quotation marks. That
verbatim quote is why this niche converts.

Postings older than 45 days are stale. Either it is filled or the
budget moved. Mark them tier 3.

04. ai-automation-filter

---
name: ai-automation-filter
description: Filter before enriching. Cheapest model, lowest effort.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: under 10 people, in-house automation team, competitor, job
post older than 45 days.

The age check matters more here than anywhere. A 60-day-old post is
either filled or dead budget, and quoting it makes you look like
you scraped rather than looked.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv, DROP to dropped.csv.

05. ai-automation-opener-a

Approach A, the job post. Highest converting of the three.

---
name: ai-automation-opener-a
description: The job-post opener.
---
Line 1  Quote the line from their job post. Verbatim, in quotes.
Line 2  What that role will actually spend its week on, named
        specifically.
Line 3  One question: whether that is the bottleneck or a symptom.

NEVER say "you could automate that". They know. The question is
whether they have decided to.

Under 300 characters including the quote.

The quote is load-bearing. Paraphrasing it loses the entire effect,
because the point is that you read their actual posting.

06. ai-automation-opener-b

Approach B, the visible tool gap. Use when no hiring signal exists.

---
name: ai-automation-opener-b
description: The tool-gap opener.
---
Line 1  Name their two tools and the handoff between them.
Line 2  The specific thing that falls through that gap.
Line 3  Ask whether anyone owns that handoff.

The answer is usually nobody, which is the opening.

ONLY use this when both tools are actually visible from their site,
job posts or stack pages. Guessing a stack and being wrong ends the
conversation in one message and you do not get a second.

If only one tool is visible, use approach A or skip the prospect.

07. ai-automation-opener-c

Approach C, the teardown. Tier 1 only, high effort.

---
name: ai-automation-opener-c
description: The process-map opener.
---
Build a one-page map of the process you believe they run, from
observable evidence only, with the three points where it breaks.

Send the map, not a pitch. Ask which part is wrong.

They will correct you, and the correction IS the discovery call.

NEVER assert a step you cannot evidence. Mark inferred steps as
inferred on the map itself. A map that claims certainty it does not
have gets dismissed on the first wrong box.

Tier 1 only. This costs an hour per prospect.

08. ai-automation-sequence

---
name: ai-automation-sequence
description: Four touches.
---
1  Opener A, B or C by tier
2  Wait 3 days. ONE workflow they could fix this week without you.
3  Wait 4 days. What it looks like when done. Outcome, not
   architecture.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

Touch 2 giving away a real fix is what separates this from every
other automation pitch in their inbox.

Touch 3 describing outcome rather than architecture matters. The
buyer is a manager, not an engineer, and a diagram loses them.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

09. ai-automation-objection

---
name: ai-automation-objection
description: The weekly four.
---
"We are not technical enough"
-> That is the point. Name who maintains it after handover, and be
   specific about what they would need to do.

"We tried Zapier and it broke"
-> Ask what broke. It is almost always error handling, and that is
   a real differentiator rather than a claimed one.

"What happens when it breaks"
-> The best objection they can raise. Answer with the monitoring
   and the notification, specifically. Vagueness here loses it.

"We are building it in-house"
-> Ask when it started. Most in-house automation projects are eight
   months old and 60% done.

10. ai-automation-proof

---
name: ai-automation-proof
description: Which proof lands.
---
HOURS SAVED beats revenue claims, because the buyer's manager
understands hours and can defend them upward.

State before and after with the timeframe: "Six hours a week to
twenty minutes, live in nine days."

NEVER claim an ROI multiple. Never a percentage without the
absolute beside it.

A screenshot of the working thing outperforms any written case
study in this niche. Check permission before using one.

If the only proof is a claim with no timeframe, use the mechanism
instead.

11. ai-automation-closer

---
name: ai-automation-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER a scoping call framed as a decision, not a demo.

"30 minutes, we map it, and you leave with the map whether or not
you use us."

The giveaway makes the call easy to accept and costs you one hour.

NEVER demo before the map. A demo of the wrong process is worse
than no demo, and you only find out the process was wrong when
they go quiet afterwards.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

12. ai-automation-diagnostic

---
name: ai-automation-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  The list is off-ICP, likely too small a company.
2 REPLIES LOW
  The opener asserted rather than quoted. Go back to verbatim.
3 REPLIES FINE, CALLS LOW
  The scoping call sounds like a demo. Reframe it.
4 CALLS FINE, NO CLOSE
  Scope too large. Sell the first workflow, not the platform.

Stage 4 is the common failure here. A 90-day build is a much harder
yes than a two-week one, and the two-week one earns the 90-day one.

ONE change per week.

Approach: the account teardown. The strongest niche in the library, because the problem is visible without any account access.

The audit replaces the opener here. That is what makes it convert cold.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/ecom-ads-{icp,list,signal,filter,audit,opener,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. ecom-ads-icp

---
name: ecom-ads-icp
description: Define which ecom brands to target.
---
OUTPUT: platform (Shopify, WooCommerce, BigCommerce), estimated
revenue band, AOV band, category, whether they run ads currently,
and who owns marketing.

THE SWEET SPOT: running ads, spending enough to matter, without a
specialist agency. All three are visible from the public ad library
plus the site footer.

EXCLUDE: no ads running, single-product stores under your revenue
threshold, brands with an agency credited in the footer.

02. ecom-ads-list

---
name: ecom-ads-list
description: Build the list from observable ad activity.
---
SOURCES:
1. Brands with ads live in the public ad library in your category
2. Brands whose ads have been running unchanged for 60+ days
3. Recently launched stores now spending
4. Brands hiring an in-house media buyer

SOURCE 2 is the wedge. An unchanged creative running two months is
creative fatigue you can point at with a screenshot.

Capture: ad count, longest-running creative in days, platform,
site URL, category.

03. ecom-ads-signal

---
name: ecom-ads-signal
description: Find the visible ad problem.
---
TIER 1  Same creative 60+ days / no video in the mix / product feed
        errors visible / PDP missing reviews or schema / mobile
        speed visibly poor
TIER 2  Thin ad variety / no retargeting visible / recently funded /
        hiring a media buyer
TIER 3  Runs ads, nothing obviously wrong

EVERY finding needs a screenshot or a URL. This niche lives on
evidence, and one wrong finding ends the conversation permanently.

Record the evidence with the finding, not separately.

04. ecom-ads-filter

---
name: ecom-ads-filter
description: Filter before any audit work, because audits cost time.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: no ads running, agency credited in the footer, revenue band
too low for the price, category you cannot serve.

The agency check matters most. Auditing a brand that already has
one wastes the effort unless the signal is unusually strong.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv, DROP to dropped.csv.

05. ecom-ads-audit

The free audit. Replaces the opener and is why this niche converts.

---
name: ecom-ads-audit
description: Produce the free ad account audit from observable data
  only.
---
SIX FINDINGS maximum, each with a screenshot or URL:

1. Creative fatigue: the longest-running ad and its days live
2. Format gaps: what is missing from the mix
3. Feed health: any visible product feed error
4. PDP: reviews, schema, image coverage, mobile speed
5. Post-click: does the landing page match the ad promise
6. Retargeting: visible or not

THEN: the one you would fix first, and roughly what it is worth.

Quantify ONLY where the arithmetic is defensible from observable
data. Never invent a revenue figure.

FAIL CLOSED if fewer than three findings have evidence. Skip the
prospect and report why. A thin audit is worse than none.

Under 900 words.

06. ecom-ads-opener

---
name: ecom-ads-opener
description: The message that delivers the audit.
---
Line 1  The single biggest finding, specific and evidenced.
Line 2  Offer the rest. Six findings, one page, no call needed.
Line 3  One question about whether they already know.

DO NOT attach the audit to message one. Offer it. The yes is the
engagement, and a cold attachment gets ignored.

Under 300 characters.

BANNED: "I noticed your ads", "I was looking at your store", "Quick
question about your Meta account".

07. ecom-ads-sequence

---
name: ecom-ads-sequence
description: Four touches.
---
1  Opener, biggest finding plus the offer
2  On reply, send the audit. No pitch inside it.
3  Wait 2 days after sending. One question about finding two.
4  Wait 5 days. Close-out.

IF NO REPLY to touch 1, send the finding anyway at touch 2. Giving
it away unasked converts better than chasing permission to send it.

Reply stops the sequence. No wait node after a connection request.

08. ecom-ads-objection

---
name: ecom-ads-objection
description: Ecom-specific objections.
---
"Our current agency handles this"
-> Ask when they last changed creative. The finding answers it
   without you attacking anyone.

"Our margins are too thin for agency fees"
-> A real objection. Ask for AOV and current ROAS. If the maths
   does not work, say so and walk. That honesty gets referrals.

"We are seasonal, not now"
-> Capture the date. Seasonality is real and a diarised follow-up
   converts well in this niche.

"We tried an agency and it did not work"
-> Ask what the reporting looked like. It is almost always that.

09. ecom-ads-proof

---
name: ecom-ads-proof
description: Proof for ecom operators.
---
ROAS and AOV, with the timeframe AND the spend level. A ROAS figure
with no spend attached is meaningless and operators know it.

Match the category where possible. Match the AOV band where not.

NEVER use a percentage uplift without the starting number.

A screenshot of an account beats any written case study, subject to
permission. Check the permission column first.

If you cannot show spend alongside return, use the finding itself
as proof of competence instead.

10. ecom-ads-closer

---
name: ecom-ads-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER a 20-minute account walkthrough where you look at the real
numbers together. Not a pitch call.

"You have the data, I have the read." That framing converts because
it is true.

Name what access you would need, in advance, so the call is not
spent on permissions.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

11. ecom-ads-diagnostic

---
name: ecom-ads-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  The list includes brands that already have agencies.
2 REPLIES LOW
  The finding in line one was generic. Make it specific and
  evidenced.
3 REPLIES FINE, AUDITS UNOPENED
  The audit is too long. Cut to four findings.
4 AUDITS READ, NO CALLS
  The audit pitched instead of helping.

Stage 4 is the one to watch. An audit that sells does not get
forwarded internally, and forwarding is what closes these.

ONE change per week.

Approach: scrape their post. The highest-intent cold source available, and the one with the sharpest failure mode.

The rule that governs everything here: never name the competitor. Not in the note, not in the DM, not anywhere.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/competitor-leads-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. competitor-leads-icp

---
name: competitor-leads-icp
description: Decide which competitors are worth harvesting.
---
NOT every competitor. Pick by audience overlap, not by size.

OUTPUT per competitor: what they sell, who engages with them,
whether that audience is your ICP, and where they are genuinely
better.

A competitor with a broader offer has an audience that mostly does
not fit you. Their follower count is not your addressable market
and treating it as one produces a 70% drop rate later.

Rank competitors by overlap. Harvest the top two only.

02. competitor-leads-list

---
name: competitor-leads-list
description: Build the list from their engagement.
---
SOURCES, best first:
1. Commenters on their posts, especially substantive comments
2. Likers on posts about the problem you both solve
3. Attendees of their events or webinars
4. Their company page followers

SOURCE 1 beats source 4 by a distance. A follower expressed
interest once, possibly years ago. A commenter engaged with a
specific idea on a specific date, and you know which idea.

CAPTURE THE POST TOPIC per lead, not just the lead. That column is
what the opener reads.

03. competitor-leads-signal

---
name: competitor-leads-signal
description: Score the engagement.
---
DEPTH x FIT, each 1 to 3, multiplied. Maximum 9.

DEPTH
1  Reaction only
2  Short comment
3  Substantive comment, or engaged more than once

FIT, against the ICP
1  Adjacent
2  Right role wrong company type, or the reverse
3  Exact match

6 to 9  Contact this week
3 to 5  Hold, watch for a second signal
1 to 2  No outreach. Keep in the list, spend no send on it.

The post topic shapes the opener. Someone who commented on a
pricing post gets a different message from someone who commented
on an onboarding post.

04. competitor-leads-filter

---
name: competitor-leads-filter
description: Filter hard. A competitor's audience is not your ICP.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: their employees, their existing customers where visible,
other competitors, anyone outside your ICP bands.

THE EMPLOYEE CHECK is easy to miss and embarrassing to get wrong.
Check the company field on every row before keeping it.

Expect a HIGHER drop rate here than any other niche. 60% is normal
and a drop rate under 50% means the filter is too loose.

05. competitor-leads-opener

---
name: competitor-leads-opener
description: The message. Never mention the competitor.
---
Line 1  The TOPIC of the post, and what was interesting about the
        discussion. Not the competitor, not the post author.
Line 2  Your angle on that same topic, one line.
Line 3  A question about their situation specifically.

