@skyf0xx/hedgehog 2.0.11 → 2.0.13

package/src/skills/landing-copy-objection/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+---
+name: landing-copy-objection
+description: Use whenever `landing-copywriter` drafts an objection-handling section — FAQ, risk-reversal, or direct address of the reader's stated hesitation. Trigger when the section's role in `landing-sequencer`'s list is to remove a specific, nameable doubt before the CTA, distinct from proof (backs up a claim already made) or the CTA section itself (the ask).
+---
+
+# Landing Copy: Objection handling
+
+This section names the reader's actual hesitation and answers it
+directly. It is not a second proof section, and it is not a place to
+restate the mechanism — its job is to name a doubt the reader is likely
+already holding and resolve it in the reader's own terms, not the
+product's.
+
+## What this section answers
+
+One question per objection handled: **what is the specific, nameable
+reason this reader might not act, and what directly removes it?** A
+generic FAQ ("How does it work?" restating the mechanism section) isn't
+this — a real objection is something the reader would say out loud if
+pushed ("this sounds like it'll take longer than what I do now," "I've
+been burned by a tool like this before"). If the brief or upstream chain
+doesn't supply a real, specific objection, that's a gap to flag, not a
+license to invent a generic FAQ to fill the section.
+
+## The algorithm
+
+Paragraph count from the beat count `landing-sequencer` assigned, with
+one addition specific to this archetype: **one objection per beat**, not
+one paragraph of general reassurance. A 3-beat objection section handles
+3 distinct, named objections, not one objection developed across 3
+paragraphs.
+
+Per objection:
+
+1. **Name the objection in the reader's own words**, not the product's
+   framing of it — a question or a stated doubt, not a euphemism for it.
+2. **Answer it directly**, in one or two sentences. No hedge stacks, no
+   "well, actually" — a direct answer or, if the honest answer is a
+   limitation, a direct acknowledgment of the limitation and why it
+   doesn't undermine the reader's specific job (from
+   `landing-strategist`'s subject statement).
+3. **Don't re-litigate proof or mechanism here.** If the honest answer to
+   an objection is "see the proof section above," reference it briefly
+   rather than restating the evidence.
+
+If genuinely FAQ-shaped (3+ parallel question/answer pairs), render as a
+list per `landing-copywriter`'s output format — each item a
+question-plus-answer pair, not a bare noun phrase.
+
+## Writing standard (scoped to this section)
+
+- Apply `landing-copywriter`'s full writing standard.
+- **Answer honestly, including real limitations.** A section that only
+  handles softball objections ("Is it easy to use? Yes!") reads as
+  evasive by omission — if there's a genuine, known limitation the
+  audience would ask about, address it directly rather than picking only
+  favorable objections to list.
+- **No hedge stacks in the answer.** "It could potentially work for most
+  teams" fails here specifically, since the whole point of this section
+  is removing uncertainty, not restating it in softer language.
+- **No manufactured drama in the question framing.** State the objection
+  plainly, the way the reader would actually think it.
+
+## Self-test
+
+- Each objection handled is specific and nameable — not a generic FAQ
+  restating the mechanism or proof sections.
+- Each answer is direct — no hedge stack, no deflection to "it depends."
+- At least one genuine limitation or edge case is addressed honestly, if
+  the subject statement or brief surfaces one — not only favorable
+  objections selected.
+- No objection restates content already fully covered in
+  `landing-copy-mechanism` or `landing-copy-proof` — if it must reference
+  that content, it does so briefly, not by repeating it.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Never invent a generic FAQ to fill this section's beat count if no
+  real objection is available — flag the gap back rather than padding
+  with "How does pricing work?" unless pricing genuinely is a live
+  objection for this audience.
+- Never handle more objections than the assigned beat count allows —
+  one objection per beat, not stacked.
+- Never soften an honest limitation into a non-answer — a hedge here
+  undermines the section's entire purpose.

