leedab 0.5.3 → 0.6.1

package/context/skills/strategy-investor-skills.md

@@ -0,0 +1,530 @@
+# Strategy & Investor Skills
+
+> Sourced from alirezarezvani/claude-skills (MIT License)
+
+---
+---
+name: "competitive-intel"
+description: "Systematic competitor tracking that feeds CMO positioning, CRO battlecards, and CPO roadmap decisions. Use when analyzing competitors, building sales battlecards, tracking market moves, positioning against alternatives, or when user mentions competitive intelligence, competitive analysis, competitor research, battlecards, win/loss, or market positioning."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: competitive-strategy
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: ci-playbook, battlecard-template
+---
+
+# Competitive Intelligence
+
+Systematic competitor tracking. Not obsession — intelligence that drives real decisions.
+
+## Keywords
+competitive intelligence, competitor analysis, battlecard, win/loss analysis, competitive positioning, competitive tracking, market intelligence, competitor research, SWOT, competitive map, feature gap analysis, competitive strategy
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```
+/ci:landscape         — Map your competitive space (direct, indirect, future)
+/ci:battlecard [name] — Build a sales battlecard for a specific competitor
+/ci:winloss           — Analyze recent wins and losses by reason
+/ci:update [name]     — Track what a competitor did recently
+/ci:map               — Build competitive positioning map
+```
+
+## Framework: 5-Layer Intelligence System
+
+### Layer 1: Competitor Identification
+
+**Direct competitors:** Same ICP, same problem, comparable solution, similar price point.
+**Indirect competitors:** Same budget, different solution (including "do nothing" and "build in-house").
+**Future competitors:** Well-funded startups in adjacent space; large incumbents with stated roadmap overlap.
+
+**The 2x2 Threat Matrix:**
+
+| | Same ICP | Different ICP |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Same problem** | Direct threat | Adjacent (watch) |
+| **Different problem** | Displacement risk | Ignore for now |
+
+Update this quarterly. Who's moved quadrants?
+
+### Layer 2: Tracking Dimensions
+
+Track these 8 dimensions per competitor:
+
+| Dimension | Sources | Cadence |
+|-----------|---------|---------|
+| **Product moves** | Changelog, G2/Capterra reviews, Twitter/LinkedIn | Monthly |
+| **Pricing changes** | Pricing page, sales call intel, customer feedback | Triggered |
+| **Funding** | Crunchbase, TechCrunch, LinkedIn | Triggered |
+| **Hiring signals** | LinkedIn job postings, Indeed | Monthly |
+| **Partnerships** | Press releases, co-marketing | Triggered |
+| **Customer wins** | Case studies, review sites, LinkedIn | Monthly |
+| **Customer losses** | Win/loss interviews, churned accounts | Ongoing |
+| **Messaging shifts** | Homepage, ads (Facebook/Google Ad Library) | Quarterly |
+
+### Layer 3: Analysis Frameworks
+
+**SWOT per Competitor:**
+- Strengths: What do they do well? Where do they win?
+- Weaknesses: Where do they lose? What do customers complain about?
+- Opportunities: What could they do that would threaten you?
+- Threats: What's their existential risk?
+
+**Competitive Positioning Map (2 axis):**
+Choose axes that matter for your buyers:
+- Common: Price vs Feature Depth; Enterprise-ready vs SMB-ready; Easy to implement vs Configurable
+- Pick axes that show YOUR differentiation clearly
+
+**Feature Gap Analysis:**
+| Feature | You | Competitor A | Competitor B | Gap status |
+|---------|-----|-------------|-------------|------------|
+| [Feature] | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | Your advantage |
+| [Feature] | ❌ | ✅ | ✅ | Gap — roadmap? |
+| [Feature] | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | Moat |
+| [Feature] | ❌ | ❌ | ✅ | Competitor B only |
+
+### Layer 4: Output Formats
+
+**For Sales (CRO):** Battlecards — one page per competitor, designed for pre-call prep.
+See `templates/battlecard-template.md`
+
+**For Marketing (CMO):** Positioning update — message shifts, new differentiators, claims to stop or start making.
+
+**For Product (CPO):** Feature gap summary — what customers ask for that we don't have, what competitors ship, what to reprioritize.
+
+**For CEO/Board:** Monthly competitive summary — 1-page: who moved, what it means, recommended responses.
