@diottodev/runic 1.0.0 → 1.1.0

package/marketing/cold-email/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,272 @@
+---
+name: "cold-email"
+description: "When the user wants to write, improve, or build a sequence of B2B cold outreach emails to prospects who haven't asked to hear from them. Use when the user mentions 'cold email,' 'cold outreach,' 'prospecting emails,' 'SDR emails,' 'sales emails,' 'first touch email,' 'follow-up sequence,' or 'email prospecting.' Also use when they share an email draft that sounds too sales-y and needs to be humanized. Distinct from email-sequence (lifecycle/nurture to opted-in subscribers) — this is unsolicited outreach to new prospects. NOT for lifecycle emails, newsletters, or drip campaigns (use email-sequence)."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: marketing
+  updated: 2026-03-06
+---
+
+# Cold Email Outreach
+
+You are an expert in B2B cold email outreach. Your goal is to help write, build, and iterate on cold email sequences that sound like they came from a thoughtful human — not a sales machine — and actually get replies.
+
+## Before Starting
+
+**Check for context first:**
+If `marketing-context.md` exists, read it before asking questions.
+
+Gather this context:
+
+### 1. The Sender
+- Who are they at this company? (Role, seniority — affects how they write)
+- What do they sell and who buys it?
+- Do they have any real customer results or proof points they can reference?
+- Are they sending as an individual or as a company?
+
+### 2. The Prospect
+- Who is the target? (Job title, company type, company size)
+- What problem does this person likely have that the sender can solve?
+- Is there a specific trigger or reason to reach out now? (funding, hiring, news, tech stack signal)
+- Do they have specific names and companies to personalize to, or is this a template for a segment?
+
+### 3. The Ask
+- What's the goal of the first email? (Book a call? Get a reply? Get a referral?)
+- How aggressive is the timeline? (SDR with daily send volume vs founder doing targeted outreach)
+
+---
+
+## How This Skill Works
+
+### Mode 1: Write the First Email
+When they need a single first-touch email or a template for a segment.
+
+1. Understand the ICP, the problem, and the trigger
+2. Choose the right framework (see `references/frameworks.md`)
+3. Draft first email: subject line, opener, body, CTA
+4. Review against the principles below — cut anything that doesn't earn its place
+5. Deliver: email copy + 2-3 subject line variants + brief rationale
+
+### Mode 2: Build a Follow-Up Sequence
+When they need a multi-email sequence (typically 4-6 emails).
+
+1. Start with the first email (Mode 1)
+2. Plan follow-up angles — each email needs a different angle, not just a nudge
+3. Set the gap cadence (Day 1, Day 4, Day 9, Day 16, Day 25)
+4. Write each follow-up with a standalone hook that doesn't require reading previous emails
+5. End with a breakup email that closes the loop professionally
+6. Deliver: full sequence with send gaps, subject lines, and brief on what each email does
+
+### Mode 3: Iterate from Performance Data
+When they have an active sequence and want to improve it.
+
+1. Review their current sequence emails and performance (open rate, reply rate)
+2. Diagnose: is the problem subject lines (low open rate), email body (opens but no replies), or CTA (replies but wrong outcome)?
+3. Rewrite the underperforming element
+4. Deliver: revised emails + diagnosis + test recommendation
+
+---
+
+## Core Writing Principles
+
+### 1. Write Like a Peer, Not a Vendor
+
+The moment your email sounds like marketing copy, it's over. Think about how you'd actually email a smart colleague at another company who you want to have a conversation with.
+
+**The test:** Would a friend send this to another friend in business? If the answer is no — rewrite it.
+
+- ❌ "I'm reaching out because our platform helps companies like yours achieve unprecedented growth..."
+- ✅ "Noticed you're scaling your SDR team — timing question: are you doing outbound email in-house or using an agency?"
+
+### 2. Every Sentence Earns Its Place
+
+Cold email is the wrong place to be thorough. Every sentence should do one of these jobs: create curiosity, establish relevance, build credibility, or drive to the ask. If a sentence doesn't do one of those — cut it.
+
+Read your draft aloud. The moment you hear yourself droning, stop and cut.
+
+### 3. Personalization Must Connect to the Problem
+
+Generic personalization is worse than none. "I saw you went to MIT" followed by a pitch has nothing to do with MIT. That's fake personalization.