NEVER name the competitor. Never say "I saw you commenting on X's
post". It reads as surveillance and it gets screenshotted.

The topic is the bridge. The competitor is invisible.

Under 300 characters.

BANNED: any phrasing that reveals where the list came from.

06. competitor-leads-sequence

---
name: competitor-leads-sequence
description: Four touches.
---
1  Opener, topic-based
2  Wait 4 days. A resource on that topic, given freely.
3  Wait 5 days. The difference in how you approach it, one line.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

Touch 3 is where you differentiate, and STILL without naming them.
Describe your approach, never the alternative.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

07. competitor-leads-objection

---
name: competitor-leads-objection
description: The objections this niche generates.
---
"We already use [competitor]"
-> Information, not rejection. Ask what it does not do. Listen
   properly; that answer is your roadmap as much as your pitch.

"How did you find me"
-> Answer honestly and briefly. "You commented on a post about X
   and it is what I work on." Evasion here is fatal.

"Are you a competitor of theirs"
-> Yes, plainly, then one line on the honest difference INCLUDING
   where they are better.

Never characterise their team, their pricing motive or their
roadmap. Ever.

08. competitor-leads-proof

---
name: competitor-leads-proof
description: Proof against an incumbent.
---
NEVER a direct comparison table in a DM. That is a website asset
and it reads as an attack in an inbox.

LEAD WITH a customer who switched, if you have one with permission,
and what specifically prompted it.

Name where the competitor is genuinely better, unprompted. It is
the fastest way to be believed on everything else.

If you have no switcher story, lead with the mechanism and skip
proof entirely.

09. competitor-leads-closer

---
name: competitor-leads-closer
description: The ask against an incumbent.
---
Do NOT ask them to switch. Ask for 15 minutes to understand what
they would need to see.

Switching costs are real. A buyer who hears you acknowledge that
takes the call; one who hears you dismiss it does not.

Offer to be useful regardless of outcome.

Most of these convert on the second attempt, months later, when
something breaks. Tag accordingly rather than marking them lost.

10. competitor-leads-diagnostic

---
name: competitor-leads-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 DROP RATE BELOW 50%
  The filter is too loose for this source. Tighten before sending.
2 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  The connection note referenced the competitor somewhere.
3 REPLIES LOW
  The opener led with the post rather than the topic.
4 REPLIES HOSTILE
  You named the competitor somewhere. Find it and remove it.

STAGE 4 IS SPECIFIC TO THIS NICHE and it is the one that damages
the brand rather than just the campaign. Treat one hostile reply as
a process failure, not bad luck.

ONE change per week.

Approach: fully automated. The volume play. A post that lands pulls hundreds of comments, and every one is a person expecting a link.

This is the only niche that cannot run manually.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/magnet-comments-{icp,resource,post,import,branch,score,message,followup,tagging,diagnostic}

01. magnet-comments-icp

---
name: magnet-comments-icp
description: Define who the magnet is for, before writing it.
---
The magnet does the qualifying, not the hook.

Keep hooks broadly resonant. Reach puts the post in front of more
of the ICP in absolute terms, so narrowing the hook costs you the
right people as well as the wrong ones.

PUT THE FILTER IN THE RESOURCE DESCRIPTION.
"43 cold email prompts" pulls everyone.
"43 cold email prompts for B2B SaaS founders selling to CTOs"
pulls fewer and better.

OUTPUT: the exact job title, company type, and the one problem the
resource solves for them.

02. magnet-comments-resource

---
name: magnet-comments-resource
description: Define the resource by its contents, never its benefits.
---
List what is LITERALLY inside. Objects, counts, sections, files.

"43 prompts, 6 sequences, 1 tracker" not "unlock your potential".

If you cannot list objects, the resource is not finished and the
post will underperform regardless of how good the hook is.

OUTPUT the contents list as it will appear in the post, and the
one thing inside that is most useful on its own. That single item
is what the follow-up message names.

03. magnet-comments-post

---
name: magnet-comments-post
description: Write the post. Three variants, three keywords.
---
Each variant uses a DIFFERENT formula and differs in angle, not
wording. A synonym swap is not a variant.

Each gets its own uppercase keyword, same semantic family:
OUTBOUND, PIPELINE, SEQUENCE.
Never OUTBOUND, OUTBOUND2, OUTBOUND3. That reads as a reposted
campaign.

CTA depends on connection state:
Mostly connected:
  Comment "[WORD]" and I'll DM it over.
Mostly not:
  Comment "[WORD]" and connect with me so I can send it.
  PS. If we're already connected, just drop the comment.

RULES
- Hook is lines 1 to 2 and must earn the See More click alone
- One idea per line, three lines maximum per paragraph
- Contents as objects, not outcomes
- One CTA. No hashtags in the body. No em dashes.
- Never invent a number

Pick one to post first and say why. Order the other two a week
apart.

04. magnet-comments-import

---
name: magnet-comments-import
description: Specify the import the moment the post goes live.
---
Import commenters AND likers from the post URL. Enable future
reactions so it keeps pulling as the post continues performing.

IMPORT EVERYONE. Importing costs nothing. The filtering happens at
the send step, not the import step.

A post that keeps performing for three weeks keeps feeding the list
without anyone touching it, which is the whole reason this niche
scales.

Record the post URL against every imported lead so attribution
survives to the diagnostic.

05. magnet-comments-branch

---
name: magnet-comments-branch
description: The five-node delivery sequence.
---
1  Import from post. Commenters and likers, future reactions on.
2  Condition: lead is 1st level
3  YES branch: send the message with the link
4  NO branch: connection request, then the message on acceptance
5  Reply Comment node, so every public comment gets a public reply

NO WAIT NODE after the connection request. Acceptance is
auto-detected, checking every 24 hours for two weeks with a random
1 to 24 hour delay before the next step.

Node 5 is the one people skip. Public replies keep the post
compounding, which extends the import window.

06. magnet-comments-score

---
name: magnet-comments-score
description: Score the engagers so the send budget goes in order.
---
DEPTH x FIT, each 1 to 3, multiplied. Maximum 9.

DEPTH  1 reaction / 2 short comment / 3 substantive or repeat
FIT    1 adjacent / 2 right role wrong company / 3 exact match

6 to 9  Contact this week
3 to 5  Hold for a second signal
1 to 2  No outreach. Keep in the list, spend no send on it.

At 20 connection requests a day account-wide, a 400-comment post is
five weeks of the entire budget. The ORDER decides the quarter, not
the size of the list.

Sort descending before the sequence starts.

07. magnet-comments-message

---
name: magnet-comments-message
description: The delivery DM.
---
Three lines. Thanks, the link, one question.

THE QUESTION is what turns a delivery into a conversation. Ask
something about their situation, answerable in under ten words.

NEVER pitch in the delivery message. They asked for a resource and
they get a resource. The pitch, if there is one, comes later.

Under 300 characters including the link.

Handle the empty first-name case. Nobody receives "Hi ,".

08. magnet-comments-followup

---
name: magnet-comments-followup
description: The follow-up to people who never opened it.
---
Wait 4 days. One line asking whether it was useful, plus the SINGLE
most useful thing inside it, named specifically.

Naming the specific item is what makes this work. "Did the tracker
help?" beats "did you get a chance to look?".

ONE follow-up only. A second message to someone who ignored the
first is not persistence, and this list is large enough that the
volume compounds badly.

Under 200 characters.

09. magnet-comments-tagging

---
name: magnet-comments-tagging
description: Tag so attribution survives.
---
Tag by POST VARIANT and by KEYWORD, so you can compare which of the
three angles actually pulled.

Rotating keywords is what makes this possible. A shared keyword
across three posts discards the only free attribution signal you
get, and the import is from the post URL anyway so it consolidates
nothing.

ALSO tag anyone who commented on more than one post. Those leads
are warmer than single-post commenters and deserve a different
opening line.

Turn on skip-leads-contacted-by-another-campaign so repeats get
marked Duplicate automatically.

10. magnet-comments-diagnostic

---
name: magnet-comments-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 LOW COMMENTS
  The hook, not the resource. Try the next variant.
2 COMMENTS FINE, LOW DELIVERY
  The branch or the connection cap. Check the 1st-level condition
  and the daily split.
3 DELIVERED, NO REPLIES
  The delivery message had no question in it.
4 REPLIES, NO CALLS
  The resource and the offer are unrelated.

STAGE 4 is the common failure. A magnet that has nothing to do with
what you sell produces a large list you cannot convert, and that
feels like success for about three weeks.

Also report: which variant pulled, and whether multi-post
commenters converted better.

ONE change per week.

This niche runs entirely on Prosp. It imports commenters and likers straight from the post URL including future reactions, runs the five nodes above, and the Reply Comment node answers every public comment. 14 day free trial, no card.

Two approaches. A leads with a hard-to-fill role. B leads with placement volume.

Recruiters are pitched constantly by people who do not understand their market. Showing that you do is the whole game here.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/recruiter-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener-a,opener-b,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. recruiter-icp

---
name: recruiter-icp
description: Define which recruiters to target.
---
OUTPUT: agency or in-house, specialism, headcount, roles they fill,
fee model, and whether they are currently placing.

AGENCY recruiters buy tools that win them placements.
IN-HOUSE recruiters buy tools that reduce time-to-hire.

Completely different message. Pick ONE and build the list for it.
Mixing them produces copy that lands on neither.

EXCLUDE: generalists at scale, anyone not currently posting roles,
anyone whose specialism you cannot speak about credibly.

02. recruiter-list

---
name: recruiter-list
description: Build from live hiring activity.
---
SOURCES:
1. Recruiters posting roles in the last 14 days
2. Agencies whose job board shows volume
3. Recruiters commenting about sourcing difficulty
4. In-house talent leads at companies hiring heavily

Capture: roles currently open, posting frequency, specialism, and
any role that has been reposted.

The reposted-role column is the strongest field in this list. Build
it at source rather than deriving it later.

Write to output/prospects.csv with a linkedin_url column.

03. recruiter-signal

---
name: recruiter-signal
description: The recruiter-specific signal.
---
TIER 1  Posted the same role twice / role open 45+ days / publicly
        said a role is hard to fill / new talent lead in post
TIER 2  High posting volume / expanding specialism / hiring their
        own recruiters
TIER 3  Active, nothing specific

TIER 1's first item is the strongest in this niche. A REPOSTED ROLE
is a public admission of difficulty, and everyone in recruitment
knows what it means.

Record the role title, the days open, and the repost date.

04. recruiter-filter

---
name: recruiter-filter
description: Filter before enriching.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: not currently posting, competitor, specialism you cannot
serve, in-house when you target agency or the reverse.

The last one is the most common error. An in-house talent lead
receiving agency-recruiter copy replies to tell you that you did
not check.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv, DROP to dropped.csv.

05. recruiter-opener-a

Approach A, the hard-to-fill role.

---
name: recruiter-opener-a
description: The hard-to-fill-role opener.
---
Line 1  Name the specific role and how long it has been open.
Line 2  Why that role type is currently hard, one line, showing you
        know the market.
Line 3  One question about their current sourcing approach.

LINE 2 IS THE WHOLE MESSAGE. Showing you understand their market
matters more here than in any other niche, because recruiters are
pitched daily by people who clearly do not.

If you cannot write line 2 credibly for that specialism, do not
contact them. Pick a specialism you can.

Under 300 characters.

06. recruiter-opener-b

Approach B, the volume angle. For agencies placing at scale.

---
name: recruiter-opener-b
description: The volume opener.
---
Line 1  Their placement or posting volume, observed and stated.
Line 2  The bottleneck that volume creates, named specifically.
Line 3  One question about where the time actually goes.

NEVER assume the bottleneck is sourcing. For high-volume agencies
it is usually screening or client communication, and guessing
sourcing marks you as another sourcing-tool pitch.

Ask rather than assert if you are not sure. The question version
converts nearly as well and cannot be wrong.

07. recruiter-sequence

---
name: recruiter-sequence
description: Four touches, shorter delays than any other niche.
---
1  Opener A or B
2  Wait 3 days. A candidate source or approach for that role type,
   given free.
3  Wait 4 days. How it works, two lines.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

RECRUITERS RESPOND TO SPEED. Keep delays shorter here than
anywhere else in the library. They live in their inbox.

Touch 2 giving away an actual sourcing approach is what proves you
understand the market rather than claiming to.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

08. recruiter-objection

---
name: recruiter-objection
description: The weekly four.
---
"We have our own database"
-> Ask how fresh it is. The answer is the opening, because every
   recruiter database decays and they know it.

"Candidates are the problem, not tools"
-> Agree. Ask what makes a candidate hard to reach in their
   specialism specifically. That conversation is the sale.