+
+### Layer 5: Intelligence Cadence
+
+**Monthly (scheduled):**
+- Review all tier-1 competitors (direct threats, top 3)
+- Update battlecards with new intel
+- Publish 1-page summary to leadership
+
+**Triggered (event-based):**
+- Competitor raises funding → assess implications within 48 hours
+- Competitor launches major feature → product + sales response within 1 week
+- Competitor poaches key customer → win/loss interview within 2 weeks
+- Competitor changes pricing → analyze and respond within 1 week
+
+**Quarterly:**
+- Full competitive landscape review
+- Update positioning map
+- Refresh ICP competitive threat assessment
+- Add/remove companies from tracking list
+
+---
+
+## Win/Loss Analysis
+
+This is the highest-signal competitive data you have. Most companies do it too rarely.
+
+**When to interview:**
+- Every lost deal >$50K ACV
+- Every churn >6 months tenure
+- Every competitive win (learn why — it may not be what you think)
+
+**Who conducts it:**
+- NOT the AE who worked the deal (too close, prospect won't be candid)
+- Customer success, product team, or external researcher
+
+**Question structure:**
+1. "Walk me through your evaluation process"
+2. "Who else were you considering?"
+3. "What were the top 3 criteria in your decision?"
+4. "Where did [our product] fall short?"
+5. "What was the deciding factor?"
+6. "What would have changed your decision?"
+
+**Aggregate findings monthly:**
+- Win reasons (rank by frequency)
+- Loss reasons (rank by frequency)
+- Competitor win rates (by competitor, by segment)
+- Patterns over time
+
+---
+
+## The Balance: Intelligence Without Obsession
+
+**Signs you're over-tracking competitors:**
+- Roadmap decisions are primarily driven by "they just shipped X"
+- Team morale drops when competitors fundraise
+- You're shipping features you don't believe in to match their checklist
+- Pricing discussions always start with "well, they charge X"
+
+**Signs you're under-tracking:**
+- Your AEs get blindsided on calls
+- Prospects know more about competitors than your team does
+- You missed a major product launch until customers told you
+- Your positioning hasn't changed in 12+ months despite market moves
+
+**The right posture:**
+- Know competitors well enough to win against them
+- Don't let them set your agenda
+- Your roadmap is led by customer problems, informed by competitive gaps
+
+---
+
+## Distributing Intelligence
+
+| Audience | Format | Cadence | Owner |
+|----------|--------|---------|-------|
+| AEs + SDRs | Updated battlecards in CRM | Monthly + triggered | CRO |
+| Product | Feature gap analysis | Quarterly | CPO |
+| Marketing | Positioning brief | Quarterly | CMO |
+| Leadership | 1-page competitive summary | Monthly | CEO/COO |
+| Board | Competitive landscape slide | Quarterly | CEO |
+
+**One source of truth:** All competitive intel lives in one place (Notion, Confluence, Salesforce). Avoid Slack-only distribution — it disappears.
+
+---
+
+## Red Flags in Competitive Intelligence
+
+| Signal | What it means |
+|--------|---------------|
+| Competitor's win rate >50% in your core segment | Fundamental positioning problem, not sales problem |
+| Same objection from 5+ deals: "competitor has X" | Feature gap that's real, not just optics |
+| Competitor hired 10 engineers in your domain | Major product investment incoming |
+| Competitor raised >$20M and targets your ICP | 12-month runway for them to compete hard |
+| Prospects evaluate you to justify competitor decision | You're the "check box" — fix perception or segment |
+
+## Integration with C-Suite Roles
+
+| Intelligence Type | Feeds To | Output Format |
+|------------------|----------|---------------|
+| Product moves | CPO | Roadmap input, feature gap analysis |
+| Pricing changes | CRO, CFO | Pricing response recommendations |
+| Funding rounds | CEO, CFO | Strategic positioning update |
+| Hiring signals | CHRO, CTO | Talent market intelligence |
+| Customer wins/losses | CRO, CMO | Battlecard updates, positioning shifts |
+| Marketing campaigns | CMO | Counter-positioning, channel intelligence |
+
+## References
+- `references/ci-playbook.md` — OSINT sources, win/loss framework, positioning map construction
+- `templates/battlecard-template.md` — sales battlecard template
+
+---
+
+---
+name: "board-deck-builder"
+description: "Assembles comprehensive board and investor update decks by pulling perspectives from all C-suite roles. Use when preparing board meetings, investor updates, quarterly business reviews, or fundraising narratives. Covers structure, narrative framework, bad news delivery, and common mistakes."
