@sellable/mcp 0.1.0

package/skills/create-campaign-brief/references/phase75-canonical-brief-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
+# Canonical Campaign Brief Template
+
+Use this as the target output shape for `create-campaign-brief`.
+
+This is not a kickoff agenda.
+This is not only a strategy memo.
+This is a client-ready campaign brief plus operator-ready message pack.
+
+## Output Standard
+
+The brief should feel like the best parts of:
+
+- `sellable.dev` for A/B CTA structure and bold positioning
+- `Hey Digital` for angle libraries and message-decision logic
+- `Galley` for concrete offers and operator notes
+- `Gelee` for personalization ladders
+- `Persona` for bad vs better token guidance
+- `Revvix` for event simplicity
+- `Superpower` for readable pain-first copy
+- `Superposition` for voice lock and anti-drift controls
+
+## Required Sections
+
+```md
+# [Campaign Name]
+
+## Campaign Objective
+
+[1 short paragraph on who we are targeting, what they care about, and the specific offer we are bringing them.]
+
+## Sender
+
+[Who the sender is, why they are believable, and what perspective they are speaking from.]
+
+## Ideal Customer Profile (ICP)
+
+- Titles:
+- Company type:
+- Company size / maturity:
+- Geography:
+- Trigger or signal:
+- Exclusions:
+
+## Core Pain / Buyer Context
+
+- Operational pain:
+- Emotional context:
+- Why this buyer ignores most outreach:
+
+## Meeting Value (Offer)
+
+[State the actual deliverable or reason to reply.]
+
+### Option A
+
+[Higher-commitment path.]
+
+### Option B
+
+[Lower-friction path: video, audit, one-pager, resource vault, case study, etc.]
+
+Use Option B only when it is genuinely strong.
+If the client has an easy, relevant case-study link or proof asset worth sharing, that is often the best Option B.
+If they do not, do not force a weak “send info” path just to preserve A/B symmetry.
+
+## Social Proof
+
+- Safe named proof:
+- Safe anonymous proof:
+- Safe quantified proof:
+- Proof that must NOT be used:
+
+## Differentiators
+
+- [Differentiator 1]
+- [Differentiator 2]
+- [Differentiator 3]
+
+## Messaging Strategy
+
+- Hook logic:
+- Bridge logic:
+- Offer logic:
+- CTA logic:
+- Voice:
+- Readability level:
+
+## Personalization Rules
+
+- What to personalize:
+- What to keep broad:
+- What to never mention:
+
+## Approved Message Template
+
+When to use:
+Why it works:
+
+**Subject:** [subject]
+
+[full message]
+
+## Token Fill / Interpolation Guidelines
+
+- `{{first_name}}`:
+- `{{company}}`:
+- `{{signal_topic}}`:
+- `{{team_type}}`:
+- `{{role_group}}`:
+
+## Good vs Bad Examples
+
+- BAD:
+- BETTER:
+- WHY:
+
+Rules:
+
+- Include only endorsed inspiration examples in the runtime generation set.
+- Label bad examples explicitly as bad.
+- Pair bad examples with a better replacement when they are kept for teaching.
+- Do not leave weak or speculative lines mixed into the gold example bank.
+
+## Template DOs
+
+- [do]
+- [do]
+
+## Template DON'Ts
+
+- [don't]
+- [don't]
+
+## Do Not Target
+
+- [anti-ICP]
+- [anti-ICP]
+
+## Campaign Notes
+
+- Why this offer should work:
+- Which proof should be used lightly:
+- What to test first:
+- What should never drift:
+```
+
+## Optional Sections
+
+Add only when the campaign truly needs them:
+
+- `Approved Message Variants`
+
+  - Use only when the ICP is broad, the sender mix is materially different, or the campaign genuinely needs multiple message paths.
+
+- `Scenario-Based Angles`
+  - Use for campaigns like `Hey Digital` where the same offer must adapt across multiple buyer situations.
+- `Exact Template Lock`
+  - Use for campaigns like `Superposition` where freeform rewriting degrades performance.
+- `Event Context`
+  - Use for campaigns like `Galley Catersource` or `Revvix RSAC`.