"We are commission-only, no budget"
-> A real constraint. Ask what a placement is worth and whether the
   maths works at that level. If it does not, say so and leave.

"We already use [tool]"
-> Ask what it does not do.

09. recruiter-proof

---
name: recruiter-proof
description: Proof for recruiters.
---
TIME TO PLACEMENT and response rate. Never volume of contacts.

A recruiter measures placements. A contact-volume claim reads as
irrelevant at best and as a spam tool at worst.

Match the specialism where possible. Tech recruiting proof does
not land on healthcare recruiting, and using it signals you do not
know the difference.

State the timeframe with every figure.

Check the permission column before naming any agency.

10. recruiter-closer

---
name: recruiter-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER to run it on ONE live role before any commitment.

Recruiters buy on demonstrated results faster than any other
audience in this library. A call is a worse ask than a trial.

"One role, this week, and you keep whatever it finds."

Name which role you mean, from the signal. A generic trial offer
is easy to defer; a specific one is not.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

11. recruiter-diagnostic

---
name: recruiter-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  Recruiters accept broadly, so this is an off-ICP list rather than
  the note. Check the agency versus in-house split.
2 REPLIES LOW
  The opener did not show market knowledge. Rewrite line 2.
3 REPLIES FINE, NO TRIALS
  The trial ask was too large or not tied to a named role.
4 TRIALS HAPPENING, NO CONVERSION
  The results were not attributable. Fix how the trial is measured
  before running more of them.

ONE change per week.

Approach: pain point. Quote what they said, name the underlying cause, ask if the read is right.

This audience recognises every technique because they teach them. Sympathy and urgency both fail here.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/coach-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. coach-icp

---
name: coach-icp
description: Define which coaches and consultants to target.
---
OUTPUT: discipline, delivery model (1:1, group, course), price
point, whether they post, and where their clients currently come
from.

THE SWEET SPOT: delivering well, marketing inconsistently. Visible
from a strong testimonial section sitting next to a thin posting
history.

EXCLUDE: pre-revenue, anyone whose only offer sits below a price
point you can serve, MLM-adjacent, anyone selling what you sell.

The price point check matters. A coach selling a 200 pound course
cannot fund a retainer regardless of how good the fit looks.

02. coach-list

---
name: coach-list
description: Build the list.
---
SOURCES:
1. Coaches posting about client acquisition difficulty
2. Members of relevant professional communities
3. Speakers at industry events
4. Coaches whose booking calendar is visibly open

SOURCE 4 is uncomfortable and effective. A public calendar with
open slots next week is a signal, and it is public information they
chose to publish.

Capture: discipline, price point if visible, last post date, and
any public statement about lead flow.

03. coach-signal

---
name: coach-signal
description: The pain-based signal.
---
TIER 1  Publicly said referrals have slowed / launched something
        that did not fill / posting about lead gen / calendar
        visibly open
TIER 2  Inconsistent posting / relaunched an offer / joined a
        community about client acquisition
TIER 3  Fit only

QUOTE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID, verbatim, with the date and URL.

This niche runs on their own words more than any other. A
paraphrase reads as a template, and a template to someone who
writes sales copy for a living is dead on arrival.

04. coach-filter

---
name: coach-filter
description: Filter before writing.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: pre-revenue, price point too low, pure MLM, anyone selling
the same thing you sell.

The last one appears more often here than anywhere else. Half of
this market sells client acquisition to the other half.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv, DROP to dropped.csv.

05. coach-opener

---
name: coach-opener
description: The pain-point opener.
---
Line 1  Quote what they said, verbatim, in quotation marks.
Line 2  Name the UNDERLYING CAUSE, not the symptom. Referrals
        slowing is rarely a referral problem.
Line 3  One question about whether that read is right.

NEVER sympathise. "That sounds tough" is the fastest way to be
ignored by someone who coaches for a living.

BE SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO BE WRONG. A read they disagree with gets a
reply. A vague one gets nothing. Vagueness reads as templated and
this audience spots it instantly.

Under 300 characters.

06. coach-sequence

---
name: coach-sequence
description: Four touches.
---
1  Opener. Their words plus your read.
2  Wait 3 days. ONE thing they could change this week, free.
3  Wait 5 days. The pattern across others like them, one line.
4  Wait 7 days. Close-out.

This audience recognises every technique, so the sequence has to be
SUBSTANTIVELY USEFUL at touch 2 or it dies there. A generic tip is
worse than no touch 2.

Touch 3 naming the pattern works because it positions you as
someone who sees many cases, which is what they sell too.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

07. coach-objection

---
name: coach-objection
description: The weekly four.
---
"I get clients through referrals"
-> Agree it is the best source. Ask what happens in a quiet quarter.

"I do not want to be salesy"
-> The real objection. Agree with it, then name what you would do
   INSTEAD of what they are imagining.

"I tried lead gen and it attracted the wrong people"
-> Ask who showed up. The answer is a positioning problem, not a
   lead gen one, and saying so is the differentiator.

"I coach this myself"
-> Common and awkward. Ask whether they apply it to their own
   business, honestly. Usually not, and they will say so.

08. coach-proof

---
name: coach-proof
description: Proof for coaches.
---
A NAMED CLIENT with a specific before and after beats any number in
isolation, because this audience sells transformation and
recognises the format immediately.

NEVER use income claims. Never use a lifestyle claim. Both are the
markers of the people this audience actively dislikes.

If the only proof is a testimonial with no specifics, use the
mechanism instead and say you would rather show than tell.

Check the permission column before naming anyone.

09. coach-closer

---
name: coach-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER a conversation framed around THEIR situation, not your
service.

"20 minutes on what is actually blocking it, whether or not we work
together."

This audience buys the person. The call is the product demo, so
make the call worth having on its own terms.

NEVER use urgency or scarcity with coaches. They teach it, they
spot it, and it ends the conversation in one message.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

10. coach-diagnostic

---
name: coach-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  The connection note was sympathetic rather than specific.
2 REPLIES LOW
  You quoted the symptom, not their actual words. Go back to
  verbatim.
3 REPLIES FINE, CALLS LOW
  The call sounded like a sales call. Reframe it around their
  situation.
4 CALLS FINE, NO CLOSE
  Price mismatch. Check the ICP price-point band rather than the
  pitch.

ONE change per week.

Approach: the observable site problem. One issue in message one, the full list on reply.

The sweet spot is a site built three or more years ago that nobody maintains any more. Visible from the footer and the source.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/website-builder-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. website-builder-icp

---
name: website-builder-icp
description: Define the target.
---
OUTPUT: platform, business type, site age, whether they have an
in-house developer, and what the site is for (lead gen, ecom,
brochure).

THE SWEET SPOT: a site built 3+ years ago, on a platform nobody is
maintaining. Visible from the footer credit, the theme, and the
source.

WHAT THE SITE IS FOR decides everything downstream. A broken form
on a lead gen site is urgent. The same form on a brochure site is
not, and pitching it as urgent marks you as someone who did not
think about their business.

EXCLUDE: in-house dev team, site built in the last 12 months,
agencies who build sites themselves.

02. website-builder-list

---
name: website-builder-list
description: Build from platform signals.
---
SOURCES:
1. Sites on outdated themes or plugin versions
2. Businesses whose site is visibly not mobile-optimised
3. Recently funded companies with a thin site
4. Companies hiring a marketer but with no usable site to support
   them

SOURCE 4 is the strongest and the least used. Hiring a marketer
with a broken site is a budget that is about to be wasted, and the
person being hired will say so in week two.

Capture: platform, theme, approximate build date, and the single
worst visible issue with its evidence.

03. website-builder-signal

---
name: website-builder-signal
description: Find the visible site problem.
---
TIER 1  Mobile layout broken / load time visibly poor / no SSL /
        forms broken / recently funded with a thin site
TIER 2  Outdated design / no schema / poor image handling / thin
        content on money pages
TIER 3  Works, looks dated

EVERY finding needs a screenshot or a URL. This niche lives on
evidence, and a finding they cannot reproduce ends it.

TEST THE FORM YOURSELF before claiming it is broken. A wrong claim
about a working form is the single most damaging error available
in this niche.

04. website-builder-filter

---
name: website-builder-filter
description: Filter before any audit work.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: in-house dev team, site under 12 months old, agency that
builds sites, business too small for a rebuild budget.

The budget check matters. A rebuild is a considered purchase, and a
business that cannot fund one is a long conversation with no end.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv, DROP to dropped.csv.

05. website-builder-opener

---
name: website-builder-opener
description: The observable-problem opener.
---
Line 1  The single worst issue, specific, with what it costs them.
        "Your contact form has been returning an error on mobile"
        is an opener. "Your site could be better" is not.
Line 2  How you know, briefly. Credibility, not a lecture.
Line 3  One question: whether they know.

If the issue is genuinely broken and costing them enquiries, say so
plainly. That message gets replies regardless of any interest in a
rebuild, because it is useful on its own.

NEVER open with a full audit. One issue, then the offer.

Under 300 characters.

06. website-builder-sequence

---
name: website-builder-sequence
description: Four touches.
---
1  Opener, the single worst issue
2  On reply, the full list. Five issues, one page, ranked by what
   they cost.
3  Wait 3 days. What the first fix would involve, roughly.
4  Wait 6 days. Close-out.

IF NO REPLY to touch 1, send the list anyway at touch 2. It
converts better than asking permission to send it.

Rank by cost to them, not by effort for you. A ranking that
suspiciously matches your service order gets noticed.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

07. website-builder-objection

---
name: website-builder-objection
description: The weekly four.
---
"We are planning a rebuild anyway"
-> Ask when and who with. Often neither is decided, and that is the
   opening.

"Our nephew built it"
-> Handle carefully. NEVER criticise the builder. Talk about what
   the business needs now rather than what was wrong then.

"It is fine for what we need"
-> Ask what it produced last month. If the answer is nothing, that
   is the conversation.

"Too expensive"
-> Ask what an enquiry is worth to them, and work from there.

08. website-builder-proof

---
name: website-builder-proof
description: Proof.
---
BEFORE AND AFTER screenshots plus ONE metric: load time, enquiries,
or conversion rate, with the timeframe.

Match the business type. A SaaS rebuild proves nothing to a dental
practice, and showing it suggests you do not see the difference.

NEVER claim a ranking improvement from a rebuild alone. It is the
claim most likely to be checked and most likely to be wrong.

Check the permission column before using any screenshot.

09. website-builder-closer

---
name: website-builder-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER to walk through the list on a call, with the fix order and
rough effort, whether or not they use you.

This converts because the list is genuinely useful and they know a
quote is coming anyway. Pretending otherwise insults them.

NAME THE PRICE BAND in advance. Rebuild conversations die on
unspoken budget mismatch more than on anything else, and they die
late, after a proposal.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

10. website-builder-diagnostic

---
name: website-builder-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  Off-ICP list, most likely businesses too small for a rebuild.
2 REPLIES LOW
  The issue in line one was generic. Make it specific and testable.
3 REPLIES FINE, NO CALLS
  The list read as a sales document rather than a diagnosis.
4 CALLS FINE, NO CLOSE
  Price band was never stated up front.

Stage 4 is the expensive one. Every call that dies on budget was a
filter failure two weeks earlier.

ONE change per week.

Approach: the keyword callout. Name the term, their position, and who is above them.

This is the most pitched audience in the library. They get twenty SEO emails a day, so the opener has to prove within one line that this one is different.

mkdir -p .claude/skills/seo-services-{icp,list,signal,filter,opener,sequence,objection,proof,closer,diagnostic}

01. seo-services-icp

---
name: seo-services-icp
description: Define the target.
---
OUTPUT: business type, whether organic actually matters in their
category, current visibility band, whether they have an SEO agency,
and who owns marketing.

THE SWEET SPOT: ranking on page two for terms that matter. Close
enough to care, far enough to need help.

Page one across the board means no problem to solve. Page five
means a rebuild conversation, not an SEO one.

EXCLUDE: already page one, no organic intent in the category,
existing SEO agency credited on the site.

02. seo-services-list

---
name: seo-services-list
description: Build from ranking data.
---
SOURCES:
1. Sites ranking 8 to 20 for commercial terms in your categories
2. Sites that lost positions in the last 90 days
3. Recently funded companies with thin organic presence
4. Companies hiring a content or SEO person

SOURCE 2 is the strongest. A recent drop is FELT, and it is dated,
which makes the opener specific and timely at once.

Capture: the term, current position, previous position, and the
date of the change.

You cannot see rankings without a connected data source. Use one or
state what you need. Never estimate a position.

