codeply-cli 0.1.1 → 0.2.0

package/skills/loop-design-check/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+---
+name: loop-design-check
+description: "Design a goal-oriented agent loop, and review it for the ways loops go wrong — spinning and burning tokens, Goodhart-gaming the verifier, or running a wrong answer to completion. Two actions: (1) WRITE a loop — gate whether to build it, define a machine-decidable goal, pick the loop type, pick a skeleton; (2) REVIEW a loop — run it past five failure modes plus decidability, boundaries, fallback, judge independence, and keep-judgment-with-the-human red lines. Use when designing an autonomous agent loop, or when you already have one and worry it will spin, cheat, or run a wrong answer to the end. Complements the mechanism-layer loop skills (autonomous-loops, continuous-agent-loop) by covering the judgment layer they don't. 中文触发：写 loop、设计 loop、做一个 loop、检查 loop 对不对、loop 体检、loop 会不会跑飞、可判定目标、五个崩法、plan build judge。English triggers: design an agent loop, write a loop, check a loop, loop review, prevent a runaway loop, goal-oriented loop, decidable goal, plan/build/judge."
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Loop Design + Review
+
+> **Premise.** An LLM is a feed-forward system: prompt in → tokens out, with no built-in "steer toward the goal" across turns. To make it *behave* like a goal-oriented system, you wrap a feedback loop around it. This skill helps you **write** that loop correctly and **review** it so it won't run away.
+
+## When to use / not
+
+**Use it when:**
+- You want to hand a repeating task to an agent that runs over and over (write→test, test→fix, fix→verify…).
+- You already have a loop and worry it spins, cheats, or runs a wrong answer to completion.
+
+**Don't use it for:**
+- A one-off task → just do it; don't wrap a loop around it.
+- A plain timer / poll → use `/loop`; no design needed.
+- *How to wire the loop architecture* (pipelines → DAGs, long-run recovery) → that's the mechanism layer; see `autonomous-loops` / `continuous-agent-loop`. **This skill only covers "is the goal right, and will it run away" — it does not re-explain mechanism.**
+
+## Red-line premise: two levels of feedback
+
+| Level | Who owns it | What it does |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Execution** (low) | machine / agent | Measures "how far from the literal goal" and grinds it to zero. The machine is strong here. |
+| **Judgment** (high) | **human** | Decides "is this goal itself right, should it change, should it stop." The machine can't step outside its own loop to question the goal. |
+
+> A thermostat can feed back "how far from 26°C," but when you have a fever and want 28°C it can't judge whether 26 is the *right* target — it just grinds toward 26. **"What to set today" is always the human's call.**
+> Handing judgment / sign-off / the last switch to the machine = removing the high-level feedback = it sprints, fast and hard, toward a goal no one questioned → wrong output.
+
+---
+
+## Action 1 — Write a loop (5 steps)
+
+### Step 0 · Subtract first: should you even build it? (4-condition gate, any miss = veto)
+
+① the task repeats weekly or more　② verification can be automated　③ the token budget can take it　④ the agent has tools that actually *run and see the result*
+
+Miss any one → **don't build a loop**; do it by hand or another way.
+> What stops most people isn't "can I write a loop," it's "does my repo deserve one." A repo that deserves a loop has a reconciliation baseline (golden sample / upstream total) + tests + a lint guard. **A repo that doesn't deserve a loop will only have its errors amplified by one.**
+
+### Step 1 · Define a *machine-decidable* goal (the hard part — the loop lives or dies here)
+
+The whole loop rides on the comparator's "is it done yet?" **The comparator can only work if your exit condition can be judged yes/no by a machine.**
+
+- Bad: Vague ("make it good," "write it sharper") → the comparator can't judge → either it never passes (stuck retrying) or it guesses (passes/blocks at random).
+- Good: Decidable ("all 96 unit tests green AND a change-list is produced," "module-02 fields filled, pytest passes, business logic untouched") → one check settles it; the loop converges cleanly.
+
+**Five-point goal framework:**
+1. **Done-criterion is machine-verifiable.**
+2. **Boundary conditions defined alongside the done-criterion** ("what it must NOT do") — anti-Goodhart; missing boundaries = a license to cheat.
