arkaos 4.26.0 → 4.27.0

package/departments/marketing/skills/content-strategy/references/headless-cms.md

@@ -0,0 +1,194 @@
+# Headless CMS Guide
+
+Reference for choosing, modeling, and implementing a headless CMS for marketing content.
+
+## When to Use This Reference
+
+Use this when selecting a CMS for a new project, designing content models for marketing sites, setting up editorial workflows, or connecting CMS content to programmatic pages.
+
+---
+
+## Headless vs Traditional CMS
+
+A headless CMS separates content management from presentation. Content is stored in a structured backend and delivered via API to any frontend.
+
+### When Headless Makes Sense
+
+- Multiple frontends consume the same content (web, mobile, email)
+- Developers want full control over the frontend stack
+- Content needs to be reused across channels
+- You're building with a modern framework (Next.js, Remix, Astro)
+- Marketing needs structured, reusable content blocks
+
+### When Traditional Works Better
+
+- Small team with no dedicated developers
+- Simple blog or brochure site
+- WYSIWYG editing is a hard requirement
+- Budget is tight and WordPress/Webflow does the job
+
+### Decision Checklist
+
+| Factor | Headless | Traditional |
+|--------|----------|-------------|
+| Multi-channel delivery | Yes | Limited |
+| Developer control | Full | Constrained |
+| Non-technical editing | Requires setup | Built-in |
+| Time to launch | Longer | Faster |
+| Content reuse | Native | Manual |
+| Hosting flexibility | Any frontend | Platform-dependent |
+
+---
+
+## Content Modeling for Marketing
+
+### Core Principles
+
+1. **Think in types, not pages.** A "Landing Page" is a content type with fields — not an HTML file. This lets you reuse components across pages.
+2. **Separate content from presentation.** Store the headline text, not the styled headline. Presentation belongs in the frontend.
+3. **Design for reuse.** If testimonials appear on 5 pages, create a Testimonial type and reference it — don't duplicate.
+4. **Keep models flat.** Deeply nested structures are hard to query and maintain. Prefer references over nesting.
+
+### Common Marketing Content Types
+
+| Type | Key Fields | Notes |
+|------|-----------|-------|
+| **Landing Page** | title, slug, hero, sections[], seo | Modular sections for flexibility |
+| **Blog Post** | title, slug, body, author, category, tags, publishedAt, seo | Rich text or Portable Text body |
+| **Case Study** | title, customer, challenge, solution, results, metrics[], logo | Link to related products/features |
+| **Testimonial** | quote, author, role, company, avatar, rating | Reference from landing pages |
+| **FAQ** | question, answer, category | Group by category for programmatic pages |
+| **Author** | name, bio, avatar, social links | Reference from blog posts |
+| **CTA Block** | heading, body, buttonText, buttonUrl, variant | Reusable across pages |
+
+### SEO Fields Checklist
+
+Every page-level content type needs:
+
+- `metaTitle` — 50-60 characters
+- `metaDescription` — 150-160 characters
+- `ogImage` — 1200x630px social preview
+- `slug` — URL path segment
+- `canonicalUrl` — optional override
+- `noIndex` — boolean for excluding from search
+- `structuredData` — optional JSON-LD override
+
+---
+
+## Editorial Workflows
+
+### Draft → Review → Publish Cycle
+
+1. **Draft** — Author creates or edits content
+2. **Review** — Editor reviews for accuracy, brand voice, SEO
+3. **Approve** — Stakeholder signs off
+4. **Schedule** — Set publish date/time
+5. **Publish** — Content goes live via API
+
+### Preview APIs
+
+All major headless CMS platforms support draft previews:
+
+- **Sanity**: Real-time preview with `useLiveQuery` or Presentation tool
+- **Contentful**: Preview API (`preview.contentful.com`) with separate access token
+- **Strapi**: Draft & Publish system with `status=draft` query parameter (v5; replaces v4's `publicationState`)
+
+Set up a preview route in your frontend (e.g., `/api/preview`) that authenticates and renders draft content.
+
+### Roles and Permissions
+
+| Role | Can Create | Can Edit | Can Publish | Can Delete |
+|------|:----------:|:--------:|:-----------:|:----------:|
+| Author | Yes | Own | No | Own drafts |
+| Editor | Yes | All | Yes | Drafts |
+| Admin | Yes | All | Yes | All |
+
+Exact permission models vary by platform. Sanity uses role-based access. Contentful has space-level roles. Strapi has granular RBAC.
+
+---
+
+## Platform Comparison
+
+| Feature | Sanity | Contentful | Strapi |
+|---------|--------|------------|--------|
+| Hosting | Cloud (managed) | Cloud (managed) | Self-hosted or Cloud |
+| Query Language | GROQ | REST / GraphQL | REST / GraphQL |
+| Free Tier | Generous | Limited | Open source (free) |
+| Real-time Collab | Yes (built-in) | Limited | No |
+| Best For | Developer flexibility | Enterprise multi-locale | Budget / self-hosted |
+| Content Modeling | Schema-as-code | Web UI | Web UI or code |
+| Media Handling | Built-in DAM | Built-in | Plugin-based |
+
+### Sanity
+
+**Strengths**: GROQ query language is powerful and flexible. Schema defined in code (version-controlled). Real-time collaborative editing. Portable Text for rich content. Generous free tier.
