monomind 1.16.5 → 1.16.7

package/packages/@monomind/cli/.claude/skills/mastermind/receive-review.md

@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+---
+name: mastermind-receive-review
+description: Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable — requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
+---
+
+# Code Review Reception
+
+## Overview
+
+Code review requires technical evaluation, not emotional performance.
+
+**Core principle:** Verify before implementing. Ask before assuming. Technical correctness over social comfort.
+
+## The Response Pattern
+
+```
+WHEN receiving code review feedback:
+
+1. READ: Complete feedback without reacting
+2. UNDERSTAND: Restate requirement in own words (or ask)
+3. VERIFY: Check against codebase reality
+4. EVALUATE: Technically sound for THIS codebase?
+5. RESPOND: Technical acknowledgment or reasoned pushback
+6. IMPLEMENT: One item at a time, test each
+```
+
+## Forbidden Responses
+
+**NEVER:**
+- "You're absolutely right!" (explicit CLAUDE.md violation)
+- "Great point!" / "Excellent feedback!" (performative)
+- "Let me implement that now" (before verification)
+
+**INSTEAD:**
+- Restate the technical requirement
+- Ask clarifying questions
+- Push back with technical reasoning if wrong
+- Just start working (actions > words)
+
+## Handling Unclear Feedback
+
+```
+IF any item is unclear:
+  STOP - do not implement anything yet
+  ASK for clarification on unclear items
+
+WHY: Items may be related. Partial understanding = wrong implementation.
+```
+
+**Example:**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+
+WRONG: Implement 1,2,3,6 now, ask about 4,5 later
+RIGHT: "I understand items 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before proceeding."
+```
+
+## Source-Specific Handling
+
+### From your human partner
+- **Trusted** — implement after understanding
+- **Still ask** if scope unclear
+- **No performative agreement**
+- **Skip to action** or technical acknowledgment
+
+### From External Reviewers
+```
+BEFORE implementing:
+  1. Check: Technically correct for THIS codebase?
+  2. Check: Breaks existing functionality?
+  3. Check: Reason for current implementation?
+  4. Check: Works on all platforms/versions?
+  5. Check: Does reviewer understand full context?
+
+IF suggestion seems wrong:
+  Push back with technical reasoning
+
+IF can't easily verify:
+  Say so: "I can't verify this without [X]. Should I [investigate/ask/proceed]?"
+
+IF conflicts with your human partner's prior decisions:
+  Stop and discuss with your human partner first
+```
+
+**Rule:** "External feedback — be skeptical, but check carefully"
+
+## YAGNI Check for "Professional" Features
+
+```
+IF reviewer suggests "implementing properly":
+  grep codebase for actual usage
+
+  IF unused: "This endpoint isn't called. Remove it (YAGNI)?"
+  IF used: Then implement properly
+```
+
+**Rule:** "You and reviewer both report to me. If we don't need this feature, don't add it."
+
+## Implementation Order
+
+```
+FOR multi-item feedback:
+  1. Clarify anything unclear FIRST
+  2. Then implement in this order:
+     - Blocking issues (breaks, security)
+     - Simple fixes (typos, imports)
+     - Complex fixes (refactoring, logic)
+  3. Test each fix individually
+  4. Verify no regressions
+```
+
+## When To Push Back
+
+Push back when:
+- Suggestion breaks existing functionality
+- Reviewer lacks full context
+- Violates YAGNI (unused feature)
+- Technically incorrect for this stack
+- Legacy/compatibility reasons exist
+- Conflicts with your human partner's architectural decisions
+
+**How to push back:**
+- Use technical reasoning, not defensiveness
+- Ask specific questions
+- Reference working tests/code
+- Involve your human partner if architectural
+
+**Signal if uncomfortable pushing back out loud:** "Strange things are afoot at the Circle K"
+
+## Acknowledging Correct Feedback
+
+When feedback IS correct:
+```
+"Fixed. [Brief description of what changed]"
+"Good catch - [specific issue]. Fixed in [location]."
+[Just fix it and show in the code]
+
+NEVER: "You're absolutely right!"
+NEVER: "Great point!"
+NEVER: "Thanks for catching that!"
+NEVER: "Thanks for [anything]"
+NEVER: ANY gratitude expression
+```
+
+**Why no thanks:** Actions speak. Just fix it. The code itself shows you heard the feedback.
+
+**If you catch yourself about to write "Thanks":** DELETE IT. State the fix instead.
+
+## Gracefully Correcting Your Pushback
+
+If you pushed back and were wrong:
+```
+"You were right - I checked [X] and it does [Y]. Implementing now."
+"Verified this and you're correct. My initial understanding was wrong because [reason]. Fixing."
+
+NEVER: Long apology
+NEVER: Defending why you pushed back
+NEVER: Over-explaining
+```
+
+State the correction factually and move on.