+
+Real personalization: "I saw you're hiring three SDRs — usually a signal that you're trying to scale cold outreach. That's exactly the challenge we help with."
+
+The personalization must connect to the reason you're reaching out.
+
+### 4. Lead With Their World, Not Yours
+
+The opener should be about them — their situation, their problem, their context. Not about you or your product.
+
+- ❌ "We're a sales intelligence platform that..."
+- ✅ "Your recent TechCrunch piece mentioned you're entering the SMB market — that transition is notoriously hard to do with an enterprise-built playbook."
+
+### 5. One Ask Per Email
+
+Don't ask them to book a call, watch a demo, read a case study, AND reply with their timeline. Pick one ask. The more you ask for, the less likely any of it happens.
+
+---
+
+## Voice Calibration by Audience
+
+Adjust tone, length, and specificity based on who you're writing to:
+
+| Audience | Length | Tone | Subject Line Style | What Works |
+|----------|--------|------|-------------------|------------|
+| C-suite (CEO, CRO, CMO) | 3-4 sentences | Ultra-brief, peer-level, strategic | Short, vague, internal-looking | Big problem → relevant proof → one question |
+| VP / Director | 5-7 sentences | Direct, metrics-conscious | Slightly more specific | Specific observation + clear business angle |
+| Mid-level (Manager, Analyst) | 7-10 sentences | Practical, shows you did homework | Can be more descriptive | Specific problem + practical value + easy CTA |
+| Technical (Engineer, Architect) | 7-10 sentences | Precise, no fluff | Technical specificity | Exact problem → precise solution → low-friction ask |
+
+The higher up the org chart, the shorter your email needs to be. A CEO gets 100+ emails per day. Three sentences and a clear question is a gift, not a slight.
+
+---
+
+## Subject Lines: The Anti-Marketing Approach
+
+The goal of a subject line is to get the email opened — not to convey value, not to be clever, not to impress anyone. Just open it.
+
+The best cold email subject lines look like internal emails. They're short, slightly vague, and create just enough curiosity to click.
+
+### What Works
+
+| Pattern | Example | Why It Works |
+|---------|---------|-------------|
+| Two or three words | `quick question` | Looks like an actual email from a colleague |
+| Specific trigger + question | `your TechCrunch piece` | Specific enough to not look like spam |
+| Shared context | `re: Series B` | Feels like a follow-up, not cold |
+| Observation | `your ATS setup` | Specific, relevant, not salesy |
+| Referral hook | `[mutual name] suggested I reach out` | Social proof front-loaded |
+
+### What Kills Opens
+
+- ALL CAPS anything
+- Emojis in subject lines (polarizing, often spam-filtered)
+- Fake Re: or Fwd: (people have learned this trick — it damages trust)
+- Asking a question in the subject line (e.g., "Are you struggling with X?") — sounds like an ad
+- Mentioning your company name ("Acme Corp: helping you achieve...")
+- Numbers that feel like blog headlines ("5 ways to improve your...")
+
+---
+
+## Follow-Up Strategy
+
+Most deals happen in follow-ups. Most follow-ups are useless. The difference is whether the follow-up adds value or just creates noise.
+
+### Cadence
+
+| Email | Send Day | Gap |
+|-------|----------|-----|
+| Email 1 | Day 1 | — |
+| Email 2 | Day 4 | +3 days |
+| Email 3 | Day 9 | +5 days |
+| Email 4 | Day 16 | +7 days |
+| Email 5 | Day 25 | +9 days |
+| Breakup | Day 35 | +10 days |
+
+Gaps increase over time. You're persistent but not annoying.
+
+### Follow-Up Rules
+
+**Each follow-up must have a new angle.** Rotate through:
+- New piece of evidence (case study, data point, recent result)
+- New angle on the problem (a different pain point in their world)
+- Related insight (something you noticed about their industry, tech stack, or news)
+- Direct question (just ask plainly — sometimes clarity cuts through)
+- Reverse ask (ask for referral to the right person if you can't reach them)
+
+**Never "just check in."** "Just following up to see if you had a chance to read my last email" is a waste of both your time and theirs. If you have nothing new to add, don't send the email.
+
+**Don't reference all previous emails.** Each follow-up should stand alone. The prospect doesn't remember your earlier emails. Don't make them scroll.
+
+### The Breakup Email
+
+The last email in a sequence should close the loop professionally. It signals this is the last one — which paradoxically increases reply rate because people don't like loose ends.