03. seo-services-signal

---
name: seo-services-signal
description: The keyword callout signal.
---
TIER 1  Dropped positions on a commercial term in 90 days /
        competitor overtook them on a named term / hiring for SEO /
        launched a new section with no coverage
TIER 2  Stuck on page two for a valuable term / thin content on a
        money page / a technical issue visibly blocking
TIER 3  Fit only

Record: the term, the position, the competitor above them, and the
date. All four appear in the opener.

COMMERCIAL INTENT is the filter on the term itself. A drop on an
informational term is not a business problem and pitching it as one
marks you out immediately.

04. seo-services-filter

---
name: seo-services-filter
description: Filter before any analysis work.
---
Per row: KEEP, DROP or UNSURE with a 12-word reason.

DROP: existing agency credited, already page one, no commercial
intent in the category, too small for the retainer band.

The existing-agency check is the one to enforce hardest. Pitching
over an incumbent agency in this niche produces the most hostile
replies of any niche in the library.

KEEP and UNSURE to filtered.csv, DROP to dropped.csv.

05. seo-services-opener

---
name: seo-services-opener
description: The keyword callout.
---
Line 1  The specific term, their position, and who is above them.
        Named, with the date.
Line 2  The ONE reason, observable from the page. Not "your SEO
        needs work".
Line 3  One question about whether that term matters to them.

THE QUESTION IS LOAD-BEARING. Sometimes the term does not matter
and the honest answer saves you both time. Asking it also
distinguishes you from every automated pitch that assumes.

NEVER claim you can get them to position one. Never quote a
timeframe for a ranking.

Under 300 characters.

BANNED: "I noticed your site isn't ranking", "I did a quick audit
of your site", "I can get you to page one".

06. seo-services-sequence

---
name: seo-services-sequence
description: Four touches.
---
1  Opener, the named term and position
2  On reply, three more terms and the pattern across them.
3  Wait 3 days. The ONE fix you would make first, specifically.
4  Wait 6 days. Close-out.

TOUCH 3 giving away the actual first fix is what separates this
from every other SEO pitch they receive weekly. A vague "we'd start
with technical" is not a fix.

The fix must be something they could hand to a developer today
without you.

Reply stops it. No wait node after a connection request.

07. seo-services-objection

---
name: seo-services-objection
description: The weekly five. The most pitched audience here.
---
"We get 20 SEO emails a day"
-> Acknowledge it IMMEDIATELY. The named term and position is why
   this one is different. Say that, plainly.

"SEO takes too long"
-> Agree. Name the realistic timeframe rather than arguing with it.

"We tried an agency, no results"
-> Ask what the reporting looked like. It is almost always that.

"We are focused on paid"
-> Ask the blended CAC. If paid is working, say so and leave.

"Can you guarantee position one"
-> No. Say no plainly. The answer wins more deals than it loses,
   because everyone else says something evasive.

08. seo-services-proof

---
name: seo-services-proof
description: Proof for a sceptical, over-pitched buyer.
---
TRAFFIC AND REVENUE, with the timeframe and the STARTING POINT.

A percentage with no absolute is the tell of every bad SEO pitch
and this audience knows it. "Up 300%" from 40 visits is a sentence
they have heard before.

Match the category. Match the site size.

NEVER use a ranking screenshot with no date. Never a graph with no
axis labels.

If you cannot evidence it, use the diagnosis instead. A correct
read of their problem is proof of competence and costs nothing.

09. seo-services-closer

---
name: seo-services-closer
description: The ask.
---
OFFER a 20-minute walkthrough of the terms and the first three
fixes, whether or not they engage.

NAME THE RETAINER BAND in the same message. Unspoken budget is what
kills SEO deals at proposal stage, weeks later.

NEVER offer a free full audit here. Everyone does, so it signals
nothing and costs you a day. The named term in the opener already
did that work.

Tag the lead so the sequence stops.

10. seo-services-diagnostic

---
name: seo-services-diagnostic
description: Weekly.
---
Stop at the first failure.

1 ACCEPTANCE LOW
  The connection note sounded like every other SEO pitch. This is
  the hardest stage in this niche and where most campaigns die.
2 REPLIES LOW
  The term named was not commercially relevant to them.
3 REPLIES FINE, CALLS LOW
  Touch 3 did not give away a real, actionable fix.
4 CALLS FINE, NO CLOSE
  Retainer band was never stated.

Stage 1 is why the opener must carry a real position and a real
competitor name. Everything generic is filtered before it is read.

ONE change per week.

110 skills write the messages. Prosp sends them 💜

↳ Start a 14 Day Free Trial 💜 ↳ Watch Full Tutorial ▶️

22 prompts covering ICP definition, positioning, messaging, and the foundational context work every other category depends on.

The 22 prompts

# 1. Full ICP definition interview
"Interview me one question at a time to build a complete ICP definition:
title/seniority, company type, size, revenue stage, funding status, the
specific problem they have right now in their own words, what they are
already doing about it, where they spend time online, and the one
disqualifier that rules someone out immediately. Save the finished
definition as icp.md."

# 2. ICP validation against closed-won deals
"Here are our last [N] closed-won deals: [PASTE DATA].
Does our current ICP definition actually match who bought?
Flag any pattern in the data that contradicts our stated ICP."

# 3. Multiple ICP segmentation
"We sell to [DESCRIBE 2-3 DIFFERENT BUYER TYPES].
Build a separate ICP definition for each, and flag anywhere our current
messaging accidentally speaks to only one segment."

# 4. The one-sentence positioning statement
"Using this format: For [ICP], who [PAIN], [BRAND] is the [CATEGORY]
that [DIFFERENTIATOR]. Unlike [ALTERNATIVE], we [PROOF POINT].
Draft 3 versions of our positioning statement from: [PASTE CONTEXT]."

# 5. The podcast test for positioning clarity
"If I were introduced on a podcast, how would the host describe what I do
in one sentence, based on: [PASTE BIO/WEBSITE/OFFER]? If that sentence is
vague or generic, tell me exactly why and propose a sharper one."

# 6. Messaging hierarchy
"Build a 4-level messaging hierarchy for [OFFER]: the primary message a
stranger would understand, the proof point, the mechanism, and the
objection handler. Keep every level in plain English."

# 7. Category creation vs category entry
"Should [OFFER] compete inside an existing category or create a new one?
Argue both sides, then give me your actual recommendation and why."

# 8. The Opposites method for positioning
"List 5 things we are deliberately NOT, to sharpen what we actually are.
For each: the opposite trait, and the one sentence explaining why we
chose not to be that."

# 9. Use Case Canvas
"Build a Use Case Canvas for [OFFER]: the trigger event that starts the
buyer's search, the job they are trying to get done, the current
alternative, and the outcome they actually want."

# 10. Buyer persona from a LinkedIn URL
"Read this LinkedIn profile: [URL]. Build a persona summary: likely
priorities, likely objections, likely internal politics they navigate,
and the one thing that would make them personally look good for
championing this purchase."

# 11. The competitor-opposite positioning check
"Read [COMPETITOR]'s homepage: [URL]. Where does our positioning overlap
with theirs almost word for word? Propose a sharper alternative for each
overlap."

# 12. Elevator pitch in 3 lengths
"Write our elevator pitch in 3 versions: a 10-second version, a 30-second
version, and a 2-minute version for a discovery call opener. Same core
message, different depth."

# 13. The 'why now' urgency statement
"Based on [MARKET CONTEXT/TREND], write the specific 'why now' argument
for why a prospect should act on this problem this quarter rather than
next year."

# 14. ICP disqualification script
"Write a polite, direct message for disqualifying a lead who does not
match our ICP: [DISQUALIFIER REASON]. Keep the door open for a referral."

# 15. Persona-to-content mapping
"For each persona in our ICP, what content format and channel do they
actually consume (LinkedIn post, long-form blog, podcast, webinar)?
Map persona to preferred format."

# 16. The anti-persona
"Who looks like our ICP on paper but is actually a bad fit? Describe this
anti-persona in detail so we can filter them out of outbound lists."

# 17. Positioning audit of existing website copy
"Read our homepage: [URL]. Does the above-the-fold copy pass the 10-second
test: can a stranger tell what we do, who it's for, and what to do next?
Flag every line that fails and rewrite it."

# 18. The value metric decision
"What should our pricing be based on: seats, usage, outcomes, or a flat
fee? Argue for the option that best fits [DESCRIBE PRODUCT/BUSINESS
MODEL] and explain the tradeoffs of the others."

# 19. Founder-market fit narrative
"Write the founder-market fit story: why is [FOUNDER NAME] specifically
the right person to build [PRODUCT]? Use only real details I provide:
[PASTE BACKGROUND]."

# 20. The category-defining manifesto
"Write a short manifesto-style post making the case for why [CATEGORY/
APPROACH] is the right way to solve [PROBLEM], contrasted with the old
way of doing it."

# 21. ICP scoring rubric
"Build a 1-10 ICP fit scoring rubric with explicit criteria per point
value, so any team member scores a lead the same way I would."

# 22. The repositioning decision memo
"We are considering repositioning from [OLD POSITIONING] to [NEW
POSITIONING]. Write a decision memo: the case for, the case against,
the risk of doing nothing, and your actual recommendation."

24 prompts covering finding prospects, building lists, enrichment, and qualification before any outreach begins.

The 24 prompts

# 23. Cold ICP list build
"Build a list of [COMPANY TYPE] matching: [ICP CRITERIA]. Source: domain
and name only, no email lookup yet. Target: [N] companies. Output as
raw-leads.csv."

# 24. Job-posting trigger list
"Find companies posting [JOB TITLE] roles in the last 14 days.
Filter: [INDUSTRY, GEO, SIZE]. Return company, posting date, website,
employee count."

# 25. Funding-signal trigger list
"Find companies that raised funding in the last 90 days matching:
[ICP CRITERIA]. Return company, round, amount, date, and one sentence
on why this signals buying intent for our offer."

# 26. Lookalike company discovery
"Seed: [5-10 DOMAINS OF BEST-FIT CUSTOMERS]. Find [N] similar companies.
For each: why it matches, size estimate, geography, contacted before (Y/N)."

# 27. Competitor customer discovery
"Find companies that are current or likely customers of [COMPETITOR],
based on public case studies, testimonials, and integration marketplace
listings."

# 28. ICP filter pass before enrichment
"Filter this raw list against our ICP: [PASTE CRITERIA]. For each row,
check the company website and mark KEEP or DROP with a one-line reason.
Output filtered-leads.csv and dropped-leads.csv."

# 29. Email pattern finder
"For each row in this list, find the company's email pattern from
publicly visible addresses, or generate the most probable pattern.
Return: guessed email, confidence (high/medium/low), pattern used."

# 30. Decision-maker extraction
"From this company list, find the most relevant decision-maker per
company matching titles: [LIST TITLES]. Return name, title, LinkedIn URL."

# 31. Bulk profile enrichment
"Enrich these LinkedIn URLs: [PASTE]. Return role, company, location,
professional email if findable. Skip anything enriched in the last 30 days."

# 32. List quality scorecard
"Grade this list across 8 dimensions: email validity, title match,
company size fit, geography match, duplicate rate, missing fields,
seniority, domain health risk. Return score per dimension and overall grade."

# 33. Competitor engager scraping
"Competitor LinkedIn posts to monitor: [URLS]. Scrape commenters and
reactors. Filter for ICP matches. Return name, title, company, which
post they engaged with."

# 34. Tech-stack based list building
"Find companies using [SPECIFIC TOOL/TECHNOLOGY] that also match:
[ICP CRITERIA]. This signal indicates [SPECIFIC PAIN OUR OFFER SOLVES]."

# 35. Event and conference attendee list
"Based on [EVENT NAME]'s public speaker list, sponsor list, or attendee
signals, build a target list of likely attendees matching our ICP."

# 36. Referral network mapping
"From our current customer list: [PASTE], who else at their companies,
or at companies they are connected to, might also match our ICP?"

# 37. Dead lead reactivation list
"From our CRM export: [PASTE], find contacts that went cold 90+ days ago
but still match our ICP. Rank by likelihood to re-engage based on their
last interaction."

# 38. Waterfall enrichment across providers
"Enrich this list. Try [PROVIDER 1] first. If no email found, try
[PROVIDER 2]. If still none, try [PROVIDER 3]. Mark the source provider
per row that succeeded."

# 39. Duplicate detection across lists
"Compare these two lists: [LIST A] and [LIST B]. Flag exact duplicates,
probable duplicates (same company, different contact), and unique entries
in each."

# 40. Territory and account mapping
"Split this account list into territories by [CRITERIA: geography, size,
vertical]. Balance territories so total addressable revenue is roughly
equal across reps."