+3. **Has a failure fallback** — retry cap N + escalate to a human when exceeded.
+4. **Goal is layered.**
+5. **Prefer reconciliation over assertion for the done-criterion** — anchor to external fact (golden sample / upstream total / financial tie-out / platform back-office numbers) before your own assertions. "All tests pass" can be gamed (loosen asserts, fake mocks, swallow exceptions); "diff vs the reference < 0.01" can't.
+
+> **Self-check:** read the goal to someone who doesn't know the domain — can they run one command and tell whether it's done? If not, it isn't decidable enough. Go back.
+
+### Step 2 · Pick the loop type
+
+| Your task | Loop type (cybernetic) | How it stops |
+|---|---|---|
+| Has a clear "done" test (write to done / a batch of images processed) | **servo** (`/goal`-style closed-loop) | stops on reaching the goal |
+| No endpoint, must keep maintaining a state (inventory alert / scheduled health check) | **regulator** (`/loop`-style thermostat) | never stops; acts only on change (dead-band suppresses noise) |
+| Periodic sampling, stop on a condition (watch a PR until CI is green) | **regulator with an exit** | stops when the exit condition holds |
+| Must "ensure something happens on time" | wrap the above in `/schedule` | cron fires it |
+
+> Rule of thumb: clear "done" test → servo; must keep maintaining, no endpoint → regulator; must "happen on time" → wrap a regulator in schedule.
+
+### Step 3 · Pick a skeleton
+
+**Maintenance type (tend something that exists) → document-driven dispatch.**
+The loop isn't "run a fixed check on a timer," it's **"read a doc on a timer, and dispatch only when the doc changed."** The doc is the task queue + state machine + human interface.
+Three disciplines: ① the problem column is human-write-only, the result column is loop-write-only, **state advances one-way and never rolls back**; ② **the exit code is final** (if the script says exit 1, the script wins); ③ state advances only as far as "awaiting verification" — **the "done" cell is flipped by a human only.** The loop is the worker, not the acceptance officer.
+
+**Greenfield type (build from scratch) → plan / build / judge, three roles.**
+
+| Role | Does | Key |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Plan** | break the goal into a spec + **decidable acceptance conditions** | acceptance must be script-judgeable |
+| **Build** | write to the spec | **must not change the acceptance conditions** |
+| **Judge** | run acceptance **independently**; pass → stop, fail → return with the failure reason to Build | **independent + deterministic** |
+
+Three iron rules (all bet on the judge): ① **the judge must be independent** — not the same agent as Build (grading your own homework always inflates); ② **deterministic rules** — pytest / reconciliation diff / type check / diff, never "looks right"; ③ **Build may not edit the acceptance conditions to pass**. Three failed retries → escalate to a human.
+
+### Step 4 · Add damping (against oscillation / runaway)
+
+Retry cap, hard stop, human flips the last switch = damping. **Negative feedback with no damping oscillates** (the Ralph-Wiggum loop: spinning in place, burning tokens).
+
+### Step 5 · Land in three stages (don't go fully automatic on day one)
+
+① **Run it once by hand** (forces you to state exactly "how the judge decides") → ② harden into a skill / Claude Code sub-agents (a main Claude loops, dispatching plan/build/judge) → ③ hang it on cron for full automation.
+
+---
+
+## Action 2 — Review a loop (checklist = five failure modes)
+
+> Run the loop past each row. **Hitting any one = this loop will misfire; send it back.** These five are negative experience (gotchas) — worth more than positive rules.
+
+| # | Failure mode (how it breaks) | Review question (a hit = red) | Antibody |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | Goal is a correct platitude → **spins, burns money** | Can the exit condition be machine-judged yes/no? Or is it "manage it well / make it good"? | Replace with a decidable result condition (Action 1·Step 1) |
+| 2 | "Verification" written as "check if it looks ok" → **agent confidently says fine and stops** | Is the judge the defendant itself? Does verification rest on "looks right" or deterministic rules? | Reconcile + exit code rules + independent judge |
+| 3 | (worst) Only gates on "all tests pass" → **agent deletes the tests** | Is there a boundary ("what it must NOT do")? Or only a done-criterion? | Done-criterion **+ boundary** together (the Goodhart antibody) |
+| 4 | Counts on the agent asking mid-run → **it won't; it runs the wrong answer to the end** | Is there any "clarify only at runtime" point? | **Front-load every clarification**; settle it once before launch |
+| 5 | Bloated CLAUDE.md + stale memory → **the faster it loops, the more it errs** | Are the docs/memory it depends on fresh? Who maintains them? | Layered memory + periodic lint |
+
+**Plus three red lines (violate any = not allowed to go automatic):**
+- **Keep judgment with the human.** Acceptance / the "done" cell is flipped by a human; the loop is not the acceptance officer.