+
+## Common Mistakes
+
+| Mistake | Fix |
+|---------|-----|
+| Performative agreement | State requirement or just act |
+| Blind implementation | Verify against codebase first |
+| Batch without testing | One at a time, test each |
+| Assuming reviewer is right | Check if breaks things |
+| Avoiding pushback | Technical correctness > comfort |
+| Partial implementation | Clarify all items first |
+| Can't verify, proceed anyway | State limitation, ask for direction |
+
+## Real Examples
+
+**Performative Agreement (Bad):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+"You're absolutely right! Let me remove that..."
+```
+
+**Technical Verification (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Remove legacy code"
+"Checking... build target is 10.15+, this API needs 13+. Need legacy for backward compat. Current impl has wrong bundle ID - fix it or drop pre-13 support?"
+```
+
+**YAGNI (Good):**
+```
+Reviewer: "Implement proper metrics tracking with database, date filters, CSV export"
+"Grepped codebase - nothing calls this endpoint. Remove it (YAGNI)? Or is there usage I'm missing?"
+```
+
+**Unclear Item (Good):**
+```
+your human partner: "Fix items 1-6"
+You understand 1,2,3,6. Unclear on 4,5.
+"Understand 1,2,3,6. Need clarification on 4 and 5 before implementing."
+```
+
+## GitHub Thread Replies
+
+When replying to inline review comments on GitHub, reply in the comment thread (`gh api repos/{owner}/{repo}/pulls/{pr}/comments/{id}/replies`), not as a top-level PR comment.
+
+## The Bottom Line
+
+**External feedback = suggestions to evaluate, not orders to follow.**
+
+Verify. Question. Then implement.
+
+No performative agreement. Technical rigor always.

package/packages/@monomind/cli/.claude/skills/mastermind/references/copywriting-frameworks.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+# Copywriting Frameworks Reference
+
+Headline formulas, page structure templates, CTA patterns, and writing principles for marketing pages. Use when writing or reviewing landing pages, homepages, pricing pages, feature pages, or any conversion-focused surface.
+
+---
+
+## Writing Principles
+
+### The Hierarchy
+1. **Clarity over cleverness** — If you have to choose, choose clear
+2. **Benefits over features** — Features: what it does. Benefits: what that means for the customer
+3. **Specificity over vagueness** — "Cut weekly reporting from 4 hours to 15 minutes" beats "Save time on your workflow"
+4. **Customer language over company language** — Mirror words from reviews, interviews, support tickets
+5. **Active over passive** — "We generate reports" not "Reports are generated"
+6. **Confident over qualified** — Remove "almost", "very", "really", "quite"
+7. **One idea per section** — Each section advances one argument; build a logical flow down the page
+
+### Quick Quality Check
+- Jargon that could confuse an outsider?
+- Sentences trying to do too much?
+- Passive voice constructions?
+- Exclamation points? (remove them)
+- Marketing buzzwords without substance? (streamline, optimize, innovative, leverage)
+- "We/our" dominating over "you/your"?
+
+---
+
+## Headline Formulas
+
+### Outcome-Focused
+- `{Achieve outcome} without {pain point}` → "Understand how users experience your site without drowning in numbers"
+- `{Achieve outcome} by {how product makes it possible}` → "Generate more leads by seeing which companies visit your site"
+- `Turn {input} into {outcome}` → "Turn your hard-earned sales into repeat customers"
+- `[Achieve outcome] in [timeframe]` → "Get your tax refund in 10 days"
+
+### Problem-Focused
+- `Never {unpleasant event} again` → "Never miss a sales opportunity again"
+- `{Question highlighting the main pain point}` → "Hate returning stuff to Amazon?"
+- `Stop [pain]. Start [pleasure].` → "Stop chasing invoices. Start getting paid on time."
+
+### Audience-Focused
+- `{Key feature} for {target audience}` → "Advanced analytics for Shopify stores"
+- `{Key feature} for {target audience} to {outcome}` → "An online whiteboard for teams to ideate together"
+- `You don't have to {skill} to {achieve outcome}` → "You don't have to be an SEO pro to rank higher"
+
+### Differentiation-Focused
+- `The {opposite of usual} way to {achieve outcome}` → "The easiest way to turn your passion into income"
+- `The [category] that [key differentiator]` → "The CRM that updates itself"
+
+### Proof-Focused
+- `[Number] [people] use [product] to [outcome]` → "50,000 marketers use Drip to send better emails"
+- `{Key benefit of your product}` → "Sound clear in online meetings"
+
+### Additional Formulas
+- `The simple way to {outcome}` → "The simple way to track your time"
+- `Finally, {category} that {benefit}` → "Finally, accounting software that doesn't suck"
+- `{Outcome} without {common pain}` → "Build your website without writing code"
+- `What if you could {desirable outcome}?` → "What if you could close deals 30% faster?"