# 41. Intent signal aggregation
"Aggregate signals for this account list from job postings, funding news,
leadership changes, and tech installs. Score and route into tiers: urgent,
weekly, monitor."

# 42. The TAM sanity check
"Given ICP criteria: [PASTE], estimate our total addressable market size.
If under [THRESHOLD], recommend how to widen the criteria without losing
fit."

# 43. LinkedIn Sales Navigator search string builder
"Build the exact Sales Navigator filter combination (titles, seniority,
company size, geography, keywords) for this ICP: [PASTE]."

# 44. Prospect research brief before first contact
"Research [COMPANY NAME] and [CONTACT NAME]. Return: company overview,
recent news, the contact's likely priorities, and one specific detail to
reference in outreach."

# 45. List segmentation by buying stage
"Segment this list into cold, warm (engaged with content), and hot
(showed direct signal) based on: [DESCRIBE AVAILABLE SIGNAL DATA].

# 46. The disqualification sweep
"Run this list against our disqualifiers: [LIST]. Remove any row matching
a disqualifier and log the reason removed."

26 prompts covering the full cold email motion: personalisation, sequences, subject lines, and deliverability.

The 26 prompts

# 47. The personalisation waterfall
"For [PROSPECT], check signals in this order: hiring signal, tech stack,
content/positioning signal, company milestone, fallback. Use the first
one you can verify. Write the opener using it."

# 48. Signal-led first line
"Prospect: [NAME/COMPANY]. Signal: [SPECIFIC SIGNAL]. Write one opening
line under 25 words that references this signal without sounding
templated."

# 49. The 4-line cold email
"Write a cold email in exactly 4 lines: personalised opener, problem
connection, one-sentence offer, soft CTA. Under 100 words total."

# 50. Subject line generator (5 mechanisms)
"Write 5 subject lines for this email using different mechanisms:
curiosity gap, specific number, contrarian claim, pain recognition,
stakes escalation. Under 33 characters each."

# 51. 3-touch sequence
"Write a 3-touch sequence for [PROSPECT/SIGNAL]. Touch 1 (day 1): the
opener. Touch 2 (day 3): different angle. Touch 3 (day 7): honest
breakup, no guilt."

# 52. 5-touch sequence with multiple channels
"Write a 5-touch sequence combining email and LinkedIn: email, LinkedIn
connection note, email, LinkedIn comment engagement, final email breakup."

# 53. The reverse lead magnet pitch
"I built [TOOL/ASSET] specifically relevant to [PROSPECT]'s situation.
Write the email offering to send it, framed as something built for them
specifically, not a generic resource."

# 54. Email QA checklist
"Check this email draft: [PASTE]. Word count under 100? No em dashes?
No banned phrases? One CTA only? Signal confidence noted? Fix anything
that fails."

# 55. Bulk personalisation from a CSV
"Read [LEADS CSV]. For each row, write a 3-sentence cold email
referencing the signal in the signal column. Under 90 words. Score each
1-10 before including it, only return 7+."

# 56. The competitor-displacement email
"Prospect currently uses [COMPETITOR]. Write an email that references
their likely frustration with [SPECIFIC COMPETITOR WEAKNESS] without
naming the competitor directly."

# 57. Re-engagement email for a cold lead
"This lead went cold [N] days ago. Write a re-engagement email that
references something new (a company change, a relevant industry event)
rather than just 'checking in'."

# 58. The mutual-connection email
"We share a mutual connection with [PROSPECT]: [CONNECTION NAME]. Write
an email that references this naturally without sounding like a namedrop."

# 59. Post-webinar or event follow-up email
"Prospect attended [EVENT/WEBINAR]. Write a follow-up email referencing
the specific session or topic, connecting it to our offer."

# 60. The proof-first email
"Lead with a specific, real result: [PASTE METRIC/CASE STUDY]. Write an
email where the proof point is the hook, not buried in paragraph 3."

# 61. Deliverability-safe email audit
"Check this email for spam-trigger language, excessive links, and
formatting that could hurt deliverability. Rewrite anything flagged."

# 62. The founder-to-founder email
"Write a founder-to-founder cold email: more informal, more direct, no
sales language, referencing [SPECIFIC SHARED CONTEXT]."

# 63. Multi-threading email to a second stakeholder
"We have been talking to [CONTACT 1] at [COMPANY]. Write an email to
introduce [CONTACT 2, a different stakeholder] referencing the existing
conversation appropriately."

# 64. The one-question email
"Write a cold email that asks exactly one specific, easy-to-answer
question as the entire CTA, nothing else."

# 65. Warm intro request email
"Write an email to [MUTUAL CONNECTION] asking for an introduction to
[TARGET PROSPECT], making it easy for them to forward with minimal effort."

# 66. The 'saw you were hiring' angle
"Prospect's company posted a [ROLE] job listing. Write an email
connecting this hire to the pain our offer solves, without being creepy
about the research."

# 67. Email reply classifier
"Classify this reply: [PASTE]. Categories: positive interest, positive
but busy, objection, not interested, out of office, escalate to human.
Suggest the next message if applicable."

# 68. The breakup email that gets replies
"Write a final breakup email for a non-responsive thread. Honest, no
guilt, leaves the door open, and includes one line that might actually
prompt a reply out of curiosity."

# 69. Email A/B test variant generator
"Take this email: [PASTE]. Generate 3 variants testing different single
variables: subject line, opening line, and CTA, changing only one
element per variant."

# 70. Vertical-specific compliance check
"This email is going to [REGULATED INDUSTRY: healthcare/finance/legal].
Check for any claim or language that could be a compliance issue and flag it."

# 71. The 'no meeting ask' first email
"Write a first-touch email that does NOT ask for a meeting. Instead ask
for permission to send one specific piece of relevant information."

# 72. Email sequence performance diagnostic
"Our sequence has a [X]% open rate and [Y]% reply rate. Given the emails:
[PASTE SEQUENCE], diagnose whether the subject lines, the copy, or the
targeting is the likely bottleneck."

26 prompts covering LinkedIn connection notes, DM sequences, content, and engagement.

The 26 prompts

# 73. Connection note from post engagement
"Prospect commented on this post: [PASTE COMMENT/CONTEXT]. Write a
connection note under 200 characters referencing it. No pitch."

# 74. Connection note with no context available
"No specific signal available beyond their profile. Write a connection
note referencing one real, specific detail from their profile or company,
never a generic opener."

# 75. Warm DM 3-touch sequence
"Relationship started via: [comment/mutual connection/cold accept].
Write touch 1 (within 24 hours, references the start context), touch 2
(3 days later, different angle), touch 3 (7 days later, honest check-in)."

# 76. LinkedIn reply classifier
"Classify this DM reply: [PASTE]. Positive interest, positive but busy,
neutral question, objection, not interested, escalate to human. Suggest
next message if applicable."

# 77. Post engager scoring
"Score these post engagers by ICP fit and engagement depth: [PASTE LIST].
Combined priority = engagement depth (1-3) x ICP fit (1-3). Rank highest first."

# 78. LinkedIn post writer with hook selection
"Write a LinkedIn post about [TOPIC]. Select the hook type based on the
idea (specific-number, contrarian, mistake-confession, before-and-after,
direct-question) and name it. Under 200 words."

# 79. The write-hook-last edit
"Here is a full post draft: [PASTE]. Find the sharpest, most specific
line already inside it and move it to the top as the hook. Do not invent
a new one."

# 80. Hook extractor from a viral post
"Reverse-engineer the hook formula from this post: [PASTE]. Return a
blank, fillable template using the same structure for my own topic."

# 81. Content moat check
"Check this post for a content moat: is there a narrative, data, or
physical detail only I could have included? Could this exact post have
been written by anyone typing the topic into Claude? Flag if it fails."

# 82. Humanizer pass (strip AI tells)
"List every phrase in this draft that reads as generic or AI-generated:
[PASTE]. Rewrite each flagged section in plainer, more specific language.
Keep everything else unchanged."

# 83. 7-day content calendar
"Build a 7-day LinkedIn content plan from these pillars: [LIST]. For each
day: topic, hook type, format, posting time. No hook type repeats twice
in one week."

# 84. Carousel structure from source material
"Source: [PASTE BLOG POST/TRANSCRIPT]. Draft a slide-by-slide carousel
structure. One idea per slide. Include a title slide, 3-4 body slides,
and a closing CTA slide."

# 85. Comment that adds real value
"Write a comment on this post: [PASTE POST]. Must add something the post
did not say. No generic praise. 2-3 sentences."

# 86. Feed engagement session
"Find recent posts from ICP-matching profiles: [DESCRIBE ICP]. For each,
draft a 2-3 sentence comment that adds value, never mentions our product."

# 87. Post-comment-to-DM lead magnet response
"Someone commented '[KEYWORD]' on our lead magnet post. Draft the DM
delivering the resource, referencing their specific comment, ending with
a soft open-ended question."

# 88. The AI slop detector for LinkedIn
"Read this post: [PASTE]. Would someone recognise this as AI-written?
Flag any triple-adjective stacks, em dashes, rhetorical question openers,
or generic superlatives with no number attached."

# 89. LinkedIn profile audit
"Audit this profile against: headline structure, About section (problem-
solution-proof-CTA), Featured section relevance, Experience bullet
quality, skills list focus. Rank issues by priority."

# 90. Headline rewrite
"Current headline: [PASTE]. ICP: [PASTE]. Write 3 headline options
following: who you help + specific outcome + credibility marker."

# 91. About section rewrite
"Rewrite this About section: [PASTE]. Structure: hook, problem, proof,
CTA. First person. Primary keywords in the first 2 lines."

# 92. Total addressable content finder
"Given ICP: [PASTE], what is this audience currently watching, reading,
and reacting to on LinkedIn right now? Use this to seed content ideas."

# 93. Borrowed-reach content formatter
"Take this topic: [TOPIC]. Draft it in 5 formats: brand-jacking,
newsjacking, referencing a known figure, hot take, trend-riding. Return
all 5 so I can pick the strongest angle."

# 94. LinkedIn-to-X thread converter
"Convert this LinkedIn post into an X thread: [PASTE]. Hook tweet must
work standalone. Under 280 characters per tweet. 5-7 tweets."

# 95. The ICP list builder for cold campaigns
"Build a fresh LinkedIn prospect list from: [ICP CRITERIA]. Target size:
[N]. Prioritise profiles with activity in the last 14 days."

# 96. Weekly LinkedIn performance diagnostic
"This week's metrics: [PASTE]. Which posts got the most engagement and
why? Which hook type or format should I do more of next week?"

# 97. Employee advocacy content brief
"Write a brief for [TEAM MEMBER] to post about [TOPIC] in their own
voice, tied to our brand message but not sounding like corporate copy."

# 98. The DM self-check for over-pitching
"Count uses of I/we/our/my against you/your in this DM: [PASTE]. If the
first count is higher, rewrite to be about them."

22 prompts covering discovery calls, qualification frameworks, and getting to the real problem fast.

The 22 prompts

# 99. Discovery call question bank
"Build a discovery call question set for [DEAL TYPE/ICP] covering:
current state, desired state, decision process, timeline, budget signal,
and competing priorities. 12-15 questions max."

# 100. SPICED framework application
"Apply the SPICED framework (Situation, Pain, Impact, Critical event,
Decision) to this call transcript: [PASTE]. What is missing that we
need to uncover next call?"

# 101. MEDDIC scorecard from a transcript
"Score this deal against MEDDIC (Metrics, Economic buyer, Decision
criteria, Decision process, Identify pain, Champion) from this
transcript: [PASTE]. Flag every gap."

# 102. Challenger-style reframe
"Given this prospect's stated problem: [PASTE], write a Challenger-style
reframe that teaches them something surprising about their situation
before pitching a solution."

# 103. SPIN question sequence
"Write a SPIN question sequence (Situation, Problem, Implication, Need-
payoff) for uncovering the cost of [SPECIFIC PROBLEM] in a discovery call."

# 104. Gap Selling current-state future-state map
"Map the current state and future state gap for this prospect: [PASTE
CONTEXT]. What specifically closes that gap, and what is the cost of
staying in the current state?"

# 105. Economic buyer identification
"Based on this org chart or context: [PASTE], who is the likely economic
buyer, and who is the likely champion? What does each of them personally
care about?"

# 106. The pain-in-their-own-words extractor
"From this transcript: [PASTE], extract exactly what the prospect said
about their pain, in their own words, not our interpretation of it."

# 107. Qualification scoring from a call
"Score this call transcript: [PASTE] against our ICP criteria: [PASTE].
Return: fit score 1-10, heat (hot/warm/cold), recommended next step."