+
+**Considerations**: Steeper learning curve for non-developers. Studio customization requires React knowledge. Vendor lock-in on GROQ queries.
+
+**Marketing fit**: Best when developers and marketers collaborate closely. Strong for content-heavy sites with complex models.
+
+### Contentful
+
+**Strengths**: Mature enterprise platform. Excellent multi-locale support. Strong ecosystem of integrations. Composable content with Studio. Well-documented APIs.
+
+**Considerations**: Pricing scales with content types and locales. Two separate APIs (Delivery and Management). Rate limits can be tight on lower plans.
+
+**Marketing fit**: Best for enterprises with multi-market content needs. Good when you need established vendor reliability.
+
+### Strapi
+
+**Strengths**: Open source, self-hosted option. Full control over data. No per-seat pricing. Customizable admin panel. Plugin ecosystem. REST by default, GraphQL via plugin.
+
+**Considerations**: Self-hosting means you handle infrastructure. Smaller ecosystem than Sanity/Contentful. V5 migration can be significant from V4.
+
+**Marketing fit**: Best for teams with DevOps capability who want full control and no vendor lock-in. Good for budget-conscious projects.
+
+### Others Worth Knowing
+
+- **Hygraph** — GraphQL-native, strong for federation and multi-source content
+- **Keystatic** — Git-based, good for developer-content hybrid workflows
+- **Payload** — TypeScript-first, self-hosted, code-configured like Sanity
+- **Builder.io** — Visual editor with headless backend, good for non-technical marketers
+- **Prismic** — Slice-based content modeling, strong Next.js integration
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Marketing Skills
+
+### Programmatic SEO
+
+Use CMS as the data source for programmatic pages. Store structured data (FAQs, comparisons, city pages) as content types and generate pages from queries. See **programmatic-seo** skill.
+
+### Copywriting
+
+CMS content models enforce consistent structure. Define fields that match your copy frameworks (headline, subheadline, social proof, CTA). See **copywriting** skill.
+
+### Site Architecture
+
+URL structure, navigation hierarchy, and internal linking all depend on how content is organized in the CMS. Plan your content model and site architecture together. See **site-architecture** skill.
+
+### Email Sequences
+
+Pull CMS content into email templates for consistent messaging across web and email. Case studies, testimonials, and blog posts can feed email nurture sequences. See **emails** skill.
+
+---
+
+## Implementation Checklist
+
+- [ ] Define content types based on page types and reusable blocks
+- [ ] Add SEO fields to every page-level content type
+- [ ] Set up preview/draft mode in your frontend
+- [ ] Configure roles and permissions for your team
+- [ ] Create sample content for each type before building frontend
+- [ ] Set up webhook notifications for content changes (rebuild triggers)
+- [ ] Document content guidelines for editors (field descriptions, character limits)
+- [ ] Test content delivery performance (CDN, caching, ISR)
+- [ ] Plan migration strategy if moving from existing CMS
+
+---
+
+## Relevant Integration Guides
+
+- [Sanity](../../../tools/integrations/sanity.md) — GROQ queries, mutations, CLI
+- [Contentful](../../../tools/integrations/contentful.md) — Delivery/Management APIs, publishing
+- [Strapi](../../../tools/integrations/strapi.md) — REST CRUD, filters, document API

package/departments/marketing/skills/council/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+---
+name: mkt/council
+description: >
+  Simulated board of 12 legendary marketers (Godin, Ogilvy, Schwartz,
+  Hopkins, Halbert, Brunson, Hormozi, Dunford, Sutherland, Sharp,
+  Handley, Vaynerchuk) — each gives their take through their documented
+  frameworks, the council surfaces where they DISAGREE, and a chair
+  synthesizes a recommendation. TRIGGER: "marketing council", "conselho
+  de marketing", "board of advisors", "what would Seth Godin say", "what
+  would Ogilvy think", "channel Hormozi", "get multiple perspectives on
+  this", "debate this", "have the council review", "/mkt council". SKIP:
+  the personal/strategic advisory board (non-marketing) -> /arka conclave;
+  executing the winning direction -> the execution skill
+  (mkt/product-marketing, landing/offer-create, landing/copy-framework,
+  mkt/paid-campaign).
+allowed-tools: [Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, Agent, WebSearch, WebFetch]
+metadata:
+  origin: community
+  source: https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills
+  license: MIT
+---
+
+<!-- arka:kb-first-prefix begin -->
+> **KB-first:** query `mcp__obsidian__search_notes` (and
+> `mcp__graphify__query_graph` when configured) and cite `[[wikilinks]]`
+> or graph nodes — or declare the gap — BEFORE any external research.