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+  author: Alireza Rezvani
+  category: c-level
+  domain: board-governance
+  updated: 2026-03-05
+  frameworks: deck-frameworks, board-deck-template
+---
+
+# Board Deck Builder
+
+Build board decks that tell a story — not just show data. Every section has an owner, a narrative, and a "so what."
+
+## Keywords
+board deck, investor update, board meeting, board pack, investor relations, quarterly review, board presentation, fundraising deck, investor deck, board narrative, QBR, quarterly business review
+
+## Quick Start
+
+```
+/board-deck [quarterly|monthly|fundraising] [stage: seed|seriesA|seriesB]
+```
+
+Provide available metrics. The builder fills gaps with explicit placeholders — never invents numbers.
+
+## Deck Structure (Standard Order)
+
+Every section follows: **Headline → Data → Narrative → Ask/Next**
+
+### 1. Executive Summary (CEO)
+**3 sentences. No more.**
+- Sentence 1: State of the business (where we are)
+- Sentence 2: Biggest thing that happened this period
+- Sentence 3: Where we're going next quarter
+
+*Bad:* "We had a good quarter with lots of progress across all areas."
+*Good:* "We closed Q3 at $2.4M ARR (+22% QoQ), signed our largest enterprise contract, and enter Q4 with 14-month runway. The strategic shift to mid-market is working — ACV up 40% and sales cycle down 3 weeks. Q4 priority: close the $3M Series A and hit $2.8M ARR."
+
+### 2. Key Metrics Dashboard (COO)
+**6-8 metrics max. Use a table.**
+
+| Metric | This Period | Last Period | Target | Status |
+|--------|-------------|-------------|--------|--------|
+| ARR | $2.4M | $1.97M | $2.3M | ✅ |
+| MoM growth | 8.1% | 7.2% | 7.5% | ✅ |
+| Burn multiple | 1.8x | 2.1x | <2x | ✅ |
+| NRR | 112% | 108% | >110% | ✅ |
+| CAC payback | 11 months | 14 months | <12 months | ✅ |
+| Headcount | 24 | 21 | 25 | 🟡 |
+
+Pick metrics the board actually tracks. Swap out anything they've said they don't care about.
+
+### 3. Financial Update (CFO)
+- P&L summary: Revenue, COGS, Gross margin, OpEx, Net burn
+- Cash position and runway (months)
+- Burn multiple trend (3-quarter view)
+- Variance to plan (what was different and why)
+- Forecast update for next quarter
+
+**One sentence on each variance.** Boards hate "revenue was below target" with no explanation. Say why.
+
+### 4. Revenue & Pipeline (CRO)
+- ARR waterfall: starting → new → expansion → churn → ending
+- NRR and logo churn rates
+- Pipeline by stage (in $, not just count)
+- Forecast: next quarter with confidence level
+- Top 3 deals: name/amount/close date/risk
+
+**The forecast must have a confidence level.** "We expect $2.8M" is weak. "High confidence $2.6M, upside to $2.9M if two late-stage deals close" is useful.
+
+### 5. Product Update (CPO)
+- Shipped this quarter: 3-5 bullets, user impact for each
+- Shipping next quarter: 3-5 bullets with target dates
+- PMF signal: NPS trend, DAU/MAU ratio, feature adoption
+- One key learning from customer research
+
+**No feature lists.** Only features with evidence of user impact.
+
+### 6. Growth & Marketing (CMO)
+- CAC by channel (table)
+- Pipeline contribution by channel ($)
+- Brand/awareness metrics relevant to stage (traffic, share of voice)
+- What's working, what's being cut, what's being tested
+
+### 7. Engineering & Technical (CTO)
+- Delivery velocity trend (last 4 quarters)
+- Tech debt ratio and plan
+- Infrastructure: uptime, incidents, cost trend
+- Security posture (one line, flag anything pending)
+
+**Keep this short unless there's a material issue.** Boards don't need sprint details.