+- `Everything you need to {outcome}` → "Everything you need to launch your course"
+- `The {adjective} {category} built for {audience}` → "The lightweight CRM built for startups"
+- `{Action verb} your {thing} like {admirable example}` → "Market your SaaS like a Fortune 500"
+
+---
+
+## Page Structure
+
+### Above the Fold
+**Headline** — Single most important message. Core value prop. Specific > generic.
+**Subheadline** — Expands headline. Adds specificity. 1-2 sentences max.
+**Primary CTA** — Action-oriented. Communicate what they get: "Start Free Trial" > "Sign Up"
+**Supporting element** — Social proof count, trust badge, or hero image
+
+### Core Section Types
+| Section | Purpose | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| Social Proof | Build credibility | Logos near CTA, stats, specific testimonials |
+| Problem / Pain | Show you understand | Mirror customer language, not company framing |
+| Solution / Benefits | Connect to outcomes | 3-5 key benefits, not feature list |
+| How It Works | Reduce complexity | 3-4 numbered steps |
+| Objection Handling | Remove hesitation | FAQ, comparison, guarantee |
+| Final CTA | Recap + action | Restate value, repeat CTA, risk reversal |
+
+### Page Templates
+
+**Compact Landing Page** (single offer, cold traffic):
+Above fold → Social proof strip → Problem → Solution/benefits → How it works → Testimonials → CTA
+
+**Feature-Heavy Product Page**:
+Above fold → Social proof → Core value → Feature 1 (problem → feature → benefit) → Feature 2 → Feature 3 → Testimonials → FAQ → CTA
+
+**Enterprise / B2B Landing Page**:
+Above fold (value + credibility) → Problem/stakes → Solution overview → Proof (logos + case study) → How it works → Security/compliance → Testimonials → CTA + Demo request
+
+**Product Launch Page**:
+Above fold (bold announcement) → Why now → What it is → Key capabilities → Social proof from beta → Pricing → FAQ → CTA
+
+---
+
+## CTA Copy Guidelines
+
+### Weak CTAs (avoid)
+Submit, Sign Up, Learn More, Click Here, Get Started, Download
+
+### Strong CTAs (use)
+- "Start Free Trial"
+- "Get [Specific Thing]" → "Get the Complete Checklist"
+- "See [Product] in Action"
+- "Create Your First [Thing]"
+- "[Action] for Free"
+
+### Formula
+`[Action Verb] + [What They Get] + [Qualifier if needed]`
+- "Start My Free Trial"
+- "See Pricing for My Team"
+- "Download the 2025 Report"
+
+---
+
+## Page-Specific Copy Guidance
+
+### Homepage
+- Serve multiple audiences without being generic
+- Lead with broadest value proposition
+- Provide clear paths for different visitor intents ("I'm a designer" / "I'm an engineer")
+- Don't try to close — guide toward the right next page or CTA
+
+### Landing Page
+- Single message, single CTA — remove navigation if possible
+- Match headline exactly to the ad or email that sent traffic here
+- Complete the argument on one page; don't assume they'll come back
+
+### Pricing Page
+- Help visitors choose the right plan — answer "which is right for me?"
+- Make recommended plan obvious (badge, highlight, preselected)
+- Address the top 3-4 objections in an FAQ
+- Annual toggle with savings stated in dollars and percentage
+
+### Feature Page
+- Connect: feature → benefit → outcome (not feature → feature → feature)
+- Show use cases and examples, not just capabilities
+- Clear path to try or buy at the bottom
+
+### About Page
+- Tell the story of why this exists (founding insight or problem)
+- Connect mission to customer benefit
+- Still include a CTA — this is often a high-intent page
+
+---
+
+## Writing for Trust
+
+### Social Proof Placement
+- Customer logos: above the fold (strip) and near primary CTA
+- Testimonials: specific quote + name + title + company + photo; near the claim they validate
+- Numbers: exact figures beat vague ("10,247 teams" not "thousands of teams")
+- Reviews: third-party star ratings add credibility you can't self-claim
+
+### Objection Handling
+Name the objection directly, then resolve it:
+- "What if it's not right for us?" → Money-back guarantee / free trial
+- "How long does setup take?" → "Live in 10 minutes, no IT required"
+- "Is my data secure?" → SOC 2 Type II, encryption at rest, specific certifications
+
+### Risk Reversals
+- "Free 14-day trial, no credit card required"
+- "Cancel anytime — no questions asked"
+- "30-day money-back guarantee"
+- "Free migration assistance"
+
+---
+
+## Copy Anti-Patterns
+
+Never:
+- Start a CTA with "Click here" or "Learn more" — be specific about the outcome
+- Use passive voice in problem statements ("An error was encountered")
+- Hedge: "This might help", "You may want to", "Perhaps consider"
+- Restate the heading in the first sentence of body copy
+- Write "Successfully saved" when "Saved" says the same in half the words
+- Use em dashes — use commas, colons, or periods instead
+- Open with "We are pleased to announce..." or "We are excited to share..."