# 108. Multi-threading question prompt
"Based on this call, who else internally is likely involved in this
decision? Draft the question to ask the prospect to surface the full
buying committee."

# 109. Budget conversation opener
"Write 3 different ways to raise the budget question naturally in a
discovery call without it feeling like an interrogation."

# 110. Timeline and urgency probe
"Write questions that surface whether there is a real forcing function
(a deadline, an event, a consequence) behind this prospect's timeline,
rather than a vague 'soon'."

# 111. Competing priorities uncovering
"Write questions to surface what else is competing for this prospect's
attention and budget right now, so we know our real competition isn't
just other vendors."

# 112. Discovery call summary and next steps
"Summarise this call transcript: [PASTE] into: pain in their words,
decision process, timeline, what they need to see next, agreed next step
with date, ICP fit rating."

# 113. The 'what happens if you do nothing' question
"Write the exact phrasing to ask what happens if this prospect does
nothing about this problem, in a way that doesn't sound like a scare tactic."

# 114. Discovery call self-review
"Review this call transcript where I was the rep: [PASTE]. Did I talk
too much? Did I ask enough open questions? What should I do differently
next call?"

# 115. Second-call agenda based on first-call gaps
"From this first-call summary: [PASTE], what specifically should the
second call agenda cover to close the remaining qualification gaps?"

# 116. The champion enablement brief
"Our champion is [NAME/ROLE]. Write a brief they can use internally to
sell this to their own stakeholders, in their words, not ours."

# 117. Qualification disqualification memo
"Based on this transcript: [PASTE], should we disqualify this deal?
Argue both sides, then give your actual recommendation."

# 118. Discovery call script for a specific persona
"Write a discovery call script tailored to [SPECIFIC PERSONA, e.g.
CFO vs end user], adjusting the language and priorities addressed."

# 119. The decision criteria elicitation
"Write questions to surface exactly what criteria this prospect will use
to evaluate options, and in what order those criteria are weighted."

# 120. Post-call CRM update draft
"From this call transcript: [PASTE], draft the CRM update: stage, next
step, key notes, and any risk flags, in the format our team uses: [PASTE FORMAT]."

18 prompts covering the most common objections and how to respond across phone, email, and live calls.

The 18 prompts

# 121. The 'we already have something' objection
"Write a phone response (under 30 seconds) and an email response for the
objection 'we already have something for this', that asks what gap
exists in their current solution rather than dismissing it."

# 122. The 'not ready right now' objection
"Write responses for 'we're not ready right now' that distinguish
between a timing issue and a priority issue, so I know whether to follow
up in 3 months or push now."

# 123. The 'price is too high' objection
"Write responses for a pricing objection that separate whether the
absolute number is the issue or whether the value relative to cost is
unclear, since those need different responses."

# 124. The 'I need to talk to my team' objection
"Write a response that offers to help build the internal case (a
one-pager, a demo recording, a case study) rather than just waiting
passively for their answer."

# 125. The 'budget freeze' objection
"Write a response asking whether the freeze is across the board or
whether specific budget lines are still moving, without being pushy."

# 126. The 'we're happy with our current vendor' objection
"Write a response that acknowledges their satisfaction while surfacing
one specific gap our offer covers that a happy customer might not have
noticed yet."

# 127. The 'send me more information' stall
"Write a response to 'just send me some info' that asks one clarifying
question before sending anything, to avoid the info disappearing into a
black hole."

# 128. The 'this isn't a priority right now' objection
"Write a response connecting our offer to whatever IS their stated
priority: [PASTE THEIR STATED PRIORITY], rather than arguing our offer
should be the priority."

# 129. The 'we tried something like this before and it didn't work' objection
"Write a response asking specifically what went wrong last time, then
addressing that specific failure mode directly rather than making a
generic reassurance."

# 130. The 'I don't have decision-making power' objection
"Write a response that asks who else needs to be involved, and offers to
help equip them to bring it to that person."

# 131. The silent-ghost objection (no response at all)
"Write a re-engagement message for a prospect who has gone completely
silent after 2 previous touches, using a different angle than either
previous message."

# 132. The 'competitor is cheaper' objection
"Write a response addressing a cheaper competitor without disparaging
them directly, focused on the specific value gap between the two options."

# 133. The 'we're too small for this' objection
"Write a response for a prospect who thinks they are too small to need
our offer, addressing the specific pain point that applies regardless of size."

# 134. The 'we're too big, this won't scale' objection
"Write a response for a prospect worried our offer will not scale to
their size, addressing enterprise-readiness concerns directly."

# 135. The stakeholder objection relay
"Our champion says their boss raised this objection: [PASTE]. Write the
response our champion can relay internally, in their own words style."

# 136. The 'we need to see ROI proof first' objection
"Write a response offering a specific, low-risk way to demonstrate ROI
before a full commitment, tailored to: [OFFER]."

# 137. Objection pattern analysis across lost deals
"From these lost-deal notes: [PASTE], what is the most common objection
pattern? Propose a proactive way to address it earlier in the sales
process before it becomes a blocker."

# 138. Live-call objection handling cheat sheet
"Build a one-page cheat sheet of our top 5 objections with a 1-sentence
response to each, formatted for glancing at during a live call."

20 prompts covering proposal generation, pricing conversations, and closing mechanics.

The 20 prompts

# 139. Proposal from a call transcript
"Generate a full proposal from this discovery call transcript: [PASTE].
Include: their stated problem in their words, our recommended solution,
pricing, timeline, and next steps."

# 140. The one-page executive summary proposal
"Condense our full proposal: [PASTE] into a single-page executive
summary for a time-poor decision-maker: problem, solution, investment,
outcome, next step."

# 141. ROI calculation for a proposal
"Build the ROI case for this proposal: [PASTE OFFER + PRICING]. Show the
cost of the current state versus the cost of our solution over 12 months."

# 142. Multi-tier pricing presentation
"Present these 3 pricing tiers: [PASTE] in a way that makes the middle
tier the obvious recommended choice without being manipulative."

# 143. The proposal objection pre-empt
"Given what we know about this prospect's likely objections: [PASTE],
what should we address proactively in the proposal itself before they
raise it?"

# 144. Contract redline first pass
"Review this contract redline from the prospect's legal team: [PASTE].
Flag which changes are standard and low-risk versus which need real
negotiation."

# 145. The verbal-to-written close confirmation
"Prospect verbally agreed to move forward on the call. Write the follow-
up email confirming the agreement and outlining exactly what happens next."

# 146. Deal desk pricing exception request
"Write the internal request for a pricing exception for this deal:
[PASTE CONTEXT], including the business case for why it's worth approving."

# 147. The urgency-without-pressure close
"Write a closing message that creates genuine urgency (a real deadline,
a real constraint) without resorting to fake scarcity language."

# 148. Multi-stakeholder proposal customisation
"We are presenting to [STAKEHOLDER 1: technical] and [STAKEHOLDER 2:
financial]. Adjust this proposal to speak to both audiences within one
document."

# 149. The 'what would it take' close question
"Write the exact phrasing for asking a stalled prospect what it would
take to move forward, in a way that surfaces the real blocker."

# 150. Proposal follow-up after silence
"We sent a proposal [N] days ago with no response. Write a follow-up that
adds new value rather than just asking 'any updates?'"

# 151. The competitive bake-off response
"We know this prospect is evaluating [COMPETITOR] alongside us. Write the
follow-up that reinforces our specific differentiators without directly
attacking the competitor."

# 152. Deal risk assessment before close
"Assess this deal for risk before we close it: [PASTE CONTEXT]. Champion
strength, economic buyer engagement, timeline realism, budget confirmation.
Flag any red flags."

# 153. The soft downsell for a stalled deal
"This deal has stalled at the full package price. Write a message
offering a smaller starting scope that still delivers real value and
keeps expansion open later."

# 154. Contract renewal proposal
"Write the renewal proposal for this existing customer: [PASTE ACCOUNT
CONTEXT], including any expansion opportunity based on their usage."

# 155. The close-lost win-back sequence
"This deal was lost [N] months ago to [REASON]. Write a re-engagement
sequence checking if circumstances have changed."

# 156. Legal and procurement navigation email
"Write an email to a prospect's procurement team explaining our terms in
plain language, addressing common procurement concerns proactively."

# 157. The signed-deal onboarding kickoff
"Deal just closed. Write the kickoff email that sets expectations for the
next 30 days and reinforces the decision they just made."

# 158. Win-loss debrief prompt
"We just [won/lost] this deal: [PASTE CONTEXT]. Run a structured win-loss
analysis: what worked, what didn't, and what to change for next time."

18 prompts covering competitor research, battlecards, and positioning against alternatives.

The 18 prompts

# 159. Full competitive brief
"Research [COMPETITOR] from their website, G2 reviews (last 90 days),
LinkedIn (last 30 days), and job postings. Return: positioning in their
words, top 5 customer complaints, hiring signals, our unique claim."

# 160. Battlecard generator
"Build a sales battlecard for [COMPETITOR]: their positioning, their
strengths, their weaknesses, 3 discovery questions that surface where
they lose, and what to say when their name comes up."

# 161. Competitive pricing page diff
"Compare [COMPETITOR]'s current pricing page against this saved baseline:
[PASTE]. Summarise every change in plain English."

# 162. Comparison landing page copy
"Write the copy for a '[US] vs [COMPETITOR]' landing page: feature
comparison table, balanced framing, clear CTA, without disparaging them."

# 163. G2 review mining for weaknesses
"Read these G2 reviews for [COMPETITOR]: [PASTE]. Extract the 5 most
common complaints in the reviewers' own words."

# 164. Hiring signal analysis
"[COMPETITOR] posted these job listings: [PASTE]. What does this reveal
about their roadmap or strategic priorities for the next 6-12 months?"

# 165. The 'what to say when their name comes up' script
"Write the exact phrasing for handling '[COMPETITOR] came up in our
evaluation' on a live call, acknowledging them fairly while pivoting to
our strength."

# 166. Win/loss pattern analysis vs a specific competitor
"From these deal notes where we competed against [COMPETITOR]: [PASTE],
what pattern explains why we won or lost most often?"

# 167. Competitor content gap analysis
"What topics is [COMPETITOR] NOT covering in their content that our ICP
cares about? Use this to identify content opportunities."

# 168. Feature parity tracker update
"Given this list of new features [COMPETITOR] shipped: [PASTE], update
our feature parity tracker and flag any genuine gap we now have."

# 169. The category map
"Map every real competitor and adjacent alternative in this category:
[CATEGORY]. Segment by approach (direct competitor, adjacent tool,
status-quo/manual process, build-your-own).

# 170. Competitor pricing model analysis
"[COMPETITOR]'s pricing model is: [DESCRIBE]. What does this incentivise
for their customers, and where does our model create a genuine
advantage or disadvantage?"

# 171. Social listening for competitor mentions
"Monitor mentions of [COMPETITOR] across public channels. Summarise
sentiment themes and flag anything that represents a genuine opportunity
for us."

# 172. The honest competitive weakness audit
"Where do WE genuinely lose to [COMPETITOR]? Be honest, not defensive.
What is the real gap and how do we either close it or reframe around it?"

# 173. New entrant threat assessment
"A new competitor, [NAME], just launched: [PASTE CONTEXT]. Assess the
real threat level and what, if anything, we should change in response."

# 174. Competitor customer testimonial analysis
"Read [COMPETITOR]'s published case studies: [PASTE/URLS]. What outcomes
are they claiming, and which of our customers could counter with a
stronger, more specific result?"

# 175. Alternative-to-X SEO page brief
"Write the content brief for an 'alternatives to [COMPETITOR]' page
targeting search intent from people actively comparing options."

# 176. Quarterly competitive landscape summary
"Summarise everything that changed across our top 3 competitors this
quarter: pricing, product, messaging, and hiring signals, into one
executive-ready brief."

24 prompts covering content strategy, SEO, and organic growth planning.

The 24 prompts

# 177. Content pillar definition
"Based on our ICP: [PASTE] and our positioning: [PASTE], define 3-5
content pillars we can credibly own with authority."

# 178. SEO content brief
"Write a full content brief for the keyword [KEYWORD]: search intent,
target word count, H2/H3 structure, internal linking opportunities, and
the AI Search angle to make this citable.

# 179. Keyword clustering
"Group these keywords into intent-based clusters with a pillar-plus-
spokes structure: [PASTE KEYWORD LIST]. Suggest H1/H2s per spoke."

# 180. Technical SEO audit summary
"Given this list of technical issues: [PASTE], prioritise into a top-10
fix list ranked by severity times affected pages divided by effort."