package/src/skills/landing-copy-problem/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+---
+name: landing-copy-problem
+description: Use whenever `landing-copywriter` drafts a problem/agitation section — the section that names what currently prevents the reader from having the headline's outcome. Trigger when the section's role in `landing-sequencer`'s list is to establish stakes or friction before the mechanism section resolves it.
+---
+
+# Landing Copy: Problem / Agitation
+
+This section's job is to make the gap between the reader's current state
+and the headline's promised outcome feel real and specific — not to
+introduce the product, and not to resolve the gap. That's
+`landing-copy-mechanism`'s job, in the section after this one. A problem
+section that starts explaining the solution has skipped ahead.
+
+## What this section answers
+
+One question: **what, specifically, is stopping the reader from already
+having what the headline promised?** Not a generic industry pain point —
+the specific friction `landing-strategist`'s subject statement and
+adjective pairs point to. A problem statement that could open a
+competitor's page unchanged (the swap test) hasn't located the real
+friction yet.
+
+## The algorithm
+
+Paragraph count from the beat count `landing-sequencer` assigned (1–3
+paragraphs, per `landing-copywriter`'s ceiling). Order the content within
+that budget:
+
+1. **Name the current state.** What the reader is actually doing today,
+   concretely — not "teams struggle with X" in the abstract, but the
+   specific behavior or workaround the subject statement implies they're
+   stuck with.
+2. **Name the cost.** What that current state actually costs the reader —
+   time, money, trust, control, whatever the adjective pairs' reflective-
+   layer sort (Norman) flagged as the real stake. Concrete over abstract:
+   a claim like "this wastes time" ships only with the specific
+   consequence that makes it checkable.
+3. **Sharpen the gap, don't resolve it.** The section's last sentence
+   should land on the tension at its most acute point — not a hint of the
+   solution. Ending this section on relief instead of tension borrows
+   from the mechanism section's job.
+
+A 1-beat problem section compresses all three into one paragraph (state
+plus cost in the same breath, sharpened in the closing clause); a 3-beat
+section gets a full paragraph each.
+
+## Writing standard (scoped to this section)
+
+- Apply `landing-copywriter`'s full writing standard.
+- **Create contrast that clarifies, not drama that manufactures it.**
+  "Most AI tools help you generate more code. Hedgehog helps you keep
+  control of it" sharpens the reader's picture of what's actually
+  missing — it isn't manufactured urgency for its own sake.
+- **No manufactured drama.** No "here's the scary part" or rhetorical-
+  question openers. State the friction plainly; specificity does the
+  work drama would otherwise be recruited to fake.
+- **No solution language.** Don't name the product, a feature, or how it
+  helps — that's `landing-copy-mechanism`'s content, and pulling it
+  forward here undercuts that section's job of resolving the tension
+  this one builds.
+
+## Self-test
+
+- The problem stated is specific to the subject statement, not a generic
+  industry pain point — fails the swap test if a competitor's page could
+  run it unchanged.
+- The section names both the current state and its concrete cost, not
+  just a feeling of friction.
+- The section ends on the tension at its sharpest, not on a hint of
+  resolution.
+- No product name, feature, or mechanism appears in this section's copy.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Never introduce the product, a feature name, or how the product works
+  — that's `landing-copy-mechanism`'s section, immediately after.
+- Never resolve the tension this section builds — ending on relief is a
+  defect here, not a bonus.
+- Never inflate the paragraph count past what the assigned beat count
+  allows to fit in more agitation — flag a genuinely thin beat back to
+  `landing-sequencer` instead.

package/src/skills/landing-copy-proof/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+---
+name: landing-copy-proof
+description: Use whenever `landing-copywriter` drafts a proof/evidence section — social proof, numbers, case studies, benchmarks, testimonials. Trigger when the section's role in `landing-sequencer`'s list is to make an already-explained claim believable, distinct from the mechanism section (explains the how) or the objection section (handles doubt directly).
+---
+
+# Landing Copy: Proof
+
+This section's only job is to make an already-stated claim checkable.
+It doesn't introduce a new claim, and it doesn't explain how anything
+works — that's `landing-copy-mechanism`, already run. A proof section
+that's making its case for the first time here, rather than backing up a
+claim made earlier, is out of order.
+
+## What this section answers
+
+One question: **why should the reader believe the mechanism section's
+claim is true, not just plausible?** Every sentence in this section
+exists to make one specific upstream claim checkable — a number, a name,
+a comparison, a quoted result. A proof section with no specific,
+attributable evidence isn't a proof section; it's an unearned assertion
+wearing this section's placement as false credibility.
+
+## The algorithm
+
+Paragraph count from the beat count `landing-sequencer` assigned, but
+proof content is the one archetype most likely to be genuinely
+list-shaped — a set of parallel data points (3 stats, 3 logos, 3 quotes)
+reads better as a list than forced into prose. Decide the shape first:
+
+1. **Single strong proof point** (1 case study, 1 headline stat) → prose,
+   1 paragraph: name the evidence, state the specific number or result,
+   connect it back to the exact claim it's proving.
+2. **Multiple parallel proof points** (3+ stats, logos, or quotes of
+   equal weight) → a `-` list per `landing-copywriter`'s output format,
+   each item a specific, named data point — not restated as full
+   sentences if a short parallel phrase does the job.
+3. **Mixed** (one lead proof point plus supporting parallel evidence) →
+   one prose paragraph for the lead point, followed by a `-` list for the
+   rest.
+
+Every item, in either shape, names its source: a specific number, a
+named customer, a dated benchmark, a quoted individual — never "users
+report" or "studies show" without the name attached (per
+`landing-copywriter`'s no-unnamed-authority rule, which applies with
+extra weight here since this entire section exists to be checkable).
+
+## Writing standard (scoped to this section)
+
+- Apply `landing-copywriter`'s full writing standard.
+- **No unnamed authority — this is the section's core failure mode.** If
+  a proof point has no name, number, or date attached, it doesn't ship in
+  this section in that form. Reframe it as the subject's own claim
+  (belongs in `landing-copy-mechanism` instead) or cut it.
+- **Concrete over abstract, absolute in this section.** "Significant
+  improvement" never ships here — this is the one section whose entire
+  purpose is the number that makes a claim checkable.
+- **Each proof point traces to a specific upstream claim.** A proof point
+  floating free, proving nothing stated earlier in the page, is
+  decoration, not evidence — connect it explicitly or cut it.
+
+## Self-test
+
+- Every proof point names a specific source — a number, a customer, a
+  date, a quoted person. None reads as "studies show" or "users love it"
+  without attribution.
+- Each proof point connects to a specific claim made in an earlier
+  section (usually `landing-copy-mechanism`'s), not floating as generic
+  credibility.
+- The shape (prose vs. list vs. mixed) matches whether the content is
+  genuinely one strong point or several parallel ones — not forced into
+  prose to avoid "too many bullets," and not listed out of laziness when
+  one point deserves real prose development.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- Never include a proof point with no named source — an unnamed claim
+  doesn't belong in this section in any form.
+- Never introduce a new claim here that wasn't already made upstream —
+  this section proves, it doesn't originate.
+- Never explain how the product works here — that's already
+  `landing-copy-mechanism`'s completed job; this section only backs it
+  up.