+
+### 8. Team & People (CHRO)
+- Headcount: actual vs plan
+- Hiring: offers out, pipeline, time-to-fill trend
+- Attrition: regrettable vs non-regrettable
+- Engagement: last survey score, trend
+- Key hires this quarter, key open roles
+
+### 9. Risk & Security (CISO)
+- Security posture: status of critical controls
+- Compliance: certifications in progress, deadlines
+- Incidents this quarter (if any): impact, resolution, prevention
+- Top 3 risks and mitigation status
+
+### 10. Strategic Outlook (CEO)
+- Next quarter priorities: 3-5 items, ranked
+- Key decisions needed from the board
+- Asks: budget, introductions, advice, votes
+
+**The "asks" slide is the most important.** Be specific. "We'd like 3 warm introductions to CFOs at Series B companies" beats "any help would be appreciated."
+
+### 11. Appendix
+- Detailed financial model
+- Full pipeline data
+- Cohort retention charts
+- Customer case studies
+- Detailed headcount breakdown
+
+---
+
+## Narrative Framework
+
+Boards see 10+ decks per quarter. Yours needs a through-line.
+
+**The 4-Act Structure:**
+1. **Where we said we'd be** (last quarter's targets)
+2. **Where we actually are** (honest assessment)
+3. **Why the gap exists** (one cause per variance, not excuses)
+4. **What we're doing about it** (specific, dated actions)
+
+This works for good news AND bad news. It's credible because it acknowledges reality.
+
+**Opening frame:** Start with the one thing that matters most — the board should know the key message by slide 3, not slide 30.
+
+---
+
+## Delivering Bad News
+
+Never bury it. Boards find out eventually. Finding out late makes it worse.
+
+**Framework:**
+1. **State it plainly** — "We missed Q3 ARR target by $300K (12% gap)"
+2. **Own the cause** — "Primary driver was longer-than-expected sales cycle in enterprise segment"
+3. **Show you understand it** — "We analyzed 8 lost/stalled deals; the pattern is X"
+4. **Present the fix** — "We've made 3 changes: [specific, dated changes]"
+5. **Update the forecast** — "Revised Q4 target is $2.6M; here's the bottom-up build"
+
+**What NOT to do:**
+- Don't lead with good news to soften bad news — boards notice and distrust the framing
+- Don't explain without owning — "market conditions" is not a cause, it's a context
+- Don't present a fix without data behind it
+- Don't show a revised forecast without showing your assumptions
+
+---
+
+## Common Board Deck Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Too many slides (>25) | Cut ruthlessly — if you can't explain it in the room, the slide is wrong |
+| Metrics without targets | Every metric needs a target and a status |
+| No narrative | Data without story forces boards to draw their own conclusions |
+| Burying bad news | Lead with it, own it, fix it |
+| Vague asks | Specific, actionable, person-assigned asks only |
+| No variance explanation | Every gap from target needs one-sentence cause |
+| Stale appendix | Appendix is only useful if it's current |
+| Designing for the reader, not the room | Decks are presented — they must work spoken aloud |
+
+---
+
+## Cadence Notes
+
+**Quarterly (standard):** Full deck, all sections, 20-30 slides. Sent 48 hours in advance.
+**Monthly (for early-stage):** Condensed — metrics dashboard, financials, pipeline, top risks. 8-12 slides.
+**Fundraising:** Opens with market/vision, closes with ask. See `references/deck-frameworks.md` for Sequoia format.
+
+## References
+- `references/deck-frameworks.md` — SaaS board pack format, Sequoia structure, investor tailoring
+- `templates/board-deck-template.md` — fill-in template for complete board decks
+
+---
+
+---
+name: pricing-strategy
+description: "When the user wants help with pricing decisions, packaging, or monetization strategy. Also use for 'pricing,' 'pricing tiers,' 'freemium,' 'free trial,' 'packaging,' 'price increase,' 'value metric,' 'willingness to pay,' 'monetization,' 'how much should I charge,' 'my pricing is wrong,' 'pricing page,' or 'annual vs monthly.'"
+metadata:
+  version: 1.1.0
+---
+
+# Pricing Strategy
+
+You are an expert in SaaS pricing and monetization strategy. Your goal is to help design pricing that captures value, drives growth, and aligns with customer willingness to pay.
+
+## The Three Pricing Axes
+
+1. **Packaging** — What's included at each tier?
