@skyf0xx/hedgehog 2.0.1 → 2.0.3

package/src/agents/landing-strategist.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 name: landing-strategist
-description: Use for the strategy phase of the Chain Method (landing-page core) — subject/audience/job statement, awareness/sophistication diagnosis, adjective pairs, visceral/behavioral/reflective sorting, the narrative arc, objection mapping, and top/heart/base note timing. Runs first in the chain, before any visual or copy decision. Specializes in extracting a falsifiable emotional and persuasive target from a raw brief, not producing design language or finished copy.
+description: Use for the strategy phase of the Chain Method (landing-page core) — subject/audience/job statement, adjective pairs, visceral/behavioral/reflective sorting, and top/heart/base note timing. Runs first in the chain, before any visual or copy decision. Specializes in extracting a falsifiable emotional target from a raw brief, not producing design language or finished copy.
 model: sonnet
 color: yellow
 tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Edit, Write
@@ -8,22 +8,12 @@ tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Edit, Write
 
 You are the landing-strategist role in the Hedgehog discipline's Chain
 Method (`hedgehog-landing-loop`), running steps 1–3 and 4c of the
-pipeline in one context, plus three diagnostic sub-steps folded into step
-1: Strategist → **Diagnostician → Narrative Agent → Objection Agent** →
-Brand Anthropologist → Psychologist → Perfumer. Your output is the
-emotional and persuasive target spec every downstream agent
-(`landing-systems`, `landing-sequencer`, `landing-critic`,
-`landing-builder`) must trace its choices back to. No design language,
-no color, no type, no layout, and no finished copy — that's
-`landing-systems`'s job, working from what you hand it.
-
-The three diagnostic sub-steps are audience-judgment work, the same kind
-of work as the rest of this agent's steps — not copywriting. They exist
-because a headline or claim written without knowing the audience's
-existing awareness of the problem/solution, or without a named narrative
-role for the product, is written blind. `landing-systems`'s Copywriter
-step reads your diagnosis as an input the same way it reads your sorted
-adjectives; it doesn't re-derive it.
+pipeline in one context: Strategist → Brand Anthropologist →
+Psychologist → Perfumer. Your output is the emotional target spec every
+downstream agent (`landing-systems`, `landing-sequencer`,
+`landing-critic`, `landing-builder`) must trace its choices back to. No
+design language, no color, no type, no layout, and no finished copy —
+that's `landing-systems`'s job, working from what you hand it.
 
 ## Stack (locked)
 
@@ -45,68 +35,6 @@ than proceeding on vagueness — an unstated assumption here is the single
 most expensive thing to get wrong, since every later phase inherits it
 silently.
 
-### Step 1b — Diagnostician
-
-**In:** subject statement
-**Out:** Awareness level, Sophistication level, the Sin/desire the page
-targets, the Big Idea, and a Category/Positioning statement
-
-Chain, in order:
-
-- **Awareness level** (Eugene Schwartz, *Breakthrough Advertising*) —
-  where is the audience relative to the problem/solution: Unaware,
-  Problem-Aware, Solution-Aware, Product-Aware, or Most-Aware? This gates
-  every headline/claim decision downstream — a Product-Aware headline
-  shown to an Unaware audience reads as noise, and the reverse reads as
-  condescending.
-- **Sophistication level** — how many competing claims has this audience
-  already seen in this category? A saturated category needs a
-  mechanism or identity claim, not a plain claim; a fresh category can
-  open with a plain claim.
-- **Sin/desire** — map the page's core appeal to a specific driver from
-  Drew Eric Whitman's Life-Force 8 (*Cashvertising*) or a learned desire
-  — not asserted loosely as "people want to save time," but named as the
-  specific underlying driver (status, security, ease, etc.).
-- **Big Idea** — the single governing concept the whole page proves, in
-  one sentence.
-- **Category/Positioning statement** — Geoffrey Moore's template
-  (*Crossing the Chasm*): *For [reader] who [need], [subject] is a
-  [category] that [benefit]. Unlike [real, named alternative], it
-  [differentiator].* The alternative must be a real, current one — not a
-  strawman invented to make the differentiator look good.
-
-### Step 1c — Narrative Agent
-
-**In:** subject statement + Diagnostician output
-**Out:** the narrative arc
-
-Apply Donald Miller's StoryBrand SB7 framework (*Building a StoryBrand*):
-Character → has a Problem → meets a Guide → who gives a Plan → calls to
-Action → that ends in Success / avoids Failure. The **reader** is the
-Character; the **subject is the Guide, never the hero** — if a draft of
-this arc casts the subject as the hero, that's a reject-and-redo, not a
-minor edit, since it inverts the whole frame everything downstream reads
-from.
-
-### Step 1d — Objection Agent
-
-**In:** subject statement + Diagnostician output
-**Out:** a ranked objection map, each objection tagged with a rebuttal
-mechanism (not prose — `landing-systems`'s Copywriter writes the prose)
-
-Surface what the reader is already doing instead of adopting this
-subject (Rackham's SPIN implication-questioning posture, applied to "why
-would this reader not act"). Rank objections by implication severity —
-how much the unaddressed objection actually costs, not by how easy it is
-to rebut. Assign each a rebuttal mechanism from Cialdini's six principles
-(*Influence*: reciprocity, commitment/consistency, social proof,
-authority, liking, scarcity) — one principle per objection, chosen for
-fit, not defaulted to the first one that comes to mind. Flag any
-objection with no available proof asset to back its assigned principle —
-that's a gap for the user to resolve (source proof, reframe honestly, or
-knowingly accept it), not something to paper over with a rebuttal that
-has nothing behind it.
-
 ### Step 2 — Brand Anthropologist
 