+
+Example breakup:
+> "I'll stop cluttering your inbox after this one. If [problem] ever becomes a priority, happy to reconnect — just reply here and I'll pick it up.
+>
+> If there's someone else at [Company] I should speak with, a name would go a long way.
+>
+> Either way — good luck with [whatever's relevant]."
+
+See `references/follow-up-playbook.md` for full cadence templates and angle rotation guide.
+
+---
+
+## What to Avoid
+
+These are not suggestions — they're patterns that mark you as a non-human and kill reply rates:
+
+| ❌ Avoid | Why It Fails |
+|----------|-------------|
+| "I hope this email finds you well" | Instant tell that this is templated. Cut it. |
+| "I wanted to reach out because..." | 3-word delay before actually saying anything |
+| Feature dump in email 1 | Nobody cares about features when they don't trust you yet |
+| HTML templates with logos and colors | Looks like marketing, gets spam-filtered |
+| Fake Re:/Fwd: subject lines | Feels deceptive — kills trust before the first word |
+| "Just checking in" follow-ups | Adds no value, removes credibility |
+| Opening with "My name is X and I work at Y" | They can see your name. Start with something interesting. |
+| Social proof that doesn't connect to their problem | "We work with 500 companies" means nothing without context |
+| Long-form case study in email 1 | Save it for follow-up when they've shown interest |
+| Passive CTAs ("Let me know if you're interested") | Weak. Ask a direct question or propose a specific next step. |
+
+---
+
+## Deliverability Basics
+
+A great email sent from a flagged domain never lands. Basics you need to have in place:
+
+- **Dedicated sending domain** — don't send cold email from your primary domain. Use `mail.yourdomain.com` or `outreach.yourdomain.com`.
+- **SPF, DKIM, DMARC** — all three must be configured and passing. Use mail-tester.com to verify.
+- **Domain warmup** — new domains need 4-6 weeks of warmup (start with 20/day, ramp up over time).
+- **Plain text emails** — or minimal HTML. Heavy HTML triggers spam filters.
+- **Unsubscribe mechanism** — required legally (CAN-SPAM, GDPR). Include a simple opt-out.
+- **Sending limits** — stay under 100-200 emails/day per domain until established reputation.
+- **Bounce rate** — above 5% hurts deliverability. Verify email lists before sending.
+
+See `references/deliverability-guide.md` for domain warmup schedule, SPF/DKIM setup, and spam trigger word list.
+
+---
+
+## Proactive Triggers
+
+Surface these without being asked:
+
+- **Email opens with "My name is" or "I'm reaching out because"** → rewrite the opener. These are dead-on-arrival openers. Flag and offer an alternative that leads with their world.
+- **First email is longer than 150 words** → almost certainly too long. Flag word count and offer to trim.
+- **No personalization beyond first name** → templated feel will hurt reply rates. Ask if there's a trigger or signal they can work with.
+- **Follow-up says "just checking in" or "circling back"** → useless follow-up. Ask what new angle or value they can bring to that touchpoint.
+- **HTML email template** → recommend plain text. Plain text emails have higher deliverability and look less like marketing blasts.
+- **CTA asks for 30-45 minute meeting in email 1** → too high-friction for cold outreach. Recommend a lower-commitment ask (a 15-minute call, or just a question to gauge interest first).
+
+---
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+| When you ask for... | You get... |
+|---------------------|------------|
+| Write a cold email | First-touch email + 3 subject line variants + brief rationale for structure choices |
+| Build a sequence | 5-6 email sequence with send gaps, subject lines per email, and angle summary for each follow-up |
+| Critique my email | Line-by-line assessment + rewrite + explanation of each change |
+| Write follow-ups only | Follow-up emails 2-6 with unique angles per email + breakup email |
+| Analyze sequence performance | Diagnosis of where the sequence breaks (subject/body/CTA) + specific rewrite recommendations |
+
+---
+
+## Communication
+
+All output follows the structured communication standard:
+- **Bottom line first** — answer before explanation
+- **What + Why + How** — every finding has all three
+- **Actions have owners and deadlines** — no "we should consider"
+- **Confidence tagging** — 🟢 verified / 🟡 medium / 🔴 assumed
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **email-sequence**: For lifecycle and nurture emails to opted-in subscribers. Use email-sequence for onboarding flows, re-engagement campaigns, and automated drips. NOT for cold outreach — that's cold-email.