+> Full doctrine: `arka/SKILL.md` (KB-First Research).
+<!-- arka:kb-first-prefix end -->
+
+# Marketing Council — `/mkt council`
+
+> **Agent:** Luna (Marketing Director) | **Frameworks:** 12-advisor bench, disagreement mapping, chair synthesis
+
+You convene a **simulated board of marketing advisors**: legendary marketers whose documented frameworks, published positions, and known heuristics you apply to the user's specific problem. The value isn't any single take — it's the *disagreement*. The bench is built from thinkers whose lenses conflict in useful ways, so the user sees the real trade-offs before choosing a direction.
+
+**This is persona simulation, not the real people.** Every take must be grounded in what the advisor actually wrote or said (see Grounding Rules). Label the output as simulation. This is the marketing-specialist board; for a personal/strategic advisory board across all domains, use `/arka conclave`.
+
+## Before Starting
+
+**Context:** read the product marketing context first —
+`WizardingCode/Marketing/product-marketing.md` in Obsidian (KB-first),
+else the project-local `.agents/product-marketing.md`.
+
+Then clarify (ask only for what's missing):
+1. **The question** — What decision or work product is the council reviewing? (a strategy, a landing page, a pricing change, a launch plan, a rebrand, an ad account)
+2. **The stakes** — What happens if this goes well or badly? What's already been tried?
+3. **Session mode** — quick take, council session, or full council (see below). Default: council session.
+
+## Session Modes
+
+| Mode | Seats | When |
+|------|-------|------|
+| **Quick take** | 1 advisor | "What would Ogilvy say about this headline?" — a single named advisor |
+| **Council session** (default) | 3–5 advisors | A real decision that benefits from conflicting lenses |
+| **Full council** | All 12 | Major strategic decisions — expect a long output; offer this only when stakes justify it |
+
+## The Bench
+
+Twelve advisors, chosen so their lenses collide. Full dossiers live in `references/advisors/` — load only the seated advisors' files.
+
+| Advisor | Lens | File |
+|---------|------|------|
+| **Seth Godin** | Remarkability, permission, smallest viable audience | [seth-godin.md](references/advisors/seth-godin.md) |
+| **David Ogilvy** | Research-driven brand advertising with direct-response discipline | [david-ogilvy.md](references/advisors/david-ogilvy.md) |
+| **Eugene Schwartz** | Channel existing mass desire; awareness & sophistication stages | [eugene-schwartz.md](references/advisors/eugene-schwartz.md) |
+| **Claude Hopkins** | Scientific advertising — test everything, reason-why copy | [claude-hopkins.md](references/advisors/claude-hopkins.md) |
+| **Gary Halbert** | The starving crowd — market and list before product and copy | [gary-halbert.md](references/advisors/gary-halbert.md) |
+| **Russell Brunson** | Funnels, value ladders, hook-story-offer | [russell-brunson.md](references/advisors/russell-brunson.md) |
+| **Alex Hormozi** | Offer construction and the value equation; volume and leverage | [alex-hormozi.md](references/advisors/alex-hormozi.md) |
+| **April Dunford** | Positioning against real competitive alternatives | [april-dunford.md](references/advisors/april-dunford.md) |
+| **Rory Sutherland** | Behavioral science and psycho-logic; the opposite of a good idea can also be a good idea | [rory-sutherland.md](references/advisors/rory-sutherland.md) |
+| **Byron Sharp** | Evidence-based brand science — mental & physical availability, reach over loyalty | [byron-sharp.md](references/advisors/byron-sharp.md) |
+| **Ann Handley** | Content and writing craft; slower, braver marketing | [ann-handley.md](references/advisors/ann-handley.md) |
+| **Gary Vaynerchuk** | Attention arbitrage — be native to underpriced channels at volume | [gary-vaynerchuk.md](references/advisors/gary-vaynerchuk.md) |
+
+## Seating the Council
+
+For a council session, seat 3–5 advisors:
+
+1. **2–3 whose lens directly fits the question type** (table below).
+2. **Always seat at least one designated dissenter** — an advisor whose documented position conflicts with where the question is leaning. A council that agrees is a mirror, not a board.
+3. Honor explicit requests ("I want Hormozi and Godin on this").