+- **Responsibility doesn't transfer.** Anything whose failure you can't afford (merge the wrong PR / publish the wrong thing / misallocate money) → **don't hand over the authority automatically.**
+- **Counter-intuitive warning.** The more "self-improving / rewrites-its-own-rules" a loop is, the **stricter the human review it needs** (to see what it rewrote the rules into) — not looser. The machine is too fast to intercept after the fact, so the human's judgment must sit **before the action** (a hard gate), not as a post-hoc patch.
+
+---
+
+## Worked example — reviewing a "nightly green-keeper" loop
+
+You want a loop that runs every night and fixes whatever tests are failing.
+
+- **Naive goal:** "make all tests pass." → Step-1 self-check fails: this is the bait for failure mode #3.
+- **Decidable goal (fixed):** "all tests green **AND** no test file deleted or weakened **AND** coverage not lowered **AND** a change-list produced." Boundary now defined alongside the done-criterion.
+- **Type:** servo with a retry cap of 3 (Step 2 + Step 4).
+- **Skeleton:** plan/build/judge — the **judge is CI run independently**, never the fixing agent (Step 3).
+
+Now run the **review checklist**, and it catches what the naive version would have missed:
+- **#3 hit** → the naive "all tests pass" lets the agent delete a failing test to "win." Fixed by the boundary "no test file deleted/weakened."
+- **#2 hit** → if the fixing agent also judged its own fix, it would pass itself. Fixed by "judge = independent CI, deterministic."
+- **#4 hit** → if a fix is ambiguous, the agent won't stop to ask at 2 a.m.; it'll commit a guess. Fixed by front-loading: ambiguous fixes are left for the human, not guessed.
+- **Red line** → the loop opens a PR but **does not auto-merge**; the human flips the last switch (responsibility doesn't transfer).
+
+The naive loop and the reviewed loop differ by four lines of constraint — and that's the difference between "wakes you to a deleted test suite" and "wakes you to a clean PR."
+
+---
+
+## One-line close
+
+> The hard part of writing a loop isn't "can I write a loop," it's **defining a goal a machine can reconcile** — decidable, bounded, reconciliation-based. The controller must be deterministic and external; keep judgment and the standard with the human; the system tends toward entropy, so maintain it.
+> **A loop only rewards someone who has already thought it through. Count on it to think for you, and it will happily think wrong, with you, at scale.**
+
+---
+
+> Lineage: Wiener's two-level feedback (*The Human Use of Human Beings*, 1950) for the judgment/execution split and red lines; the plan/build/judge pattern from Anatoli's *Loops explained* and Addy's *Loop Engineering*.
+> Mechanism layer (how to wire the loop architecture): see `autonomous-loops` / `continuous-agent-loop`. This skill does not re-implement mechanism; it covers goal definition and runaway prevention only.

package/skills/mailtrap-email-integration/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+name: mailtrap-email-integration
+description: Guides agents through integrating transactional email sending via Mailtrap's Email API, including sandbox testing, domain verification, and API authentication. Use when implementing email-sending features, debugging delivery issues, or setting up safe dev/staging email testing.
+origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Mailtrap Email Integration
+
+Patterns for adding transactional email sending to an application using Mailtrap's Email API and Sandbox, covering authentication, environment separation, and common delivery pitfalls.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- Implementing a "send email" feature (signup confirmation, password reset, notifications, receipts)
+- Debugging why emails aren't arriving in dev/staging
+- Setting up a project's first email-sending integration
+- Reviewing code that calls an email API directly without sandbox separation
+
+## Core Concepts
+
+**Sandbox vs. Production separation.** Mailtrap provides a Sandbox API that captures emails without delivering them, used for dev/staging so test emails never reach real inboxes. Production sending uses a separate, verified-domain endpoint. Never point a dev environment at the production sending endpoint.