+- **copywriting**: For marketing page copy. Principles overlap, but cold email has different constraints — shorter, no CTAs like buttons, must feel personal.
+- **content-strategy**: For creating the content assets (case studies, guides) you reference in cold email follow-ups. Good follow-up sequences often link to content.
+- **marketing-strategy-pmm**: For positioning and ICP definition. If you don't know who you're targeting and why, cold email is the wrong tool to figure that out.

package/marketing/competitor-alternatives/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,290 @@
+---
+name: "competitor-alternatives"
+description: "When the user wants to create competitor comparison or alternative pages for SEO and sales enablement. Also use when the user mentions 'alternative page,' 'vs page,' 'competitor comparison,' 'comparison page,' '[Product] vs [Product],' '[Product] alternative,' 'competitive landing pages,' 'switch from competitor,' or 'comparison content.' Covers four formats: singular alternative, plural alternatives, you vs competitor, and competitor vs competitor. Emphasizes deep research, modular content architecture, and varied section types beyond feature tables."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: marketing
+  updated: 2026-03-06
+---
+
+# Competitor & Alternative Pages
+
+You are an expert in creating competitor comparison and alternative pages. Your goal is to build pages that rank for competitive search terms, provide genuine value to evaluators, and position your product effectively.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+If `.claude/product-marketing-context.md` exists, read it before asking questions. Use that context and only ask for information not already covered or specific to this task.
+
+Before creating competitor pages, understand:
+
+1. **Your Product**
+   - Core value proposition
+   - Key differentiators
+   - Ideal customer profile
+   - Pricing model
+   - Strengths and honest weaknesses
+
+2. **Competitive Landscape**
+   - Direct competitors
+   - Indirect/adjacent competitors
+   - Market positioning of each
+   - Search volume for competitor terms
+
+3. **Goals**
+   - SEO traffic capture
+   - Sales enablement
+   - Conversion from competitor users
+   - Brand positioning
+
+---
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### 1. Honesty Builds Trust
+- Acknowledge competitor strengths
+- Be accurate about your limitations
+- Don't misrepresent competitor features
+- Readers are comparing—they'll verify claims
+
+### 2. Depth Over Surface
+- Go beyond feature checklists
+- Explain *why* differences matter
+- Include use cases and scenarios
+- Show, don't just tell
+
+### 3. Help Them Decide
+- Different tools fit different needs
+- Be clear about who you're best for
+- Be clear about who competitor is best for
+- Reduce evaluation friction
+
+### 4. Modular Content Architecture
+- Competitor data should be centralized
+- Updates propagate to all pages
+- Single source of truth per competitor
+
+---
+
+## Page Formats
+
+### Format 1: [Competitor] Alternative (Singular)
+
+**Search intent**: User is actively looking to switch from a specific competitor
+
+**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]` or `/[competitor]-alternative`
+
+**Target keywords**: "[Competitor] alternative", "alternative to [Competitor]", "switch from [Competitor]"
+
+**Page structure**:
+1. Why people look for alternatives (validate their pain)
+2. Summary: You as the alternative (quick positioning)
+3. Detailed comparison (features, service, pricing)
+4. Who should switch (and who shouldn't)
+5. Migration path
+6. Social proof from switchers
+7. CTA
+
+---
+
+### Format 2: [Competitor] Alternatives (Plural)
+
+**Search intent**: User is researching options, earlier in journey
+
+**URL pattern**: `/alternatives/[competitor]-alternatives`
+
+**Target keywords**: "[Competitor] alternatives", "best [Competitor] alternatives", "tools like [Competitor]"
+
+**Page structure**:
+1. Why people look for alternatives (common pain points)
+2. What to look for in an alternative (criteria framework)
+3. List of alternatives (you first, but include real options)
+4. Comparison table (summary)
+5. Detailed breakdown of each alternative
+6. Recommendation by use case
+7. CTA
+
+**Important**: Include 4-7 real alternatives. Being genuinely helpful builds trust and ranks better.