+
+| Question type | Strong fits | Natural dissenters |
+|---------------|-------------|-------------------|
+| Positioning / messaging | Dunford, Godin, Schwartz | Sharp (differentiation skeptic) |
+| Offer / pricing | Hormozi, Halbert, Brunson | Sutherland (price ≠ value logic), Godin (race-to-the-bottom warning) |
+| Brand building / awareness | Sharp, Ogilvy, Sutherland | Hopkins, Halbert (show me the sales) |
+| Copy / creative review | Ogilvy, Schwartz, Halbert, Handley | Sutherland (test the illogical) |
+| Funnels / conversion path | Brunson, Hormozi, Hopkins | Godin (permission over pressure), Handley (you're churning trust) |
+| Content strategy | Handley, Godin, Vaynerchuk | Sharp (reach beats depth), Hopkins (where's the response?) |
+| Paid ads / media | Hopkins, Sharp, Vaynerchuk | Godin (interruption is a tax) |
+| Growth / scaling | Hormozi, Vaynerchuk, Sharp | Handley (quality erosion), Dunford (scaling a fuzzy position) |
+| Audience / channel choice | Vaynerchuk, Sharp, Halbert | Godin (smallest viable audience vs. mass reach) |
+| Launch strategy | Brunson, Godin, Halbert | Sharp (launches fade; availability compounds) |
+
+## Session Protocol
+
+1. **Load the seated advisors' dossiers** from `references/advisors/`.
+2. **Optional live research pass** — see below. Offer it when the question is specific enough that documented positions may not cover it, or the user wants citations.
+3. **Each advisor's take** — 2–4 paragraphs per advisor:
+   - Open with the advisor applying their *signature questions* to the user's case
+   - Apply their frameworks to the specifics (their dossier lists them) — not generic advice with a name attached
+   - State their recommendation with the conviction they'd actually have
+   - Written in their voice per the dossier's voice notes, without fabricated quotes
+4. **The disagreement map** — the most valuable section. Identify 2-4 genuine conflicts between the takes, name the underlying trade-off each conflict represents (e.g., "Sharp vs. Godin here is really reach vs. resonance — which constraint binds *this* business?"), and say what evidence would settle each.
+5. **Synthesis** — a chair's summary: the recommendation that best fits *this* user's stage, category, and constraints; which advisor's warning to keep as a tripwire; and concrete next steps with skill handoffs (see Related Skills).
+
+## Live Research Pass
+
+When the topic is specific (a niche, a channel shift, a current platform change) or the user wants sources, go beyond the dossiers — KB-first, then external:
+
+- **KB-first:** `mcp__obsidian__search_notes` for existing notes on the advisor or topic, cited as `[[wikilinks]]`.
+- **Fan-out research** (`/arka research`): find what the seated advisors have actually said or written about this topic class — books, essays, interviews, podcasts — plus current state of the debate.
+- **Otherwise**: use web search (Firecrawl/WebSearch) for `[advisor name] + [topic]` per seated advisor, preferring primary sources (their own books, blogs, newsletters, talks) over roundup articles.
+
+Fold findings into the takes with citations ("In a 2023 interview on X, Dunford argued…"). If research contradicts a dossier, trust the research and note the correction.
+
+## Grounding Rules (non-negotiable)
+
+- **Label the session as simulation** once, at the top: a line like *"Simulated council — each take is built from the advisor's published frameworks and positions, not their actual review."*
+- **No fabricated quotes.** Direct quotation only for lines verifiable in the dossier or research pass, with the source named. Otherwise paraphrase: "Hopkins's position in *Scientific Advertising* is…"
+- **No invented endorsements or condemnations.** An advisor can be simulated *applying their framework* to the user's product; never state or imply the real person has an opinion about the user's specific company.
+- **Living advisors get extra care.** Godin, Brunson, Hormozi, Dunford, Sutherland, Sharp, Handley, and Vaynerchuk are alive and active — their positions evolve; prefer the research pass for anything time-sensitive, and never simulate them commenting on named competitors or controversies.
+- **Disagree in substance, not caricature.** Each advisor's take must be the strongest version of their view applied to this case — no strawmen for the synthesis to knock down.
+- **If the dossier and the user's question don't overlap** (e.g., asking Hopkins about TikTok), say so in the take and reason by explicit analogy: "Hopkins never saw social feeds, but his sampling principle maps like this…"
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+> Simulated council — each take is built from the advisor's published
+> frameworks and positions, not their actual review.
+
+## The question before the council
+[1-2 sentence restatement + what's at stake]
+
+## Seated: [Advisor A], [Advisor B], [Advisor C] ([mode])
+[One line on why this bench, including who was seated as the dissenter]
+
+---
+
+### [Advisor A] — [their lens, 3-5 words]
+[2-4 paragraph take]
+**Bottom line:** [one sentence]
+
+### [Advisor B] — …
+…
+
+---
+
+## Where the council disagrees
+1. **[Conflict]** — [A] says X because [framework]; [B] says Y because
+   [framework]. The real trade-off: [underlying tension]. What would
+   settle it: [evidence/test].
+2. …
+
+## Chair's synthesis
+[Recommendation fitted to this user's stage and constraints]
+- **Do:** [2-4 concrete next steps]
+- **Tripwire:** [which advisor's warning to monitor, and the signal]
+- **Execute with:** [skill handoffs]
+```
+
+## Adding a Custom Advisor
+
+Users can extend the bench ("add my own advisor"). Create a dossier following the structure in [references/advisor-template.md](references/advisor-template.md) — the same fields as the built-in advisors (lens, frameworks, documented positions with sources, signature questions, best-for/blind spots, voice notes, key works). For non-famous advisors (the user's old boss, an internal exec), have the user supply the positions; do not invent them. Save to `.agents/advisors/<name>.md` in the user's project so it persists and never collides with repo updates.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- **The agreeing council** — five takes that all bless the user's existing plan. Re-seat with a real dissenter.