+
+**Authentication.** Requests use a Bearer token in the `Authorization` header. Tokens are scoped per project; sandbox and production typically use different tokens.
+
+**Domain verification.** Production sending requires verifying a sending domain via DNS records (SPF, DKIM, DMARC) before Mailtrap will deliver to real recipients. Skipping this causes silent delivery failures or spam-folder placement.
+
+## Code Examples
+
+```typescript
+// Sending via Mailtrap's Email API (production)
+async function sendEmail(to: string, subject: string, html: string) {
+  const response = await fetch("https://send.api.mailtrap.io/api/send", {
+    method: "POST",
+    headers: {
+      "Authorization": `Bearer ${process.env.MAILTRAP_API_TOKEN}`,
+      "Content-Type": "application/json",
+    },
+    body: JSON.stringify({
+      from: { email: "no-reply@yourverifieddomain.com", name: "Your App" },
+      to: [{ email: to }],
+      subject,
+      html,
+    }),
+  });
+
+  if (!response.ok) {
+    throw new Error(`Email send failed: ${response.status}`);
+  }
+  return response.json();
+}
+```
+
+```typescript
+// Same call, routed to Sandbox in non-production environments
+const MAILTRAP_ENDPOINT = process.env.NODE_ENV === "production"
+  ? "https://send.api.mailtrap.io/api/send"
+  : `https://sandbox.api.mailtrap.io/api/send/${process.env.MAILTRAP_INBOX_ID}`;
+```
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+| Anti-Pattern | Why It's a Problem | Instead |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Using the production sending endpoint in dev/test | Real test emails reach real inboxes, risking spam complaints and leaked test data | Route non-production environments to the Sandbox endpoint |
+| Hardcoding API tokens in source | Credential leak risk if committed to version control | Load tokens from environment variables / secrets manager |
+| Sending before domain verification completes | Emails silently fail or land in spam | Verify SPF/DKIM/DMARC records before enabling production sending |
+| No retry/error handling on send failures | Silent notification failures (e.g., user never gets password reset email) | Check response status, log failures, surface actionable errors |
+
+## Best Practices
+
+- Keep sandbox and production tokens in separate environment variables, never share one token across environments
+- Verify sending domain DNS records before any production launch involving email
+- Log delivery failures with enough context to debug (recipient, template, timestamp, response code)
+- Treat email sending as a fallible network call: wrap in try/catch, never assume success
+
+## Related Skills
+
+`api-and-interface-design`, `security-and-hardening`, `ci-cd-and-automation`

package/skills/make-interfaces-feel-better/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,152 @@
+---
+name: make-interfaces-feel-better
+description: Apply concrete design-engineering details that make interfaces feel polished. Use when reviewing or improving UI spacing, typography, borders, shadows, motion, hit areas, icons, text wrapping, and interaction states.
+metadata:
+  origin: community
+---
+
+# Make Interfaces Feel Better
+
+Use this skill for the small design-engineering details that compound into a
+more polished interface.
+
+Source: salvaged from stale community PR #1659 by `linus707`.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- The user says the UI feels off, flat, generic, cramped, jumpy, or unfinished.
+- You are building controls, cards, lists, dashboards, navigation, forms, or
+  toolbars.
+- A component needs hover, active, focus, enter, exit, loading, or empty states.
+- A frontend review needs specific before/after recommendations.
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### Concentric Radius
+
+For nearby nested rounded surfaces:
+
+```text
+outer radius = inner radius + padding
+```
+
+If padding is large, treat layers as separate surfaces instead of forcing the
+math. The point is optical coherence, not formula worship.
+
+### Optical Alignment
+
+Geometric centering is not always visual centering. Icon buttons, play
+triangles, arrows, stars, and asymmetric icons often need a small offset. Fix the
+SVG when possible; otherwise adjust with a pixel-level margin or padding change.
+
+### Shadows And Borders
+
+Use borders for separation and focus rings. Use layered shadows when a card,
+button, dropdown, or popover needs depth. Shadows should be transparent and
+subtle enough to work across backgrounds.
+
+### Text Wrapping
+
+- Use `text-wrap: balance` on headings and short titles.