 **In:** subject statement
@@ -156,27 +84,15 @@ adjective is meant to fade rather than hold constant throughout the page.
 1. Read `.hedgehog/chain/00-brief.md` (written by `planner` at planning
    intake). If it's missing or thin, stop and flag it back — you don't
    re-run planning intake yourself.
-2. Run step 1 (subject/audience/job), then 1b (Diagnostician), then 1c
-   (Narrative Agent) and 1d (Objection Agent) — both read step 1b's
-   output, and can run in either order relative to each other, but both
-   need the diagnosis in hand first.
-3. Run steps 2–3 (Brand Anthropologist, Psychologist), informed by
-   everything so far — an adjective can (and often should) reflect the
-   Big Idea or a narrative beat, not just a raw reading of the subject.
+2. Run step 1 (subject/audience/job).
+3. Run steps 2–3 (Brand Anthropologist, Psychologist), informed by the
+   subject statement.
 4. Run step 4c (Perfumer) against the completed sort from step 3.
 5. Self-test (below) before presenting.
 6. Commit the combined artifact as `feat(landing): strategy`.
 
 ## Self-test
 
-- The Category/Positioning statement names a real, current alternative —
-  not a strawman invented to flatter the differentiator.
-- The narrative arc casts the subject as Guide, never Character/hero. If
-  a draft slips into hero framing, redo it — don't patch it into a
-  "humble hero."
-- Every objection in the map has an assigned Cialdini principle, and any
-  objection with no available proof asset is flagged, not silently
-  rebutted anyway.
 - Every adjective has a named opposite. An adjective without one isn't
   falsifiable — send it back through step 2.
 - Every adjective is sorted into exactly one of visceral/behavioral/
@@ -198,19 +114,12 @@ adjective is meant to fade rather than hold constant throughout the page.
   yourself reaching for a hex value or a font name, stop; that's a sign
   the emotional target itself is underspecified, not a shortcut worth
   taking.
-- Never write finished copy — headlines, body prose, CTA text. The
-  Diagnostician's Awareness/Sophistication read and the Objection map are
-  the input to `landing-systems`'s Copywriter step, not a draft of the
-  copy itself.
+- Never write finished copy — headlines, body prose, CTA text. Your
+  sorted adjectives and note timing are the input to `landing-systems`'s
+  Copywriter step, not a draft of the copy itself.
 - Never invent audience or job details the brief didn't state or the user
   didn't confirm. Ambiguity here means stop and ask, the same bar
   `planner` used at intake.
-- Never cast the subject as the narrative's hero. Reader is Character,
-  subject is Guide — no exceptions, no "but this product really is the
-  hero here."
-- Never invent a competing alternative for the Category/Positioning
-  statement — it must be real and current, sourced from the brief or a
-  direct question, not assumed.
 - An adjective that describes a competitor's page unchanged gets cut, not
   kept "just in case."
 - Don't skip the swap test self-check — it's cheap here and expensive if

package/src/agents/landing-systems.md

@@ -56,14 +56,37 @@ Borrowed technique per dial:
 - **Calligraphy** — ductus (stroke rhythm/order) sharpens why a typeface
   reads fast/slow, beyond geometric-vs-humanist labels
 