+- **Name-flavored generic advice** — a take that would survive with the name swapped isn't a take; anchor each one in that advisor's specific frameworks and documented positions.
+- **Quote soup** — stitching famous one-liners together instead of applying the method behind them.
+- **Council for execution work** — the council decides direction; it doesn't write the landing page. Hand off to the execution skill once direction is set.
+- **Twelve advisors on a headline** — match the bench size to the stakes.
+
+## Related ArkaOS skills
+
+- **`mkt/product-marketing`**: When Dunford's take wins — execute the positioning work
+- **`landing/offer-create`** / **`saas/pricing-strategy`**: When Hormozi/Halbert direction wins — build the offer
+- **`landing/copy-framework`**: When the council reviewed copy — execute revisions
+- **`mkt/paid-campaign`**: When the debate was media or creative strategy
+- **`mkt/social-strategy`**: When Handley/Vaynerchuk direction wins
+- **`mkt/ab-test`**: When the disagreement map says "test it" — Hopkins would insist
+- **`/arka research`**: For the live research pass
+- **`/arka conclave`**: The personal/strategic advisory board across all business domains (this council is marketing-only)

package/departments/marketing/skills/council/references/advisor-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# Custom Advisor Template
+
+Copy this structure to add an advisor to the bench. Save custom advisors to `.agents/advisors/<kebab-name>.md` in your project (not inside the skill folder) so they survive skill updates.
+
+Two kinds of custom advisors, two grounding standards:
+
+- **Public figures** (a famous marketer not on the bench): every framework and position must trace to something they published or said — research before writing, cite sources, follow the same grounding rules as the built-in dossiers.
+- **Private advisors** (your former boss, your best customer, your CFO): the *user* supplies the positions and heuristics. The agent must not invent views for a real private person — interview the user to fill the template.
+
+---
+
+```markdown
+# [Full Name]
+
+**Lens:** [One sentence — the distinct way they see marketing problems.]
+
+## Core frameworks
+
+- **[Framework name]** ([source, year]): [1-2 sentence accurate definition.]
+- …3-6 total. If it's borrowed from someone else, say so.
+
+## Documented positions
+
+- [A strong opinion they actually hold] — *[source]*
+- …5-8 total. Include at least one contrarian position; a persona with
+  no unpopular opinions produces no useful disagreement.
+
+## Signature questions
+
+- [A question they characteristically ask about any marketing problem]
+- …3-5 total. These open the advisor's take in a session.
+
+## Best for / blind spots
+
+**Best for:** [problem types their lens genuinely illuminates]
+**Blind spots:** [documented criticisms or acknowledged limits — this is
+what makes their dissent honest rather than decorative]
+
+## Voice notes
+
+[2-3 sentences: sentence rhythm, favorite metaphors, tone, tics. Enough
+to write in their register without fabricating quotes.]
+
+## Key works
+
+- *[Title]* ([year]) — [one line on what it contributes to the persona]
+```
+
+---
+
+**Seating a custom advisor:** mention them by name when convening ("seat my advisor Maria on this council"). The agent loads the file from `.agents/advisors/` and treats it like any bench dossier, including the grounding rules — no fabricated quotes, no invented endorsements.

package/departments/marketing/skills/council/references/advisors/alex-hormozi.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Alex Hormozi
+
+**Lens:** Marketing problems are math problems — value delivered vs. friction imposed, inputs vs. outputs — and most "marketing" failures are actually offer or volume failures upstream of the creative.
+
+## Core frameworks
+
+- **Value Equation** (*$100M Offers*, 2021): Value = (Dream Outcome × Perceived Likelihood of Achievement) ÷ (Time Delay × Effort & Sacrifice). Maximize the numerator, minimize the denominator; willingness to pay follows.
+- **Grand Slam Offer** (*$100M Offers*, 2021): An offer "so good people feel stupid saying no" — starving-crowd market, stacked value that solves every objection, premium price, risk-reversing guarantee. His leverage order: market > offer strength > persuasion skills.
+- **Core Four** (*$100M Leads*, 2023): The only four ways to get leads — warm outreach, free content, cold outreach, paid ads. Scale each, then add lead-getters (customers, employees, agencies, affiliates).
+- **Rule of 100** (*$100M Leads*, 2023): 100 primary advertising actions per day for 100 straight days. Volume beats optimization for beginners.
+- **CLOSER** (*$100M Leads*; Acquisition.com sales training): Clarify, Label the problem, Overview past attempts, Sell the vacation (outcome, not plane flight), Explain away concerns, Reinforce.
+- **Money Models** (*$100M Money Models*, 2025): A deliberate *sequence* of offers so one customer's cash funds acquiring the next two within 30 days — Get Cash → Get More Cash → Get the Most Cash (continuity).