+- `Logo Matching Guide`
+  - Use when proof must be matched by segment.
+- `Variant Ladder`
+  - Use when campaigns need deep personalization vs signal-only vs ICP-only versions.
+- `Message Development Notes`
+  - Use when you want to preserve why the final variants beat the discarded ones.
+
+Reference:
+
+- [75-MESSAGE-VARIANT-GENERATION-FLOW.md](/Users/christianreyes/dev/dittto-fresh/web/.planning/phases/75-canonical-campaign-brief-and-copy-calibration/75-MESSAGE-VARIANT-GENERATION-FLOW.md)
+
+## Section Rules
+
+### Campaign Objective
+
+Must:
+
+- describe the target buyer
+- describe the offer
+- describe the reason this campaign exists now
+
+Must not:
+
+- sound like generic enablement copy
+- repeat the product homepage
+
+### Sender
+
+Must:
+
+- explain why this sender is believable
+- use the sender’s actual story or role
+
+Must not:
+
+- invent credibility
+- overstate the sender’s status
+
+### Meeting Value (Offer)
+
+Must:
+
+- describe the concrete thing the buyer gets
+- make the value understandable in one read
+- support at least one low-friction CTA path
+
+Must not:
+
+- default to “hop on a call”
+- describe only the product without the payoff
+
+### CTA Structure
+
+Must:
+
+- choose the CTA structure intentionally
+- use A/B when both paths are genuinely compelling
+- use a proof asset, case study, audit, video, or similar for Option B when one actually exists
+
+Must not:
+
+- force A/B if Option B is weak or fake
+- use “I can send more info” as filler
+- point to a case study that is not actually strong enough to carry interest
+
+### Social Proof
+
+Must:
+
+- separate safe proof from unsafe proof
+- prefer named proof when it exists
+- clarify what is semi-anonymous or should be used lightly
+
+Must not:
+
+- fabricate logos, results, or customer stories
+
+### Messaging Strategy
+
+Must:
+
+- explain the logic behind the message, not just provide lines
+- specify tone and readability
+- say how the signal or trigger should be referenced
+
+Must not:
+
+- stop at “be casual”
+- assume the operator knows the tone implicitly
+
+### Message Variants
+
+Must:
+
+- default to one approved message template unless there is a real reason to branch
+- include full usable copy when variants are used
+- explain when each variant should be used
+- preserve the best-known CTA pattern
+
+Must not:
+
+- create multiple variants just to look thorough
+- contain near-duplicates disguised as multiple variants
+- change only adjectives while keeping the same logic
+
+### Token Fill / Interpolation Guidelines
+
+Must:
+
+- define every important variable
+- include length or style constraints where useful
+- specify good and bad fills when ambiguity is risky
+
+Must not:
+
+- rely on “use judgment”
+- allow narrow over-personalization when the campaign performs better with broad phrasing
+
+## Canonical Quality Rubric
+
+The brief should fail review if it misses any of these:
+
+- `Offer clarity`
+  - The offer is concrete and easy to picture.
+- `Voice capture`
+  - The messages sound like the sender / client, not a generic SDR.
+- `Copy inclusion`
+  - The brief includes one real approved message template, or an exact template lock, with variants only when justified.
+- `CTA quality`
+  - The CTA is low-friction and intentional, with A/B structure when appropriate and a real proof asset when Option B is used.
+- `Token discipline`
+  - The brief tells the model how to fill variables and where not to overfit.
+- `Proof discipline`
+  - Safe proof and forbidden proof are clearly separated.
+- `Anti-pattern coverage`
+  - The brief explicitly calls out what not to do.
+- `Operator usability`
+  - A human operator could run the campaign from the brief alone.
+
+## Recommended Default For Phase 75
+
+For the new command, default to:
+
+- strategy brief
+- sender context
+- proof rules
+- 1 approved message template
+- token-fill guidance
+- bad vs better examples
+- do / don't rules
+- campaign notes on why the offer works
+
+Use multiple approved variants only when:
+
+- the ICP is broad
+- there are multiple meaningful subsegments
+- different senders need different message shapes
+
+This should be the baseline before folding anything into the broader `create-campaign` workflow.