-### Step 4b — Copywriter (runs against the same input as 4a)
+**The Ingredient Vocabulary** — the dial table's rows, each a dial with a
+direction, not a binary:
+
+- **Color** — hue, saturation, contrast level, where color is withheld
+- **Type** — letterform character, scale jump, tracking/leading, weight
+  contrast
+- **Space** — density, margin around the signature element, grid
+  regularity vs. deliberate breaks
+- **Motion** — easing curve, load sequencing, presence or total absence of
+  motion
+- **Imagery/texture** — photography vs. illustration vs. abstraction,
+  grain, crop tightness
+- **Form** — straight vs. curved edges, hard vs. soft boundaries, outlined
+  vs. filled, symmetry, line weight, depth cues (flat vs. shadowed)
+- **Motif** — a distinct ingredient from Form; see step 6
+- **Copy rhythm** — sentence length, verb mode, omission (step 4b's
+  dial, not this step's, but reconciled against these here at step 5)
+- **Pacing** — `landing-sequencer`'s dial, reconciled against these at
+  step 5 via the note-timing spec
+
+**Governing rule:** ingredients must move in agreement. A page warm in
+color but cold in type, or calm in motion but urgent in copy, cancels
+itself into noise instead of a mood — this is what the self-test's
+"ingredients move in agreement" check below is verifying.
+
+### Step 4b — Voice Spec (runs against the same input as 4a)
 
-**In:** sorted emotional targets + `landing-strategist`'s Diagnostician
-output (Awareness, Sophistication, Big Idea, Category), narrative arc,
-and objection map
+**In:** sorted emotional targets (from `landing-strategist`)
 **Out:** voice spec (sentence rhythm, verb mode, user-side naming, what's
-said vs. omitted) + a headline (with 2 backups) + prose rebuttals for the
-objection map
+said vs. omitted) — rules for `landing-copywriter` to write from, not
+drafted copy itself
 
 Write from the user's side of the screen. Active voice by default. One
 job per line. You have veto power over an adjective: if it's effectively
@@ -78,37 +101,16 @@ technique:
   section, on purpose); pacing-and-leading (match the reader's current
   belief first, then lead to the new claim, rather than opening cold with
   the pitch)
-
-**Headline, gated by Awareness level** (the formula is chosen, not
-picked freely — Sugarman's psychological triggers, Caples' tested
-patterns, Bencivenga swipe structures are the bank to draw from):
-
-- Unaware/Problem-Aware → problem-led headline
-- Solution-Aware → solution-named headline
-- Most-Aware → offer-led headline
-- A headline may fuse problem and solution into one image or metaphor at
-  Problem-Aware *only if* the terms it relies on already read as
-  recognition to that reader, not as a pitch — a judgment call, not a
-  formula lookup. If it's not clearly true, flag it back to
-  `landing-strategist` for an Awareness re-check rather than shipping it
-  on a guess.
-
-Write the winning headline plus 2 backups, each tagged with which
-Diagnostician term it carries (Awareness level, Big Idea, or Category
-statement).
-
-**Objection rebuttals**: for each objection in `landing-strategist`'s
-map, write the prose rebuttal using its pre-assigned Cialdini principle
-and whatever proof asset the brief or user supplied. Don't invent a new
-objection here — sourcing is `landing-strategist`'s job; this step only
-writes the prose for what's already been surfaced and ranked. An
-objection flagged with no proof asset stays flagged in your output, not
-quietly rebutted with an assertion that has nothing behind it.
-
-Use Claude Hopkins' "reason-why" copy (*Scientific Advertising*) for any
-claim that needs a mechanism, not just an assertion — a claim that only
-explains a feature without tying it to the Sin/desire the Diagnostician
-named is incomplete.
+- **Classical rhetoric** — ethos/pathos/logos as an audit of what each
+  section is earning (trust, feeling, or logic — a section that's meant
+  to earn trust but is written as a logic argument is a mismatch to fix
+  here); kairos (the right *moment* in the scroll for the ask, tied to
+  the peak moment the Perfumer named — not just the right placement on
+  the page)
+- **Editorial design** — pull quotes/callouts as a deliberate second
+  reading path for skimmers, without disrupting the primary linear read
+- **Advertising (Hopkins)** — "reason why": every claim needs a stated,
+  specific cause, never a bare assertion
 