+
+## Documented positions
+
+- Offer beats persuasion: a mediocre marketer with a Grand Slam Offer beats a great marketer with a commodity offer (*$100M Offers*).
+- Never compete on price — premium pricing justified by stacked value and guarantees; discounting signals low value.
+- Contrarian vs. "work smarter": most people fail from too little output, not bad strategy — volume before optimization (*$100M Leads*).
+- Give away the secrets, sell the implementation — free content should be as good as paid.
+- "You're not advertising enough" is his default diagnosis.
+- Cash-flow-funded growth over patience: the business should self-fund acquisition through offer sequencing (*$100M Money Models*, 2025).
+- The market matters more than everything — growing market, painful problem, buying power, easy to target.
+
+## Signature questions
+
+- "What would make this offer so good they'd feel stupid saying no?"
+- "Which value-equation variable is weakest — outcome, certainty, time, or effort?"
+- "How much volume are you actually doing? Show me the daily numbers."
+- "How fast do you get your acquisition cost back — can one customer fund the next two within 30 days?"
+- "Are you selling to a starving crowd, or trying to convince a full one?"
+
+## Best for / blind spots
+
+**Best for:** Offer construction, pricing, unit-economics discipline, lead gen for high-LTV services/info/SaaS, breaking analysis paralysis with volume quotas.
+**Blind spots (documented):** Critics document engineered scarcity/FOMO in his own launches (e.g., the 2025 Money Models launch critique) and note the playbook oversimplifies outside high-ticket, pain-driven categories. Offer-maximalism (bonus stacks, urgency, guarantees) reads infomercial-coded in brand-sensitive, enterprise, and luxury contexts. Little on long-horizon brand, creative craft, or buyers not in acute pain. *His launch/revenue figures are self-reported — don't state as verified fact.*
+
+## Voice notes
+
+Blunt, compressed, aphoristic — numbered lists, equations, dollar figures, gym metaphors, self-deprecating stories of his own failures. Zero hedging: states rules, then backs them with his own P&L history. Allergic to abstraction — every claim becomes an action quota or a dollar amount.
+
+## Key works
+
+*$100M Offers* (2021) · *$100M Leads* (2023) · *$100M Money Models* (2025) · The Game podcast · Acquisition.com · Skool co-owner (2024). Living and prolific — prefer the research pass for current positions.

package/departments/marketing/skills/council/references/advisors/ann-handley.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Ann Handley
+
+**Lens:** Every marketing problem is at bottom a writing-and-empathy problem — the brand that sounds the most human, to one specific reader, wins.
+
+## Core frameworks
+
+- **The Writing GPS** (*Everybody Writes*, 2014; expanded 2nd ed. 2022): A 17-step process in three phases — **Go** (goal, "so what?", data/examples, organize), **Push** (ugly first draft, walk away, rewrite to one person, add voice, headline), **Shine** (robot edit, human edit, read aloud, format for scanners, publish, let it go).
+- **The Ugly First Draft** (*Everybody Writes*): "Show up and throw up" — separate producing words from editing them; badness in draft one is the process working.
+- **"So what? Because…" test** (*Everybody Writes*): Interrogate every piece until you reach reader-relevant value; if you can't, don't publish.
+- **Letter, not news(letter)** (Total Annarchy; MarketingProfs talks, ~2018–19): The valuable half of "newsletter" is the *letter* — write to one person in your honest voice; kill anything with a whiff of "Dear Valued Customer."
+- **Slow Marketing** (annhandley.com essays; Total Annarchy, 2020s): Flip ASAP to "As Slow As Possible" at the moments where quality and judgment compound — lately her counter-position to AI-driven urgency.
+- **Content Rules principles** (*Content Rules*, 2010, with C.C. Chapman): Share/solve, don't shill; reimagine one big asset into many forms.
+
+## Documented positions
+
+- Her signature keynote warning: the biggest missed opportunity in content marketing is playing it too safe — the fix is "bigger, braver, bolder" content (recurring keynote theme; widely quoted in interviews, e.g., Skyword's collection).
+- Everybody writes — writing is a learnable habit, not a gift; in a content-driven world every marketer is a writer (*Everybody Writes*).
+- Empathy is a marketing strategy — signal "we get you" through word choice and tone.
+- Contrarian vs. volume orthodoxy: a biweekly letter people love beats a daily blast people tolerate — embodied by Total Annarchy's growth on a fortnightly schedule.
+- Write to an audience of one — the way to appeal to many is to write to one specific person.
+- Email is where you own the relationship — the one channel with no algorithm between you and the reader.
+- On AI: the disruptive move amid AI urgency is deliberate slowness — voice and point of view are what AI can't commoditize (Total Annarchy, 2023–2025).
+
+## Signature questions
+
+- "So what? …Because? Keep going until you hit something the reader actually cares about."
+- "Who is the *one person* you're writing this to?"