# 181. AI Search / GEO optimisation pass
"Review this article: [PASTE] for AI Search citability. What is missing
that would make ChatGPT or Perplexity more likely to cite this as a source?"

# 182. Content repurposing from one source
"Source: [PASTE ARTICLE/TRANSCRIPT]. Produce: 3 LinkedIn posts (different
hooks), 1 X thread, 1 newsletter section, 3 social captions."

# 183. Competitor content gap finder
"What high-value topics is [COMPETITOR] ranking for that we have no
content on? Prioritise by estimated search volume and buyer relevance."

# 184. Comparison page content brief
"Write the content brief for a '[US] vs [ALTERNATIVE]' page: structure,
feature table, balanced tone, schema recommendations, CTA flow."

# 185. Schema markup generator
"Generate JSON-LD schema for this page type: [Article/Product/FAQ/
LocalBusiness]. Content: [PASTE PAGE DETAILS]."

# 186. Content freshness audit
"Review this existing article: [PASTE/URL]. Is it still accurate? What
needs updating, and does it need a full rewrite or a light refresh?"

# 187. Programmatic SEO template design
"Design a programmatic SEO page template for [USE CASE, e.g. city pages,
integration pages]. What variables change per page, and what stays constant?"

# 188. Content calendar for a quarter
"Build a 90-day content calendar across [CHANNELS] from these pillars:
[PASTE], balanced so no single pillar dominates any given month."

# 189. The customer-language content mining prompt
"Mine these customer support tickets/reviews/call transcripts: [PASTE]
for real language customers use about their problem, to inform content topics.

# 190. Backlink gap analysis
"Which domains link to [COMPETITOR 1] and [COMPETITOR 2] but not to us?
Prioritise by domain authority and outreach feasibility."

# 191. Content distribution plan
"For this piece of content: [DESCRIBE], plan the distribution: which
channels, in what sequence, with what repurposed format per channel."

# 192. Site architecture and internal linking review
"Review our site structure: [PASTE SITEMAP/DESCRIPTION]. Flag any orphan
pages, unclear hierarchy, or missed internal linking opportunities."

# 193. Local SEO audit for a multi-location business
"Audit local search presence for [BUSINESS/LOCATIONS]: Google Business
Profile signals, NAP consistency, citation footprint, local-pack rank."

# 194. Image SEO audit
"Audit image SEO for this page: [URL/PASTE]. Alt-text quality, format
(WebP/AVIF), lazy loading, file naming. Return paste-ready fixes."

# 195. Content performance diagnostic
"This piece got [X] views and [Y] conversions. Diagnose whether the
traffic quality, the content itself, or the CTA is the likely bottleneck."

# 196. The pillar page structure builder
"Design a pillar page structure for [TOPIC] that internally links to
[N] supporting cluster articles, optimised for both traditional search
and AI Search citation."

# 197. Content ROI reporting
"Given this content performance data: [PASTE], build a report showing
which pieces drove pipeline, not just traffic."

# 198. Newsletter section from company updates
"Turn these company updates: [PASTE] into 3-5 newsletter items with a
signature story lead, in our brand voice."

# 199. The AI-citation gap finder
"For target queries: [LIST], which of our competitors currently get cited
in AI-generated answers, and what content gap explains why we don't?"

# 200. Case study structure from a client win
"Write a case study using the problem-solution-result structure from
this client context: [PASTE], including a specific, real proof point."

22 prompts covering pipeline hygiene, forecasting, and RevOps diagnostics.

The 22 prompts

# 201. The RevOps diagnostic
"Given this pipeline and process context: [PASTE], run a diagnostic to
find the actual constraint in our revenue system before recommending
any fix."

# 202. Pipeline health audit
"Audit this pipeline export: [PASTE]. Flag deals stalled 30+ days in
stage, deals with a close date in the past, and any stage with an
unusually low conversion rate."

# 203. Forecast accuracy check (MAPE)
"Compare our forecast to actual results over the last [N] periods:
[PASTE]. Calculate MAPE and flag whether we tend to over- or under-forecast."

# 204. CRM data quality audit
"Review this CRM export for data quality: [PASTE]. Flag missing fields,
inconsistent naming conventions, and duplicate records."

# 205. Lead routing logic review
"Review our lead routing rules: [PASTE]. Where are leads likely getting
misrouted or delayed based on the criteria as written?"

# 206. Job title normalisation
"Normalise these job titles into a canonical taxonomy: [PASTE LIST].
Output a full audit log of every change made."

# 207. Revenue handoff mapping
"Map our marketing-to-sales-to-CS handoff points: [DESCRIBE PROCESS].
Where do deals or accounts most likely get dropped in these handoffs?"

# 208. Territory and quota planning
"Given this account list and rep count: [PASTE], propose a territory
split that balances total addressable revenue roughly equally."

# 209. Compensation plan design
"Design a comp plan for [ROLE] with quota of [X] and OTE of [Y].
Base/variable split, accelerators, and any spiff structure."

# 210. Rule of 40 and LTV:CAC calculation
"Given growth rate [X]% and profit margin [Y]%, calculate our Rule of 40
score. Given CAC of [Z] and LTV of [W], calculate LTV:CAC and flag if
it's healthy."

# 211. Deal velocity diagnostic
"Given average sales cycle length by stage: [PASTE], identify which
stage is inflating cycle time the most and propose exit criteria fixes."

# 212. NRR/GRR whitespace analysis
"Given this customer usage data: [PASTE], identify accounts with
unrealised expansion opportunity based on usage patterns."

# 213. Tech stack evaluation
"We are evaluating [TOOL A] vs [TOOL B] for [USE CASE]. Compare on:
integration capability, cost at our scale, and migration risk."

# 214. RevOps org design by stage
"Given our current ARR of [X] and team size of [Y], what RevOps roles
should we hire next, in what sequence?"

# 215. Operating cadence design
"Design our revenue operating cadence: which metrics get reviewed daily,
weekly, monthly, and quarterly, and by whom."

# 216. QBR data compilation
"Compile this quarter's data into a QBR-ready format: pipeline generated,
win rate, average deal size, and the 3 things that moved the needle most."

# 217. Sales methodology fit assessment
"Given our average deal size of [X] and sales cycle of [Y] days, which
sales methodology (SPICED, MEDDIC, Challenger, SPIN, Gap Selling) fits
best, and why?"

# 218. Revenue leakage scan
"Given this billing and usage data: [PASTE], identify any signs of
revenue leakage: under-billed usage, expired discounts still applied,
or churned accounts still being charged."

# 219. Partner/channel program design
"Design a partner program structure: enablement materials needed,
co-selling process, and deal registration rules."

# 220. Crisis triage when multiple systems break
"Our [CRM/marketing automation/billing system] just broke simultaneously
with [DESCRIBE SYMPTOMS]. Triage: what's the most urgent fix, and what
can wait?"

# 221. Data governance policy draft
"Draft a data governance policy for our CRM covering: required fields,
naming conventions, and who owns data quality for each object type."

# 222. Change management plan for a new RevOps process
"We are rolling out [NEW PROCESS/TOOL] to the sales team. Draft a change
management plan: communication, training, and adoption tracking."

20 prompts covering onboarding, health scoring, renewals, and expansion.

The 20 prompts

# 223. Customer health scoring model
"Design a customer health score using: [LIST AVAILABLE SIGNALS: usage,
support tickets, NPS, login frequency]. Weight each signal and define
the healthy/at-risk/critical thresholds."

# 224. Onboarding sequence for a new customer
"Design a 30-day onboarding sequence for a new [PRODUCT] customer:
milestones, check-in cadence, and the activation event that predicts
long-term retention."

# 225. Churn risk early warning
"Given this account's usage trend: [PASTE], is this account at churn
risk? What is the earliest signal that should have triggered an
intervention?"

# 226. Renewal proposal with expansion
"Write the renewal proposal for [ACCOUNT]: current usage, value
delivered, and a specific expansion opportunity based on their growth."

# 227. Save offer for an at-risk renewal
"This account is showing churn signals ahead of renewal: [PASTE
CONTEXT]. Draft the save conversation and any offer that addresses
their specific concern."

# 228. QBR deck outline for a customer
"Build a QBR outline for [ACCOUNT]: value delivered this period, usage
trends, and next-period goals aligned to their business objectives."

# 229. Whitespace analysis for expansion
"Given this account's current usage and org size: [PASTE], where is the
unrealised expansion opportunity: more seats, a higher tier, or an
adjacent product?"

# 230. CS-to-Sales handback for expansion deals
"This expansion opportunity needs a sales-led motion: [PASTE CONTEXT].
Draft the handback brief from CS to sales with all relevant context."

# 231. NPS follow-up for a detractor
"This customer gave a low NPS score with comment: [PASTE COMMENT]. Draft
a personal follow-up that addresses their specific feedback."

# 232. NPS follow-up for a promoter
"This customer gave a high NPS score. Draft a follow-up asking for a
testimonial, referral, or case study participation."

# 233. Feature adoption campaign
"We shipped [NEW FEATURE]. Draft a campaign to drive adoption among
existing customers who would benefit most, based on their usage pattern."

# 234. Support ticket theme analysis
"Analyse these support tickets: [PASTE] for recurring themes. Which
issues, if fixed, would most reduce churn risk?"

# 235. Customer advocacy program pitch
"Draft the pitch inviting our happiest customers into an advocacy
program: what's in it for them, and what we're asking in return."

# 236. Win-back campaign for churned customers
"Draft a win-back sequence for customers who churned [N] months ago,
checking if their situation or our product has changed enough to
reconsider."

# 237. Customer segmentation by value and risk
"Segment our customer base: [PASTE DATA] into a 2x2 of value (high/low)
and risk (high/low). What action does each quadrant need?"

# 238. Playbook for a specific churn reason
"Our top churn reason is [REASON]. Build a proactive playbook for
identifying and addressing this before it leads to churn."

# 239. The customer success weekly digest
"Summarise this week's CS activity: [PASTE] into a digest: accounts at
risk, accounts trending well, and anything needing leadership attention."

# 240. Renewal forecast rollup
"Given these upcoming renewals: [PASTE], forecast likely renewal rate
and flag the accounts with the highest risk of non-renewal."

# 241. Customer journey map
"Map the full customer journey from signup to renewal for [PRODUCT]:
key milestones, potential drop-off points, and the ideal intervention
at each stage."

# 242. Reference customer selection for a sales call
"We need a customer reference for a prospect in [INDUSTRY/USE CASE].
From our customer list: [PASTE], who is the best fit and why?"

18 prompts covering client reporting, dashboards, and performance analysis.

The 18 prompts

# 243. Weekly client report from raw metrics
"Turn these campaign metrics: [PASTE] into a client-facing weekly
update. Translate any technical jargon into plain client language.
Under 250 words."

# 244. Executive dashboard from a raw tracker
"Build an executive dashboard summary from this raw project tracker:
[PASTE]: status breakdown, priority items, upcoming deadlines."

# 245. Campaign performance diagnostic
"This campaign got [METRICS]. Diagnose whether targeting, creative, or
landing page is the likely bottleneck, based on the funnel data."

# 246. Monthly performance narrative
"Write the monthly performance narrative from this data: [PASTE]: what
worked, what didn't, and what we're doing differently next month."

# 247. Attribution model explainer
"Given this multi-touch data: [PASTE], explain in plain language which
channels are actually driving conversions versus just getting credit."

# 248. The jargon-to-client-language translator
"Translate this internal update into client-facing language: [PASTE
INTERNAL NOTE]. Never hide a problem; explain what happened and what
we're doing about it."

# 249. QBR data compilation for a client
"Compile this quarter's client data: [PASTE] into a QBR-ready
presentation: results, learnings, and next-quarter priorities."

# 250. Board-ready revenue summary
"Summarise this quarter's revenue performance: [PASTE] into a board-
ready one-pager: the number, the trend, and the one thing driving it."

# 251. A/B test results interpretation
"Given these A/B test results: [PASTE], are they statistically
significant? What should we actually conclude and do next?"

# 252. Cohort retention analysis
"Given this cohort data: [PASTE], what does retention look like by
signup month, and what changed between the best and worst cohorts?"

# 253. Content ROI report
"Given this content performance data: [PASTE], which pieces actually
drove pipeline versus just traffic? Rank by real business impact."

# 254. The 'what's not working' honest audit
"Be honest, not diplomatic: given this performance data: [PASTE], what
is genuinely not working right now and should be stopped?"

# 255. Weekly GTM signal digest
"Pull together this week's campaign performance, client messages, and
pipeline signals: [PASTE] into one morning digest with anything urgent
flagged first."