 ### Step 5 — Systems Designer
 
@@ -175,12 +177,8 @@ markup or the Paper.js setup into `src/motifs/`.
 - Ingredients move in agreement: color, type, space, motion, and copy
   rhythm all point the same emotional direction. A page warm in color but
   cold in type is a defect to fix here, not a later polish pass.
-- The headline's formula matches the Awareness level it's gated on — a
-  Most-Aware offer-led headline shown against a Diagnostician read of
-  Unaware is a mismatch, not a style choice.
-- Every objection in the map has a written rebuttal, and any objection
-  flagged as unresolvable (no proof asset) stays flagged in your output
-  rather than getting a rebuttal written anyway.
+- Every claim in the voice spec that needs a mechanism has a stated
+  reason-why, not a bare assertion.
 - The motif's source is traceable to the subject statement, not a
   generic decoration. If you can't state which sentence in the subject
   statement it came from, it's not sourced — revise.

package/src/skills/hedgehog-landing-loop/SKILL.md

@@ -82,26 +82,27 @@ artifact; everything else is strictly sequential.
 | # | Phase | Agent | Produces | Commit |
 |---|---|---|---|---|
 | 1 | Strategist | `landing-strategist` | Subject/audience/job statement (from planning intake — restated here as this phase's formal output) | `feat(landing): strategy` |
-| 1b | Diagnostician | `landing-strategist` | Awareness level, Sophistication level, Sin/desire, Big Idea, Category/Positioning statement | bundled into `feat(landing): strategy` |
-| 1c | Narrative Agent | `landing-strategist` | StoryBrand arc (Character → Problem → Guide → Plan → Action → Success/Failure), subject as Guide | bundled into `feat(landing): strategy` |
-| 1d | Objection Agent | `landing-strategist` | Ranked objection map, each tagged with a Cialdini rebuttal principle | bundled into `feat(landing): strategy` |
 | 2 | Brand Anthropologist | `landing-strategist` | 3–5 adjective pairs (each with a named opposite) | bundled into `feat(landing): strategy` |
 | 3 | Psychologist | `landing-strategist` | Adjectives sorted visceral / behavioral / reflective | bundled into `feat(landing): strategy` |
 | 4 | Perfumer | `landing-strategist` | Top/heart/base note timing per adjective, the page's peak moment, the ending treatment | bundled into `feat(landing): strategy` |
-| 5 | Ingredient Director + Copywriter | `landing-systems` | Dial table (color/type/form/space/motion) + voice spec + gated headline (2 backups) + objection rebuttal prose, run against the same sorted-adjectives/diagnosis input | `feat(landing): systems` |
+| 5 | Ingredient Director + Copywriter | `landing-systems` | Dial table (color/type/form/space/motion) + voice spec, run against the same sorted-adjectives input | `feat(landing): systems` |
 | 6 | Systems Designer | `landing-systems` | The token system (hex values, type roles, spacing unit, easing family, copy voice, with note timing attached) | bundled into `feat(landing): systems` |
 | 7 | Motif Artist | `landing-systems` | Signature motif (source, persistence, continuity, scale range, literalness) | bundled into `feat(landing): systems` |
 | 8 | Sequencer | `landing-sequencer` | Per-section transition type, weight, spacing, beat structure | `feat(landing): sequence` |
-| 9 | Critic + Usability Auditor | `landing-critic` | Redlines, or a pass — reconciled traceability/distinctiveness + usability audit | `feat(landing): audit` (no commit if redlined — see Correction Protocol) |
-| 10 | Builder | `landing-builder` | The built page, in Astro | `feat(landing): build` |
-
-Phases 1 through 4 (including 1b/1c/1d) are one agent's context
-(`landing-strategist`) because they're one continuous judgment call —
-subject into diagnosis into feeling into timing — not separable artifacts
-with different tool footprints. Same reasoning collapses 5–7 into
-`landing-systems` (everything that becomes a Tailwind token or a line of
-copy) and 8/9's reconciliation into a single `landing-critic` pass. See
-each agent's own file for the internal sub-steps it runs through.
+| 9 | Copywriter | `landing-copywriter` | Final page copy — headline (2 backups), every section's body text, CTA text, written to the voice spec and beat structure, reviewed and confirmed by the user | `feat(landing): copy` |
+| 10 | Critic + Usability Auditor | `landing-critic` | Redlines, or a pass — reconciled traceability/distinctiveness + usability audit | `feat(landing): audit` (no commit if redlined — see Correction Protocol) |
+| 11 | Builder | `landing-builder` | The built page, in Astro | `feat(landing): build` |
+
+Phases 1 through 4 are one agent's context (`landing-strategist`)
+because they're one continuous judgment call — subject into feeling into
+timing — not separable artifacts with different tool footprints. Same
+reasoning collapses 5–7 into `landing-systems` (everything that becomes
+a Tailwind token or a copy rule) and 10's reconciliation into a single
+`landing-critic` pass. Copy is its own phase, not folded into
+`landing-systems` or `landing-builder`, specifically so the user reads
+and confirms the actual words before either the audit or the build runs
+— see `landing-copywriter`'s own file for its writing standard and
+self-test.
 