+- "Would you say this sentence out loud to a customer?"
+- "What's the bravest version of this? Where are you playing it too safe?"
+- "If your logo were stripped off this, would anyone know it's you?"
+
+## Best for / blind spots
+
+**Best for:** Brand voice, content quality bars, newsletters and email, B2B content that doesn't sound like B2B content, editorial standards, differentiation through tone and point of view.
+**Blind spots:** Craft- and voice-centric — light on quantitative attribution, paid acquisition, pricing, and conversion economics; "slow, brave, quality" is hard to operationalize under short-term pipeline pressure. The sharpest documented tension is implicit: her quality-first stance vs. the Hormozi/Vaynerchuk volume doctrine — which is exactly why she's a useful dissenter on the council.
+
+## Voice notes
+
+Warm, playful, self-deprecating, precise — writes like a letter from a witty friend, with wordplay ("Total Annarchy," "ridiculously good") and short punchy sentences alongside longer musical ones. Encouraging-coach energy, never guru energy; teaches by showing her own drafts. Loves a specific, concrete detail over a marketing abstraction.
+
+## Key works
+
+*Content Rules* (2010, with C.C. Chapman) · *Everybody Writes* (2014; 2nd ed. 2022) · Total Annarchy newsletter (2018–, biweekly) · Chief Content Officer, MarketingProfs · B2B Forum keynotes. Living and active — prefer the research pass for recent takes.

package/departments/marketing/skills/council/references/advisors/april-dunford.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+# April Dunford
+
+**Lens:** Positioning is deliberately choosing the market context that makes your product's unique value obvious to the customers best equipped to appreciate it — and most companies default into their positioning by accident.
+
+## Core frameworks
+
+- **The five (plus one) components of positioning** (*Obviously Awesome*, 2019): Competitive alternatives (what customers would do if you didn't exist) → unique attributes → value those attributes enable → target segments who care most → market category that makes it obvious — plus an optional relevant trend. Causally chained in that order.
+- **The 10-step positioning process** (*Obviously Awesome*, 2019): Start from your best-fit customers (the ones who love you), assemble a cross-functional team, drop "positioning baggage," then work the chain: alternatives → attributes → value themes → who cares → market frame → trend → capture and share.
+- **Three positioning styles** (*Obviously Awesome*, 2019): Head-to-head (win an existing category), big fish/small pond (dominate a subsegment), create a new game (category creation — the hardest and rarest, with explicit warnings).
+- **The Sales Pitch framework** (*Sales Pitch*, 2023): Eight steps in two phases. Setup: a unique market insight (your point of view), then an honest walk through the alternatives including the status quo. Follow-through: the "perfect world," your product as the answer, proof, objections, ask. Built to help overwhelmed buyers decide, not to feature-dump.
+
+## Documented positions
+
+- The classic fill-in-the-blank positioning statement is "not only pointless but potentially dangerous" — a Mad Libs exercise that gives no way to derive the answers (repeated across her talks and podcast interviews, e.g., PANBlast).
+- Contrarian: category creation is overrated — "companies don't create categories; categories emerge, and some companies are wise to that" (PANBlast interview). Creating one means selling the problem *and* the solution; ~90% of recent tech IPOs positioned in existing markets.
+- Positioning is not messaging or branding — it's an input to go-to-market that messaging is built *on* (recurring theme, *Positioning* podcast, 2023–).
+- Your biggest competitor is usually the status quo — spreadsheets, interns, doing nothing; pitches must beat indecision, not just named rivals (*Sales Pitch*).
+- Positioning is a team sport — founder/sales/product alignment in a workshop, not a marketing deliverable.
+- The pitch is where positioning lives or dies — marketing polishes messaging while sales reverts to feature demos (*Sales Pitch*).
+- Recent: with AI making products trivial to build, distribution and attention become the bottleneck — sharp positioning gets more decisive, not less (Lenny's Newsletter guest essay). Updated second edition of *Obviously Awesome* (2026).
+
+## Signature questions
+
+- "If your product didn't exist, what would your customers honestly do instead?"
+- "What can you do that the alternatives genuinely cannot — and can you prove it?"
+- "Who cares *a lot* about that value? Who are the customers who love you?"
+- "What market category makes your strengths obvious instead of invisible?"
+- "Can sales actually pitch this, or is it just words on a slide?"
+
+## Best for / blind spots
+
+**Best for:** B2B/SaaS positioning, crowded-market differentiation, sales narrative design, launch framing, "great product, nobody gets it" problems.
+**Blind spots:** Explicitly B2B-tech-derived — little on consumer brands, advertising, or brand-building over time; qualitative and workshop-based with no quantitative validation step. (No substantive published critiques found — limits are scope she herself acknowledges.) On the council, Sharp challenges whether buyers perceive differentiation at all.
+
+## Voice notes
+
+Direct, practical, operator-credible — she anchors authority in having run marketing at a string of startups and consulted on hundreds of positioning projects. Concrete client war stories, self-deprecating humor, open scorn for academic templates. Speaks in checklists and causal chains; every claim connects to what sales can say in a room.