# 256. Forecast versus actual variance explanation
"Given forecast of [X] and actual of [Y], explain the variance: was it
timing, deal size, or win rate that drove the gap?"

# 257. Channel efficiency comparison
"Compare cost-per-lead and cost-per-opportunity across these channels:
[PASTE DATA]. Which channel deserves more budget next quarter?"

# 258. The low-sample-size flag
"Review this performance claim: [PASTE]. Is the sample size large enough
to draw a real conclusion, or is this noise?"

# 259. Client-facing annual review
"Compile a full year of results into an annual review document for
[CLIENT]: key wins, lessons learned, and next year's priorities."

# 260. The metric that actually matters this week
"Given all our tracked metrics: [PASTE], which single metric should
leadership actually look at this week, and why does it matter more than
the others right now?"

20 prompts covering campaign architecture, product launches, and event planning.

The 20 prompts

# 261. Full campaign brief generator
"Before drafting: name the one assumption this campaign lives or dies
on and the cheapest test to validate it. Then produce: positioning,
messaging hierarchy, channel plan, asset list, and success metrics with
kill thresholds."

# 262. Product launch plan
"Plan the launch for [FEATURE/PRODUCT]: pre-launch teaser content,
launch-day sequence across channels, and post-launch follow-up, with
owners and dates."

# 263. The 'why now' launch narrative
"Write the narrative for why we're launching [PRODUCT] now specifically,
tied to a real market shift or customer need, not just 'we built this'."

# 264. Multi-channel campaign sequencing
"Sequence this campaign across email, LinkedIn, and paid: [DESCRIBE
OFFER]. What goes out on which day, and how does each channel reinforce
the others?"

# 265. Webinar promotion sequence
"Build the promotion sequence for [WEBINAR TOPIC]: save-the-date, 1-week
reminder, day-of reminder, and post-event follow-up for both attendees
and no-shows."

# 266. Event sponsorship ROI framework
"We are considering sponsoring [EVENT]. Build the framework for
evaluating ROI: expected leads, brand value, and the break-even
calculation."

# 267. Campaign asset list from a brief
"Given this campaign brief: [PASTE], list every asset needed, who
produces it, and by when."

# 268. The out-of-scope list for a campaign
"Given this campaign brief: [PASTE], explicitly list what this campaign
does NOT include, to prevent scope creep."

# 269. Launch day live-monitoring checklist
"Build a launch-day checklist: what to monitor in real time, and the
escalation path if something breaks."

# 270. Post-launch retrospective
"Run a retrospective on this launch: [PASTE RESULTS]. What worked, what
didn't, and what should change for the next launch?"

# 271. ABM campaign for target accounts
"Design an account-based campaign for these target accounts: [PASTE
LIST]: personalised content angle per account, multi-channel touch
sequence, and success metrics."

# 272. Referral program design
"Design a referral program: incentive structure, the ask, and the
mechanism for tracking and rewarding referrals."

# 273. Co-marketing partnership pitch
"Draft a co-marketing partnership pitch to [PARTNER]: the joint
campaign idea, what each side contributes, and the mutual benefit."

# 274. Conference talk pitch and outline
"Draft a conference talk pitch for [EVENT] on [TOPIC]: the abstract,
why this audience needs it, and a rough outline."

# 275. Product Hunt launch plan
"Plan a Product Hunt launch for [PRODUCT]: pre-launch community
outreach, launch-day engagement plan, and content recycling afterward."

# 276. The seasonal campaign calendar
"Build a seasonal campaign calendar for [INDUSTRY] tied to relevant
dates, events, or buying cycles specific to our ICP."

# 277. Crisis communication draft
"We need to communicate [ISSUE] to customers. Draft a message that is
honest, takes appropriate responsibility, and outlines the fix."

# 278. The paid ad campaign brief
"Write a creative brief for a paid campaign on [PLATFORM]: audience,
key message, hook variations, and success metrics."

# 279. Influencer/creator partnership brief
"Draft a partnership brief for working with [CREATOR TYPE]: the ask,
the compensation structure, and the content guidelines."

# 280. Campaign budget allocation model
"Given a budget of [X] across channels [LIST], propose an allocation
based on expected CAC and historical channel performance: [PASTE DATA]."

14 prompts covering pricing strategy, packaging, and monetisation decisions.

The 14 prompts

# 281. Pricing model selection
"Should our pricing be based on seats, usage, or outcomes for
[PRODUCT]? Argue the case for each and give your actual recommendation."

# 282. Packaging tier design
"Design 3 pricing tiers for [PRODUCT] with clear feature differentiation
that makes the middle tier the obvious choice for most buyers."

# 283. Price increase communication
"We are raising prices by [X]%. Draft the customer communication
explaining why, with enough notice and a clear value justification."

# 284. Competitive pricing positioning
"Given our pricing of [X] and [COMPETITOR]'s pricing of [Y], how should
we position the difference: are we premium, value, or comparable?"

# 285. Discount policy design
"Design a discount policy: what triggers a discount, the maximum
allowable without approval, and how to avoid discount creep over time."

# 286. Value metric identification
"What is the single metric that best captures the value [PRODUCT]
delivers to a customer, and should our pricing be tied to it?"

# 287. Annual vs monthly pricing incentive
"Design the incentive structure for annual versus monthly billing:
what discount makes annual the obvious choice without giving away too
much margin."

# 288. Grandfathering policy for existing customers
"We are changing pricing. Design the grandfathering policy: who keeps
old pricing, for how long, and how we communicate the eventual transition."

# 289. Usage-based pricing model design
"Design a usage-based pricing model for [PRODUCT]: what unit to charge
per, how to handle overages, and how to make usage predictable for
customers."

# 290. Free trial vs freemium decision
"Should [PRODUCT] use a free trial or a freemium model? Argue both sides
given our sales cycle and product complexity: [DESCRIBE]."

# 291. Enterprise pricing negotiation framework
"Build a framework for enterprise pricing negotiations: what we can
flex on, what we hold firm on, and how to structure multi-year deals."

# 292. Add-on and expansion pricing
"Design pricing for [ADD-ON FEATURE]: standalone price, bundled
discount, and how it fits into our existing tier structure."

# 293. Price sensitivity testing plan
"Design a plan to test price sensitivity for [PRODUCT] without
disrupting existing customers: A/B testing approach, or a Van
Westendorp-style survey."

# 294. The pricing page copy audit
"Review our pricing page: [PASTE/URL]. Is it clear, does it answer the
obvious objections, and does it guide toward the right tier?"

18 prompts covering hiring, onboarding new reps, and building out a GTM team.

The 18 prompts

# 295. Job description for a GTM hire
"Write a job description for [ROLE] at our stage: [DESCRIBE COMPANY
STAGE]. Focus on what they'll actually do in the first 90 days, not a
generic responsibilities list."

# 296. Interview scorecard design
"Design an interview scorecard for [ROLE]: the 4-5 core competencies to
assess, and a specific question per competency that reveals real signal."

# 297. RevOps org design by stage
"Given our ARR of [X], what RevOps and GTM roles should exist right now,
and which should wait until the next stage?"

# 298. New SDR onboarding plan
"Design a 30-60-90 day onboarding plan for a new SDR: what they should
know, be doing, and be measured on at each milestone."

# 299. Sales coaching plan from call reviews
"Given these call review notes for [REP]: [PASTE], design a coaching
plan targeting their specific weak points."

# 300. Compensation benchmarking
"Given role [X] at company stage [Y] and location [Z], what is a
reasonable base/variable split and OTE range?"

# 301. The reference check question set
"Write reference check questions for a [ROLE] candidate that go beyond
generic questions and actually surface real performance signal."

# 302. Team structure for a growing GTM org
"We are scaling from [CURRENT TEAM SIZE] to [TARGET SIZE]. Propose the
team structure and reporting lines at the new size."

# 303. The candidate rejection message
"Write a respectful, specific rejection message for a candidate who made
it to final round but was not selected, that leaves the door open for
future roles."

# 304. Sales playbook outline for new hires
"Outline a sales playbook covering our ICP, positioning, objection
handling, and process, structured for a brand new hire's first week."

# 305. Performance improvement plan draft
"Draft a PIP for [ROLE] based on this performance gap: [DESCRIBE].
Specific, measurable goals and a realistic timeline."

# 306. The 30-60-90 day plan for a new leader
"Draft a 30-60-90 day plan for a new [LEADERSHIP ROLE] joining our team,
covering listening, diagnosing, and early wins."

# 307. Culture and values interview questions
"Write behavioural interview questions that actually reveal whether a
candidate fits our values: [LIST VALUES], not just whether they can
recite them back."

# 308. Remote team communication norms
"Draft communication norms for a distributed GTM team: response time
expectations, meeting cadence, and async-first practices."

# 309. The exit interview question set
"Write exit interview questions designed to surface real, actionable
feedback rather than polite platitudes."

# 310. Team OKR draft from company goals
"Given company goal: [PASTE], draft team-level OKRs for [TEAM] that
ladder up to it, with specific, measurable key results."

# 311. Internal promotion case memo
"Write the case for promoting [PERSON] to [ROLE], backed by specific
results and readiness signals, not just tenure."

# 312. New manager first-team-meeting agenda
"Draft the agenda for a new manager's first team meeting: introductions,
expectations setting, and an open floor for questions."

20 prompts for the consultant's own operating layer: how to run Claude as the engine behind the practice itself, not client-facing work but the meta-layer of running the business.

The 20 prompts

# 313. Client onboarding interview
"Interview me one question at a time to build the context file for a new
client: their ICP, offer, brand voice, banned phrases, and current GTM
challenges. Save as client-context.md."

# 314. The morning GTM priority planner
"Ask me: active client campaigns and status, what happened overnight,
what I'm most worried about today. Return a tiered priority stack: fix
first, move forward now, defer to afternoon."

# 315. The decision memo with contrarian check
"Interview me on this decision: [DESCRIBE]. Run 3 passes: Structurer
(organise options), Contrarian (find holes), Synthesizer (recommend with
reversibility and kill criteria)."

# 316. Turning a repeated process into a skill
"Interview me about [PROCESS I REPEAT]: what triggers it, what the good
output looks like, what always happens and never happens. Write the full
SKILL.md."

# 317. The weekly client status rollup
"Given updates across all active clients: [PASTE], compile one rollup:
which accounts need attention, which are healthy, and any pattern across
clients worth noting."

# 318. New service line pricing
"We are considering offering [NEW SERVICE] to existing clients. What
should we charge, and should it be a standalone fee or bundled into
retainers?"

# 319. The proposal template for a new prospect client
"Build our standard consulting proposal template: scope, timeline,
pricing, and the case study section, ready to customise per prospect."

# 320. Retainer scope creep audit
"Given this client's original scope: [PASTE] and what we've actually been
delivering: [PASTE], where has scope crept beyond what's billed?"

# 321. The client health check
"Based on this client's engagement pattern: [PASTE: response times,
meeting attendance, results delivered], is this relationship healthy or
at risk?"

# 322. Case study request to a happy client
"Draft the ask to a client who just had a strong result, requesting
permission to write up a case study."

# 323. The consulting engagement kickoff doc
"Draft a kickoff document for a new client engagement: goals, timeline,
communication cadence, and what we need from them to succeed."

# 324. Internal skill library audit
"Given this list of skills we've built: [PASTE], which are being
underused, which need updating, and which should be retired?"

# 325. The referral request to a happy client
"Draft a message asking a satisfied client for a referral, making it
specific and easy for them to act on rather than a vague 'let us know if
you know anyone'."

# 326. Consulting capacity planning
"Given our current client roster: [PASTE] and hours available: [X], how
much capacity do we have for a new client, and at what scope?"

# 327. The scope-of-work boundary email
"A client is asking for something outside our agreed scope: [DESCRIBE].
Draft a message that addresses it professionally, either scoping it in
with a change order or declining clearly."

# 328. Consultant weekly self-review
"Review my week: [PASTE ACTIVITIES/OUTCOMES]. What went well, what
didn't, and what should I change next week?"

# 329. The client offboarding process
"Draft an offboarding process for when an engagement ends: knowledge
transfer, final report, and the relationship-preserving close-out message."

# 330. New skill vs new prompt decision
"I do [TASK] regularly but it varies each time. Should this be a
permanent skill or just a saved prompt template? Argue both and
recommend."

# 331. The consulting practice annual review
"Compile this year's client results, revenue, and lessons learned into
an annual review for the practice itself, not client-facing."

# 332. The 'am I overcommitted' capacity check
"Given my current client load: [PASTE] and upcoming commitments: [PASTE],
be honest: am I overcommitted, and what would I need to cut?"