+2. **Pricing Metric** — What do you charge for? (per user, per usage, flat fee)
+3. **Price Point** — How much do you charge?
+
+## Value-Based Pricing
+
+Price should be based on value delivered, not cost to serve:
+- **Customer's perceived value** — The ceiling
+- **Your price** — Between alternatives and perceived value
+- **Next best alternative** — The floor
+- **Your cost to serve** — Only a baseline, not the basis
+
+## Common Value Metrics
+
+| Metric | Best For |
+|--------|----------|
+| Per user/seat | Collaboration tools (Slack, Notion) |
+| Per usage | Variable consumption (AWS, Twilio) |
+| Per contact/record | CRM, email tools (Mailchimp) |
+| Per transaction | Payments, marketplaces (Stripe) |
+| Flat fee | Simple products (Basecamp) |
+
+## Good-Better-Best Framework
+
+- **Good tier (Entry):** Core features, limited usage, low price
+- **Better tier (Recommended):** Full features, reasonable limits, anchor price
+- **Best tier (Premium):** Everything + advanced features, 2-3x Better price
+
+## Signs It's Time to Raise Prices
+
+**Market signals:**
+- Competitors have raised prices
+- Prospects don't flinch at price
+- "It's so cheap!" feedback
+
+**Business signals:**
+- Very high conversion rates (>40%)
+- Very low churn (<3% monthly)
+- Strong unit economics
+
+## Pricing Psychology
+
+- **Anchoring:** Show higher-priced option first
+- **Decoy effect:** Middle tier should be best value
+- **Charm pricing:** $49 vs. $50 (for value-focused)
+- **Round pricing:** $50 vs. $49 (for premium)
+- **Rule of 100:** Under $100 → percentage discounts; Over $100 → absolute discounts
+
+---
+
+---
+name: competitor-profiling
+description: "When the user wants to research, profile, or analyze competitors from their URLs. Also use for 'competitor profile,' 'competitor research,' 'competitor analysis,' 'analyze competitor,' 'competitive intelligence,' 'competitor deep dive,' 'who are my competitors,' or 'research these competitors.'"
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Competitor Profiling
+
+You are an expert competitive intelligence analyst. Your goal is to take competitor URLs and produce comprehensive, structured competitor profile documents by combining live site analysis with market data.
+
+## Core Principles
+
+1. **Facts Over Opinions** — Every claim should be traceable to a source
+2. **Structured and Comparable** — All profiles follow the same template
+3. **Current Data** — Profiles are snapshots; always include the date
+4. **Honest Assessment** — Don't exaggerate competitor weaknesses
+
+## Research Process
+
+### Phase 1: Site Analysis
+For each competitor, analyze:
+- **Homepage**: Headline, value proposition, primary CTA, social proof, target audience
+- **Pricing**: Tiers, prices, feature breakdown, free tier/trial details
+- **Features**: Key capabilities, how they describe each feature
+- **Customers**: Named customers, logos, industries served, case study themes
+
+### Phase 2: SEO & Market Data
+- Domain authority and backlinks
+- Organic keyword rankings and estimated traffic
+- Top traffic-driving pages
+- Content strategy signals
+
+## Profile Structure
+
+```markdown
+# [Competitor Name] — Competitor Profile
+
+**URL**: [website] | **Generated**: [date]
+
+## At a Glance
+| Tagline | Founded | Team size | Est. organic traffic |
+
+## Positioning & Messaging
+- Primary value proposition
+- Target audience
+- Key messaging themes
+
+## Product & Features
+- Core capabilities
+- Notable differentiators
+- Integration count and key integrations
+
+## Pricing
+| Tier | Price | Key Inclusions |
+
+## Strengths & Weaknesses
+
+## Competitive Implications for LeedAB
+- Where they're strong vs. us
+- Where we're strong vs. them
+- Opportunities and threats
+```
+
+## Quick Scan vs. Deep Profile
+
+- **Quick Scan**: Homepage + pricing only, domain rank overview, abbreviated output
+- **Deep Profile**: All key pages, full backlink analysis, keyword intelligence, review mining
+
+Default to **quick scan** unless the user requests deep profiling.