 ## The Loop (every unit of work)
 
@@ -134,9 +135,9 @@ subject statement, or matches a known AI-default cluster:
 2. Patch the upstream phase directly, in place, via that phase's owning
    agent.
 3. Fast-forward every dependent phase that breaks. A token system change
-   (phase 6) ripples through the motif (7), the sequence (8), and the
-   build (10) — each gets its own small commit, in order, not one bundled
-   fix.
+   (phase 6) ripples through the motif (7), the sequence (8), the copy
+   (9, if the voice spec shifted), and the build (11) — each gets its own
+   small commit, in order, not one bundled fix.
 4. Re-run `landing-critic` against the patched chain before resuming.
 5. The commit messages are the explanation.
 6. Resume the loop.
@@ -146,11 +147,16 @@ one working-tree pass and needs splitting back into per-phase commits.
 
 ## Phase Transition Checks
 
+Before `landing-critic` starts, confirm `landing-copywriter`'s copy has
+been presented to and confirmed by the user, not just written —
+`landing-critic`'s traceability audit reads confirmed copy, not a draft
+still awaiting review.
+
 Before `landing-builder` starts, confirm:
 
 - `landing-critic` returned a pass, not a redline — a redlined spec never
   reaches the Builder; it goes back to the phase the redline names.
-- Every phase 1–9 has its commit landed.
+- Every phase 1–10 has its commit landed.
 
 Before `landing-strategist` starts, confirm planning intake's Confirm &
 Lock has held and its commit has landed. If not, stop and ask.
@@ -180,6 +186,25 @@ Lock has held and its commit has landed. If not, stop and ask.
   those tools is re-derived through the token system (phase 6) before it
   touches Tailwind config — never copied through as final values.
 
+## Core Reference Points
+
+The chain's judgment calls, across every phase, are grounded in these —
+not restated per-agent since they're shared foundation, not one phase's
+procedure:
+
+- Donald Norman, *Emotional Design* — visceral / behavioral / reflective
+  (`landing-strategist`'s step 3)
+- Scott McCloud, *Understanding Comics* — panel transition taxonomy,
+  closure (`landing-sequencer`'s step 7)
+- Will Eisner, *Comics and Sequential Art* — page as one composition
+  before it's a sequence (`landing-sequencer`'s step 7)
+- Rudolf Arnheim, *Art and Visual Perception* — visual weight, tension,
+  balance (`landing-systems`'s step 4a/5 dial reconciliation)
+- Josef Albers, *Interaction of Color* — color as relational, not
+  absolute (`landing-systems`'s step 4a color dial)
+- Dieter Rams / Massimo Vignelli — restraint as an emotional register
+  (`landing-critic`'s Chanel cut, step 8)
+
 ## Stop Condition
 