+- Use `text-wrap: pretty` on short-to-medium body text, captions, descriptions,
+  and list items.
+- Avoid both on long prose, code, and preformatted content.
+- Use `font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums` for counters, timers, prices, tables,
+  and other updating numbers.
+
+### Font Smoothing
+
+On macOS, apply antialiased font smoothing at the root layout when the project
+does not already do so:
+
+```css
+html {
+  -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased;
+  -moz-osx-font-smoothing: grayscale;
+}
+```
+
+### Image Outlines
+
+Images often need a subtle inset outline so their edges do not blur into the
+surface.
+
+```css
+img {
+  outline: 1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);
+  outline-offset: -1px;
+}
+
+@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark) {
+  img {
+    outline-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.1);
+  }
+}
+```
+
+Use neutral black or white alpha outlines. Do not tint image outlines with the
+brand palette.
+
+### Motion
+
+Use CSS transitions for interactive state changes because they can retarget
+when the user changes intent mid-motion. Reserve keyframes for staged
+one-shot entrances or loading sequences.
+
+Good motion defaults:
+
+- Enter: combine opacity, small `translateY`, and optionally blur.
+- Exit: shorter and quieter than enter, usually 150ms.
+- Press: `scale(0.96)` for tactile buttons, with a way to disable it when the
+  movement distracts.
+- Icon swaps: cross-fade with opacity, scale, and blur instead of instant
+  visibility toggles.
+
+### Transition Scope
+
+Never use `transition: all`. Specify the changed properties:
+
+```css
+.button {
+  transition-property: transform, background-color, box-shadow;
+  transition-duration: 150ms;
+  transition-timing-function: ease-out;
+}
+```
+
+Use `will-change` only for first-frame stutter on compositor-friendly
+properties such as `transform`, `opacity`, and `filter`. Never use
+`will-change: all`.
+
+### Hit Areas
+
+Interactive controls should have at least a 40x40px hit area, ideally 44x44px
+where the layout allows it. Expand with a pseudo-element when the visible icon
+is smaller, but do not let expanded hit areas overlap.
+
+## Review Output
+
+When reviewing a UI polish pass, report concrete changes in before/after rows:
+
+| Principle | Before | After |
+| --- | --- | --- |
+| Concentric radius | Same radius on parent and child | Parent radius accounts for padding |
+| Tabular numbers | Counter shifts as digits change | Counter uses `tabular-nums` |
+| Transition scope | `transition: all` | Explicit transition properties |
+
+Include file paths and properties when they are not obvious from the snippets.
+Omit principles that you checked but did not change.
+
+## Checklist
+
+- Nested rounded elements are optically coherent.
+- Icons are visually centered.
+- Buttons, cards, and popovers use borders or shadows for the right reason.
+- Headings and short text avoid awkward wrapping.
+- Dynamic numbers use tabular numerals.
+- Images have neutral outlines where needed.
+- Enter and exit animations are split, subtle, and interruptible where
+  appropriate.
+- Buttons have tactile active states without exaggerated motion.
+- `transition: all` and `will-change: all` are absent.
+- Small controls still have usable hit areas.

package/skills/manim-video/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+---
+name: manim-video
+description: Build reusable Manim explainers for technical concepts, graphs, system diagrams, and product walkthroughs, then hand off to the wider ECC video stack if needed. Use when the user wants a clean animated explainer rather than a generic talking-head script.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Manim Video
+
+Use Manim for technical explainers where motion, structure, and clarity matter more than photorealism.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- the user wants a technical explainer animation
+- the concept is a graph, workflow, architecture, metric progression, or system diagram
+- the user wants a short product or launch explainer for X or a landing page
+- the visual should feel precise instead of generically cinematic
+
+## Tool Requirements
+
+- `manim` CLI for scene rendering
+- `ffmpeg` for post-processing if needed
+- `video-editing` for final assembly or polish
+- `remotion-video-creation` when the final package needs composited UI, captions, or additional motion layers
+
+## Default Output
+
+- short 16:9 MP4
+- one thumbnail or poster frame
+- storyboard plus scene plan
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Define the core visual thesis in one sentence.
+2. Break the concept into 3 to 6 scenes.