package/context/skills/video-skills.md

@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+# Video Agent Skills
+
+> Sourced from coreyhaines31/marketingskills (MIT License)
+
+---
+name: video
+description: "When the user wants to create, generate, or produce video content using AI tools or programmatic frameworks. Also use for 'video production,' 'AI video,' 'Remotion,' 'Hyperframes,' 'HeyGen,' 'Synthesia,' 'Veo,' 'Runway,' 'Kling,' 'programmatic video,' 'AI avatar,' 'talking head video,' 'explainer video,' 'product demo video,' or 'video pipeline.'"
+metadata:
+  version: 1.0.0
+---
+
+# Video
+
+You are an expert video producer who helps create marketing videos using AI generation models, AI avatars, and programmatic video frameworks. Your goal is to help users produce professional video content efficiently.
+
+## Choosing Your Approach
+
+| Approach | Best For | Tools | When to Use |
+|----------|----------|-------|-------------|
+| **Programmatic** | Templated, data-driven, batch video | Remotion, Hyperframes | Product updates, personalized videos, recurring content |
+| **AI Generation** | Original footage from text/image prompts | Veo, Runway, Kling, Pika | B-roll, hero shots, creative visuals |
+| **AI Avatars** | Talking-head presenter without filming | HeyGen, Synthesia | Explainers, tutorials, multilingual content |
+| **Editing/Repurposing** | Cutting long-form into short clips | Descript, Opus Clip, CapCut | Podcast/webinar → social clips |
+
+## Programmatic Video
+
+### Hyperframes (recommended for agents)
+Open-source, Apache 2.0. Uses plain HTML/CSS/JS — LLM-native: AI models generate better HTML than React components.
+
+```typescript
+import { render } from "hyperframes";
+
+await render({
+  frames: [
+    { html: "<h1>Welcome to Acme</h1>", duration: 3 },
+    { html: "<h2>Here's what we built</h2>", duration: 3 },
+    { html: "<p>Try it free →</p>", duration: 2 },
+  ],
+  output: "intro.mp4",
+  width: 1080,
+  height: 1920, // 9:16 for vertical
+});
+```
+
+### Remotion (React)
+More powerful but requires React knowledge. Use for complex animations or large-scale batch rendering.
+
+## AI Video Generation
+
+| Model | Best For |
+|-------|----------|
+| **Veo 3** (Google) | Highest quality, synced audio |
+| **Runway Gen-4** | Motion control, temporal consistency |
+| **Kling 3.0** | Volume production, lowest cost |
+
+**Prompting for video:** subject + action + camera + style + mood
+```
+A close-up shot of hands typing on a laptop keyboard,
+shallow depth of field, warm office lighting,
+camera slowly pulls back to reveal a modern workspace,
+cinematic color grading, 4K
+```
+
+## AI Avatars
+
+**HeyGen** — Best lip-sync and micro-expressions, 230+ avatars, 140+ languages. Has an MCP server for direct agent integration.
+
+**Synthesia** — Full-body avatars with expressive body language. Best for enterprise/training content.
+
+Use avatars for: recurring content, multilingual versions, personalized outreach at scale.
+Avoid avatars for: authentic founder content, product UI walkthroughs, creative/artistic video.
+
+## Video Production Workflows
+
+### Product Demo Video
+1. Script the key features and value props
+2. Screen record the product flow
+3. Programmatic overlay — Hyperframes/Remotion for titles, callouts
+4. AI B-roll — generate establishing shots with Veo/Runway
+5. Voiceover — record yourself or use AI avatar
+6. Export at platform-appropriate specs
+
+### Batch Social Clips
+1. Create master template in Hyperframes/Remotion
+2. Feed data — product features, testimonials, stats
+3. Render batch — one template, many variations
+4. Add platform-specific captions via CapCut/Captions.ai
+5. Schedule across platforms
+
+## Agent-Native Video Pipeline
+
+```
+Agent writes script (from product context)
+    ↓
+Hyperframes: Generate templated video (HTML → MP4)
+    and/or
+HeyGen MCP: Generate avatar video from script
+    and/or
+Veo/Runway API: Generate B-roll footage
+    ↓
+Output: Ready-to-publish video
+```
+
+## Common Mistakes
+1. Starting with tools, not strategy
+2. AI-generated text in video (models can't reliably render readable text — use programmatic overlays)
+3. No captions (85% of social video is watched without sound)
+4. Wrong aspect ratio — 9:16 for social, 16:9 for YouTube/website
+5. Over-producing — authentic often outperforms polished on TikTok