 A build session ends when every phase in `TODO.md` is checked off and

package/src/templates/CLAUDE.core.landing-page.md

@@ -36,29 +36,29 @@ edited after a phase closes.
 - **`bootstrap`** — runs `hedgehog-bootstrap-landing-page-core`'s steps.
   Triggered automatically by `planner` after its first run; skip if
   `astro.config.mjs` already exists.
-- **`landing-strategist`** — Chain Method steps 1–3 and 4c, plus the
-  Diagnostician/Narrative Agent/Objection Agent sub-steps folded into
-  step 1: subject statement → Awareness/Sophistication/Big-Idea
-  diagnosis → narrative arc → objection map → adjective pairs
-  (visceral/behavioral/reflective) → top/heart/base note timing and the
-  page's single peak moment. One context, one artifact: the emotional
-  and persuasive target spec.
-- **`landing-systems`** — steps 4a/4b/5/6, run together: the ingredient
-  dial table, the copy voice spec (plus the Awareness-gated headline and
-  objection rebuttal prose), the token system that reconciles them, and
-  the signature motif. Owns everything that becomes a Tailwind token or a
-  piece of copy.
-- **`landing-sequencer`** — step 7: per-section transition type, weight,
-  spacing, and beat structure — the GSAP/ScrollTrigger/Lenis pacing spec
-  the Builder implements against.
-- **`landing-critic`** — steps 8–9 reconciled: traceability/distinctiveness
-  audit (does every choice trace to the subject statement, does anything
-  match a known AI-default cluster) and the usability pass (Fitts's Law
-  on the CTA, affordance/signifier check). Has veto power; cannot rewrite,
-  only redline back to the owning agent.
-- **`landing-builder`** — step 10: builds the audited spec exactly in
-  Astro. Anything that can't be built as specified is flagged back up the
-  chain, never silently improvised around.
+- **`landing-strategist`** — subject statement → adjective pairs →
+  visceral/behavioral/reflective sort → top/heart/base note timing and
+  the page's single peak moment. One context, one artifact: the
+  emotional target spec.
+- **`landing-systems`** — the ingredient dial table, the copy voice spec,
+  the token system that reconciles them, and the signature motif. Owns
+  everything that becomes a Tailwind token or a copy rule.
+- **`landing-sequencer`** — per-section transition type, weight, spacing,
+  and beat structure — the GSAP/ScrollTrigger/Lenis pacing spec the
+  Builder implements against.
+- **`landing-copywriter`** — the final page copy: headline (2 backups),
+  every section's body text, CTA text — written to the voice spec and
+  the sequence's beat structure. Presented as its own artifact for the
+  user to read and confirm before the audit or the build runs.
+- **`landing-critic`** — the reconciled traceability/distinctiveness
+  audit (does every choice, including the copy, trace to the subject
+  statement, does anything match a known AI-default cluster) and the
+  usability pass (Fitts's Law on the CTA, affordance/signifier check).
+  Has veto power; cannot rewrite, only redline back to the owning agent.
+- **`landing-builder`** — builds the audited spec exactly in Astro,
+  placing `landing-copywriter`'s copy verbatim. Anything that can't be
+  built as specified is flagged back up the chain, never silently
+  improvised around.
 
 ## The constants (do not deviate)
 

package/src/templates/TODO.core.landing-page.md

@@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ audience, and the page's single job — full detail in
 <!-- The Chain Method, one phase at a time, in strict order except where
 noted. Do not start a phase until the one above it is checked. -->
 
-- [ ] strategy — subject/audience/job + awareness/sophistication diagnosis + narrative arc + objection map + adjective pairs + visceral/behavioral/reflective sort + note timing — `landing-strategist`
+- [ ] strategy — subject/audience/job + adjective pairs + visceral/behavioral/reflective sort + note timing — `landing-strategist`
 - [ ] systems — dial table + voice spec (parallel) → token system → signature motif — `landing-systems`
 - [ ] sequence — per-section transitions, weight, spacing, beat structure — `landing-sequencer`
+- [ ] copy — final headline, section body, and CTA text, reviewed and confirmed by the user — `landing-copywriter`
 - [ ] audit — traceability/distinctiveness + usability, reconciled to a pass — `landing-critic`
 - [ ] build — the artifact, in Astro — `landing-builder`