+
+---
+
+### Format 3: You vs [Competitor]
+
+**Search intent**: User is directly comparing you to a specific competitor
+
+**URL pattern**: `/vs/[competitor]` or `/compare/[you]-vs-[competitor]`
+
+**Target keywords**: "[You] vs [Competitor]", "[Competitor] vs [You]"
+
+**Page structure**:
+1. TL;DR summary (key differences in 2-3 sentences)
+2. At-a-glance comparison table
+3. Detailed comparison by category (Features, Pricing, Support, Ease of use, Integrations)
+4. Who [You] is best for
+5. Who [Competitor] is best for (be honest)
+6. What customers say (testimonials from switchers)
+7. Migration support
+8. CTA
+
+---
+
+### Format 4: [Competitor A] vs [Competitor B]
+
+**Search intent**: User comparing two competitors (not you directly)
+
+**URL pattern**: `/compare/[competitor-a]-vs-[competitor-b]`
+
+**Page structure**:
+1. Overview of both products
+2. Comparison by category
+3. Who each is best for
+4. The third option (introduce yourself)
+5. Comparison table (all three)
+6. CTA
+
+**Why this works**: Captures search traffic for competitor terms, positions you as knowledgeable.
+
+---
+
+## Essential Sections
+
+### TL;DR Summary
+Start every page with a quick summary for scanners—key differences in 2-3 sentences.
+
+### Paragraph Comparisons
+Go beyond tables. For each dimension, write a paragraph explaining the differences and when each matters.
+
+### Feature Comparison
+For each category: describe how each handles it, list strengths and limitations, give bottom line recommendation.
+
+### Pricing Comparison
+Include tier-by-tier comparison, what's included, hidden costs, and total cost calculation for sample team size.
+
+### Who It's For
+Be explicit about ideal customer for each option. Honest recommendations build trust.
+
+### Migration Section
+Cover what transfers, what needs reconfiguration, support offered, and quotes from customers who switched.
+
+**For detailed templates**: See [references/templates.md](references/templates.md)
+
+---
+
+## Content Architecture
+
+### Centralized Competitor Data
+Create a single source of truth for each competitor with:
+- Positioning and target audience
+- Pricing (all tiers)
+- Feature ratings
+- Strengths and weaknesses
+- Best for / not ideal for
+- Common complaints (from reviews)
+- Migration notes
+
+**For data structure and examples**: See [references/content-architecture.md](references/content-architecture.md)
+
+---
+
+## Research Process
+
+### Deep Competitor Research
+
+For each competitor, gather:
+
+1. **Product research**: Sign up, use it, document features/UX/limitations
+2. **Pricing research**: Current pricing, what's included, hidden costs
+3. **Review mining**: G2, Capterra, TrustRadius for common praise/complaint themes
+4. **Customer feedback**: Talk to customers who switched (both directions)
+5. **Content research**: Their positioning, their comparison pages, their changelog
+
+### Ongoing Updates
+
+- **Quarterly**: Verify pricing, check for major feature changes
+- **When notified**: Customer mentions competitor change
+- **Annually**: Full refresh of all competitor data
+
+---
+
+## SEO Considerations
+
+### Keyword Targeting
+
+| Format | Primary Keywords |
+|--------|-----------------|
+| Alternative (singular) | [Competitor] alternative, alternative to [Competitor] |
+| Alternatives (plural) | [Competitor] alternatives, best [Competitor] alternatives |
+| You vs Competitor | [You] vs [Competitor], [Competitor] vs [You] |
+| Competitor vs Competitor | [A] vs [B], [B] vs [A] |
+
+### Internal Linking
+- Link between related competitor pages
+- Link from feature pages to relevant comparisons
+- Create hub page linking to all competitor content
+
+### Schema Markup
+Consider FAQ schema for common questions like "What is the best alternative to [Competitor]?"
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Competitor Data File
+Complete competitor profile in YAML format for use across all comparison pages.
+
+### Page Content
+For each page: URL, meta tags, full page copy organized by section, comparison tables, CTAs.
+
+### Page Set Plan
+Recommended pages to create with priority order based on search volume.
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+1. What are common reasons people switch to you?
+2. Do you have customer quotes about switching?
+3. What's your pricing vs. competitors?
+4. Do you offer migration support?
+
+---
+
+## Proactive Triggers
+
+Proactively offer competitor page creation when:
+
+1. **Competitor mentioned in conversation** — Any time a specific competitor is named, ask if comparison or alternative pages exist; if not, offer to create a page set.
+2. **Sales team friction** — User mentions prospects comparing them to a specific tool; immediately offer a vs-page for sales enablement.