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

@@ -32,6 +32,13 @@ pinned icon source. Neither restates the other's decision.
   Lucide as the pinned icon source. `landing-systems` points into it
   when naming the signature element's family; `landing-sequencer` and
   `landing-builder` invoke it for the concrete recipe.
+- **`landing-copy-headline`, `landing-copy-hero`, `landing-copy-problem`,
+  `landing-copy-mechanism`, `landing-copy-proof`, `landing-copy-objection`,
+  `landing-copy-cta`** — the per-archetype copywriting algorithms: what
+  question each section type answers, what order to answer it in, and its
+  own self-test. `landing-headline-writer` invokes `landing-copy-headline`
+  for the headline; `landing-copywriter` invokes whichever of the other
+  six matches the section's role, as assigned by `landing-sequencer`.
 - **`conventional-commits`** — when a change spans several phases in one
   working-tree pass and needs splitting back into per-phase commits
   (mainly Correction Protocol cleanups).
@@ -55,19 +62,32 @@ pinned icon source. Neither restates the other's decision.
   the token system that reconciles them, and the signature element. Owns
   everything that becomes a Tailwind token or a copy rule.
 - **`landing-sequencer`** — per-section transition type, weight, spacing,
-  and beat structure — the Motion/Lenis pacing spec the Builder
+  beat structure, and copy archetype role (Hero/Problem/Mechanism/Proof/
+  Objection/CTA) — the Motion/Lenis pacing spec, plus the taxonomy
+  `landing-copywriter` reads to pick its per-section skill, 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-headline-writer`** — the headline, plus 2 backups from
+  distinct rhetorical mechanisms (via the `landing-copy-headline` skill),
+  written to the voice spec. Presented as its own artifact and locked by
+  the user before any section's body copy is drafted.
+- **`landing-copywriter`** — every section's body text and CTA text, one
+  section per invocation, in the sequence's order — each section written
+  to its archetype role's dedicated skill and a fixed paragraph-count
+  algorithm (one paragraph per beat `landing-sequencer` assigned it),
+  to the voice spec, and presented as its own artifact for the user to
+  read, edit, and lock before the next section is drafted. Output is
+  semantic markdown (paragraph/list/blockquote) so `landing-builder`
+  reads section structure directly.
 - **`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.
+  audit (does every choice, including the headline and every section's
+  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
+  placing `landing-headline-writer`'s locked headline and
+  `landing-copywriter`'s section copy verbatim, mapping each section's
+  markdown structure to the matching markup. Anything that can't be
   built as specified is flagged back up the chain, never silently
   improvised around.
 

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

@@ -20,7 +20,8 @@ noted. Do not start a phase until the one above it is checked. -->
 - [ ] strategy — subject/audience/job + adjective pairs + visceral/behavioral/reflective sort + note timing — `landing-strategist`
 - [ ] systems — dial table + voice spec (parallel) → token system → signature element — `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`
+- [ ] headline — headline + 2 backups, from distinct mechanisms, reviewed and locked by the user — `landing-headline-writer`
+- [ ] copy — one section at a time, per the paragraph algorithm, each section reviewed and locked by the user before the next starts — `landing-copywriter`
 - [ ] audit — traceability/distinctiveness + usability, reconciled to a pass — `landing-critic`
 - [ ] build — the artifact, in Astro — `landing-builder`