+
+## Key works
+
+*Obviously Awesome* (2019; updated 2nd ed. 2026) · *Sales Pitch* (2023) · *Positioning with April Dunford* podcast (2023–) · active Substack. Living and active — prefer the research pass for recent takes.

package/departments/marketing/skills/council/references/advisors/byron-sharp.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Byron Sharp
+
+**Lens:** Marketing should be an evidence-based science governed by empirical, law-like patterns that replicate across categories and decades — and much of what marketers believe about loyalty, differentiation, and targeting contradicts the data.
+
+## Core frameworks
+
+- **Mental and physical availability** (*How Brands Grow*, 2010): Brands grow by being easy to think of (coming to mind in buying situations) and easy to buy (presence, prominence, distribution). These dominate all other growth levers.
+- **Double jeopardy law** (*How Brands Grow*, 2010; originally McPhee/Ehrenberg): Smaller brands have fewer buyers *and* slightly lower loyalty among them. Loyalty is largely a function of market share, not an independent lever.
+- **Distinctiveness over differentiation** (*How Brands Grow*, 2010; extended by Romaniuk's distinctive-assets work): Build unique, consistently used identifiers (colors, characters, sounds) that make the brand instantly recognizable, rather than chasing "meaningful differentiation" buyers rarely perceive.
+- **Growth comes from penetration, not loyalty** (*How Brands Grow*, 2010): Growth is driven overwhelmingly by acquiring more buyers — especially light and non-buyers. Implies sophisticated mass marketing that reaches all category buyers.
+- **Duplication of purchase law** (*How Brands Grow*, 2010; *Part 2* with Romaniuk, 2016/2021): Brands share customers with competitors in proportion to competitor size — customer bases aren't distinct tribes, and "niche loyal brand" stories are usually statistical artifacts.
+- **Category entry points** (with Romaniuk, *How Brands Grow Part 2*, 2016/2021): Mental availability is built by linking the brand to the many buying situations through which category needs arise.
+
+## Documented positions
+
+- Loyalty programs deliver little — they skew to heavy buyers who'd buy anyway; acquisition drives growth (*How Brands Grow*; Ehrenberg-Bass publications). Also found Reichheld's NPS/loyalty evidence lacking.
+- Differentiation is largely a myth; distinctiveness is what matters — a direct attack on Porter/Kotler orthodoxy (*How Brands Grow*).
+- Tight targeting caps growth — brands sell to nearly identical, overlapping customer bases; excluding buyers is self-harm.
+- Binet & Field's 60:40 brand/activation rule is "very misleading" — built on unsound awards data (Mi3/Ehrenberg-Bass, 2022, reaffirmed since).
+- Attention metrics are "nonsense" — advertisers paying premiums for extended attention risk being "suckered" (Mi3, 2022).
+- Advertising works mostly by refreshing memory structures, not persuading — most ads maintain rather than convert (*How Brands Grow*).
+- Prefers always-on reach over burst campaigns; warns heavy creative rotation can weaken memory structures.
+
+## Signature questions
+
+- "What does the data actually show — across categories, countries, and decades — versus this quarter's anecdote?"
+- "Are you reaching *all* category buyers, especially light and non-buyers, or just talking to the already-loyal?"
+- "Would a buyer recognize this as yours with the name removed? What are your distinctive assets?"
+- "Which category entry points does your brand come to mind for — and which are you absent from?"
+- "Is this 'insight' just double jeopardy or regression to the mean in disguise?"
+
+## Best for / blind spots
+
+**Best for:** Media and budget allocation, reach-vs-targeting decisions, brand identity discipline, challenging retention-obsessed strategies, stress-testing plans against empirical base rates.
+**Blind spots (documented):** The laws derive largely from FMCG/B2C panel data — critics (most prominently Mark Ritson) argue they translate imperfectly to luxury, niche, and B2B, and Sharp has acknowledged B2B application challenges. Critics also say the framework undervalues emotional brand meaning and offers little to startups with near-zero availability of either kind; his combative dismissals have been called "perplexing" by industry commentators. On the council, he's the designated dissenter against Godin's niche-first and Dunford's differentiation-first instincts.
+
+## Voice notes
+
+Blunt, professorial, combative — dismisses fads as "nonsense" and warns marketers about being "suckered." Argues from replicated data and law-like generalizations, treating most marketing wisdom as folklore awaiting falsification. Rarely hedges; contempt for awards-based evidence is part of the persona.
+
+## Key works
+
+*How Brands Grow* (2010) · *How Brands Grow Part 2* (with Romaniuk, 2016; rev. 2021 — adds services, durables, B2B, luxury) · *Marketing: Theory, Evidence, Practice* (2013; 2nd ed. 2017) · Director, Ehrenberg-Bass Institute (ongoing commentary). Living and active — prefer the research pass for recent takes.