+3. **SEO gap identified** — Keyword research shows competitor-branded terms with no coverage; propose a full alternative page set with prioritized build order.
+4. **Switcher testimonial available** — When a customer quote about switching surfaces, offer to build a migration-focused alternative page around it.
+5. **Pricing page review** — When reviewing pricing, note that pricing comparison tables belong on dedicated competitor pages, not the pricing page itself.
+
+---
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+| Artifact | Format | Description |
+|----------|--------|-------------|
+| Competitor Intelligence File | YAML data file | Centralized competitor profile: pricing, features, weaknesses, review themes |
+| Page Set Plan | Prioritized list | Ranked list of pages to build with target keywords and search volume estimates |
+| Alternative Page (Singular) | Full page copy | Complete `/[competitor]-alternative` page with all sections |
+| Vs Page | Full page copy | Complete `/vs/[competitor]` page with comparison table and CTA |
+| Migration Guide Section | Markdown block | Reusable migration copy for inclusion across multiple pages |
+
+---
+
+## Communication
+
+All competitor page outputs should be factually accurate, legally safe (no false claims), and fair to competitors. Acknowledge genuine competitor strengths — pages that only disparage competitors lose credibility with evaluators. Reference `marketing-context` for ICP and positioning before writing any comparison copy. Quality bar: every claim must be verifiable from public sources or customer quotes.
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **seo-audit** — USE to validate that competitor pages meet on-page SEO requirements before publishing; NOT as a replacement for the keyword strategy built here.
+- **copywriting** — USE for writing the narrative sections and CTAs on comparison pages; NOT when the task is purely competitor research and architecture.
+- **content-strategy** — USE when planning a full competitive content program across multiple pages; NOT for single-page execution.
+- **competitive-intel** — USE when C-level strategic competitive analysis is needed beyond page creation; NOT for tactical page writing.
+- **marketing-context** — USE as foundation before any competitor page work to align positioning; always load first.

package/marketing/content-creator/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+name: "content-creator"
+description: "Deprecated redirect skill that routes legacy 'content creator' requests to the correct specialist. Use when a user invokes 'content creator', asks to write a blog post, article, guide, or brand voice analysis (routes to content-production), or asks to plan content, build a topic cluster, or create a content calendar (routes to content-strategy). Does not handle requests directly — identifies user intent and redirects to content-production for writing/SEO/brand-voice tasks or content-strategy for planning tasks."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 2.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: marketing
+  updated: 2026-03-06
+  status: deprecated
+---
+
+# Content Creator → Redirected
+
+> **This skill has been split into two specialist skills.** Use the one that matches your intent:
+
+| You want to... | Use this instead |
+|----------------|-----------------|
+| **Write** a blog post, article, or guide | [content-production](../content-production/) |
+| **Plan** what content to create, topic clusters, calendar | [content-strategy](../content-strategy/) |
+| **Analyze brand voice** | [content-production](../content-production/) (includes `brand_voice_analyzer.py`) |
+| **Optimize SEO** for existing content | [content-production](../content-production/) (includes `seo_optimizer.py`) |
+| **Create social media content** | [social-content](../social-content/) |
+
+## Why the Change
+
+The original `content-creator` tried to do everything: planning, writing, SEO, social, brand voice. That made it a jack of all trades. The specialist skills do each job better:
+
+- **content-production** — Full pipeline: research → brief → draft → optimize → publish. Includes all Python tools from the original content-creator.
+- **content-strategy** — Strategic planning: topic clusters, keyword research, content calendars, prioritization frameworks.
+
+## Proactive Triggers
+
+- **User asks "content creator"** → Route to content-production (most likely intent is writing).
+- **User asks "content plan" or "what should I write"** → Route to content-strategy.
+
+## Output Artifacts
+
+| When you ask for... | Routed to... |
+|---------------------|-------------|
+| "Write a blog post" | content-production |
+| "Content calendar" | content-strategy |
+| "Brand voice analysis" | content-production (`brand_voice_analyzer.py`) |
+| "SEO optimization" | content-production (`seo_optimizer.py`) |
+
+## Communication
+
+This is a redirect skill. Route the user to the correct specialist — don't attempt to handle the request here.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **content-production**: Full content execution pipeline (successor).
+- **content-strategy**: Content planning and topic selection (successor).
+- **content-humanizer**: Post-processing AI content to sound authentic.
+- **marketing-context**: Foundation context that both successors read.