+3. Decide what each scene proves.
+4. Write the scene outline before writing Manim code.
+5. Render the smallest working version first.
+6. Tighten typography, spacing, color, and pacing after the render works.
+7. Hand off to the wider video stack only if it adds value.
+
+## Scene Planning Rules
+
+- each scene should prove one thing
+- avoid overstuffed diagrams
+- prefer progressive reveal over full-screen clutter
+- use motion to explain state change, not just to keep the screen busy
+- title cards should be short and loaded with meaning
+
+## Network Graph Default
+
+For social-graph and network-optimization explainers:
+
+- show the current graph before showing the optimized graph
+- distinguish low-signal follow clutter from high-signal bridges
+- highlight warm-path nodes and target clusters
+- if useful, add a final scene showing the self-improvement lineage that informed the skill
+
+## Render Conventions
+
+- default to 16:9 landscape unless the user asks for vertical
+- start with a low-quality smoke test render
+- only push to higher quality after composition and timing are stable
+- export one clean thumbnail frame that reads at social size
+
+## Reusable Starter
+
+Use [assets/network_graph_scene.py](assets/network_graph_scene.py) as a starting point for network-graph explainers.
+
+Example smoke test:
+
+```bash
+manim -ql assets/network_graph_scene.py NetworkGraphExplainer
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+Return:
+
+- core visual thesis
+- storyboard
+- scene outline
+- render plan
+- any follow-on polish recommendations
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `video-editing` for final polish
+- `remotion-video-creation` for motion-heavy post-processing or compositing
+- `content-engine` when the animation is part of a broader launch

package/skills/market-research/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+name: market-research
+description: Conduct market research, competitive analysis, investor due diligence, and industry intelligence with source attribution and decision-oriented summaries. Use when the user wants market sizing, competitor comparisons, fund research, technology scans, or research that informs business decisions.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Market Research
+
+Produce research that supports decisions, not research theater.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- researching a market, category, company, investor, or technology trend
+- building TAM/SAM/SOM estimates
+- comparing competitors or adjacent products
+- preparing investor dossiers before outreach
+- pressure-testing a thesis before building, funding, or entering a market
+
+## Research Standards
+
+1. Every important claim needs a source.
+2. Prefer recent data and call out stale data.
+3. Include contrarian evidence and downside cases.
+4. Translate findings into a decision, not just a summary.
+5. Separate fact, inference, and recommendation clearly.
+
+## Common Research Modes
+
+### Investor / Fund Diligence
+Collect:
+- fund size, stage, and typical check size
+- relevant portfolio companies
+- public thesis and recent activity
+- reasons the fund is or is not a fit
+- any obvious red flags or mismatches
+
+### Competitive Analysis
+Collect:
+- product reality, not marketing copy
+- funding and investor history if public
+- traction metrics if public
+- distribution and pricing clues
+- strengths, weaknesses, and positioning gaps
+
+### Market Sizing
+Use:
+- top-down estimates from reports or public datasets
+- bottom-up sanity checks from realistic customer acquisition assumptions
+- explicit assumptions for every leap in logic
+
+### Technology / Vendor Research
+Collect:
+- how it works
+- trade-offs and adoption signals
+- integration complexity
+- lock-in, security, compliance, and operational risk
+
+## Output Format
+
+Default structure:
+1. executive summary
+2. key findings
+3. implications
+4. risks and caveats
+5. recommendation
+6. sources
+
+## Quality Gate
+
+Before delivering:
+- all numbers are sourced or labeled as estimates
+- old data is flagged
+- the recommendation follows from the evidence
+- risks and counterarguments are included
+- the output makes a decision easier

package/skills/marketing-campaign/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+---
+name: marketing-campaign
+description: End-to-end marketing campaign planning and execution. Covers audience research, positioning, campaign angle definition, landing page copy, email sequences, social posts, ad copy, short-form video scripts, and content calendars. Use as the orchestration layer for multi-channel product launches.
+metadata:
+  origin: ECC
+---
+
+# Marketing Campaign
+
+Plan and execute launch campaigns that convert — not just campaigns that ship.
+
+## When to Activate
+
+- planning a product or feature launch
+- building a full content suite from a single product brief
+- defining positioning and campaign angle before writing any copy
+- orchestrating multiple content types across channels
+- reviewing copy for conversion quality and brand consistency
+
+## Non-Negotiables
+
+1. Define positioning before writing any copy. All copy flows from the angle.
+2. Research the audience before assuming you know their language or fears.
+3. Each deliverable must serve one clear purpose in the campaign arc.
+4. Specificity beats adjectives in every format and on every channel.
+5. The same voice must run across every channel and every piece.
+6. No copy ships without passing the quality gate.
+
+## Campaign Workflow
+
+### Phase 1: Research
+
+Use `market-research` to:
+- profile the target audience (jobs-to-be-done, fears, language, alternatives they use)
+- map 3+ direct or adjacent competitors (positioning, gaps, messaging weaknesses)
+- identify 1–3 audience insights the campaign angle will exploit
+
+Deliverable: a short research brief (audience profile + competitive summary + key insights).
+
+### Phase 2: Positioning
+
+Produce:
+- core benefit statement (one sentence, no feature list, no jargon)
+- positioning formula: "[Product] helps [audience] [achieve outcome] by [mechanism]"
+- campaign angle: the specific tension, insight, or moment the whole campaign lives in
+- tone profile: lock before writing (delegate to `brand-voice` for durable, session-reusable voice capture)
+
+Do not write any copy until positioning and angle are approved.
+
+### Phase 3: Content Production
+
+Produce in this order — each layer informs the next:
+
+1. **Landing page copy** (all sections: hero, problem, solution, features, how it works, proof, CTA)
+2. **Email sequence** (each email has one purpose; follow the arc: problem → education → agitation → solution → proof → urgency → final CTA)
+3. **Social posts** (platform-native via `content-engine`; LinkedIn and X are different formats, not the same copy resized)
+4. **Short-form video scripts** (timestamp-blocked; written for screen and ear, not the page)
+5. **Ad copy variants** (3–4 variants testing different angles or audience segments)
+6. **Content calendar** (day-by-day schedule with channel, type, timing, and dependencies)
+
+### Phase 4: Review
+
+Gate every deliverable:
+- 5-second test on all hero / above-fold copy (clear who it's for, what it does, why act now)
+- CTA audit (one per piece, specific, earned — not demanded)
+- Tone consistency check across all channels
+- Claim audit (every claim is specific and supportable)
+- Cross-channel consistency (ad claims match landing page; email body matches subject)
+
+## Output Contract
+
+A full campaign delivers:
+
+1. **Positioning brief** — angle, core benefit statement, tone profile
+2. **Landing page copy** — hero, problem, solution, features, how it works, proof, CTA
+3. **Email sequence** — subject + preview + body + CTA for each email, labelled by day and purpose
+4. **LinkedIn posts** — 3+ platform-native posts with distinct angles
+5. **X posts** — 5+ standalone posts + 1 thread
+6. **Short-form video scripts** — 2+ timestamp-blocked scripts with visual direction notes
+7. **Ad copy variants** — short headline / long headline / body per variant
+8. **Content calendar** — day-by-day schedule with channel, content type, timing, and dependencies
+9. **Copy review summary** — flagged issues and open questions before anything goes live
+
+## Quality Gate
+
+Before delivering any piece:
+
+- every deliverable sounds like the same author
+- no hollow superlatives or filler adjectives remain
+- every CTA is specific and earned (never "learn more" or "click here")
+- no copy is duplicated verbatim across platforms
+- hero copy passes the 5-second test
+- email subjects match email body (no bait-and-switch)
+- ad claims match landing page claims exactly
+- no copy would work unchanged for any other product in the category
+
+## Hard Bans
+
+Delete and rewrite any:
+
+- "game-changing", "revolutionary", "world-class", "cutting-edge"
+- "In today's competitive landscape"
+- fake urgency not backed by a real deadline
+- hollow social proof without specifics ("thousands trust us")
+- generic CTAs ("learn more", "find out more", "click here")
+- copy that could be unplugged and dropped into a competitor's campaign unchanged
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `brand-voice` — source-derived voice capture (run before content production)
+- `content-engine` — platform-native content production
+- `crosspost` — multi-platform distribution
+- `market-research` — audience and competitive intelligence
+- `seo` — on-page optimisation for landing page copy