package/packages/@monomind/cli/.claude/skills/mastermind/references/persuasion-psychology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,158 @@
+# Persuasion Psychology Reference
+
+Mental models, cognitive biases, and behavioral frameworks for marketing. Apply these when writing copy, designing campaigns, structuring pricing, or briefing agents on how to frame their output.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference: Challenge → Models
+
+| Challenge | Apply These |
+|---|---|
+| Low conversions | Hick's Law, Activation Energy, BJ Fogg, friction reduction |
+| Price objections | Anchoring, Framing, Mental Accounting, Loss Aversion |
+| Building trust | Authority, Social Proof, Reciprocity, Mere Exposure |
+| Creating urgency | Scarcity, Loss Aversion, Zeigarnik Effect |
+| Retention/churn | Endowment Effect, Switching Costs, Status-Quo Bias |
+| Growth stalling | Theory of Constraints, Pareto, Feedback Loops |
+| Decision paralysis | Paradox of Choice, Default Effect, Decoy Effect |
+| Onboarding | Goal-Gradient, IKEA Effect, Commitment & Consistency |
+| Cold outreach | Reciprocity, Authority, Liking/Similarity, Mere Exposure |
+
+---
+
+## Cognitive Biases
+
+### Anchoring Effect
+The first number seen heavily influences subsequent judgments. Show the higher price first (enterprise tier, competitor price, original price) to anchor expectations before revealing your price.
+
+### Loss Aversion
+Losses feel roughly twice as painful as equivalent gains. Frame in terms of what they'll lose by not acting. "Don't miss out" outperforms "You could gain." "Stop losing $X/week" beats "Save $X/week."
+
+### Social Proof / Bandwagon Effect
+People follow what others are doing. Popularity signals quality and safety. Show customer counts, testimonials with photos, company logos, review scores, and "trending" indicators near CTAs.
+
+### Scarcity / Urgency
+Limited availability increases perceived value. Limited-time offers, low-stock warnings, and exclusive access create urgency. Only use when genuine — fake scarcity destroys trust permanently.
+
+### Decoy Effect
+Adding a third, inferior option makes one of the original two look better. A pricing tier that's clearly worse value makes your preferred tier look like the obvious choice.
+
+### Framing Effect
+Same facts, different frames. "90% success rate" vs. "10% failure rate" are identical but feel different. Frame positively. "Keep your savings" beats "Avoid losing money."
+
+### Default Effect
+People accept pre-selected options. Defaults are powerful. Pre-select the plan you want customers to choose. The recommended tier should be visually pre-selected.
+
+### Paradox of Choice
+Too many options overwhelm and paralyze. Fewer choices often lead to more decisions. Three pricing tiers beat seven. One clear CTA beats three. Recommend a single "best for most" option.
+
+### Goal-Gradient Effect
+People accelerate effort as they approach a goal. Show progress bars, completion percentages, and "almost there" messaging to drive completion in onboarding and signup flows.
+
+### Endowment Effect
+People value things more once they own them. Free trials, samples, and freemium models let customers "own" the product before committing, making them reluctant to give it up.
+
+### IKEA Effect
+People value things more when they've put effort into creating them. Let customers customize, configure, or build something during onboarding. Their investment increases perceived value.
+
+### Zero-Price Effect
+"Free" is psychologically different from low-priced. The jump from $1 to $0 is disproportionately powerful. Free tiers, free shipping, and free trials have outsized appeal.
+
+### Status-Quo Bias
+People prefer the current state. Change feels risky. Reduce friction to switch: "Import your data in one click." Make the transition feel safe and easy, not effortful.
+
+### Zeigarnik Effect
+Unfinished tasks occupy the mind. Open loops create tension. "You're 80% done" creates pull to finish. Abandoned carts, incomplete profiles, and progress indicators leverage this.
+
+### Mere Exposure Effect
+Familiarity breeds liking. Consistent brand presence builds preference over time. Repetition across channels creates comfort and trust — even without explicit recall.
+
+### Confirmation Bias
+People seek information confirming existing beliefs. Understand what your audience already believes and align messaging accordingly. Fighting beliefs head-on rarely works.
+
+### Hyperbolic Discounting / Present Bias
+People strongly prefer immediate rewards. Emphasize immediate benefits ("Start saving time today") over future ones ("You'll see ROI in 6 months").
+
+---
+
+## Persuasion Principles
+
+### Reciprocity
+People feel obligated to return favors. Give first: free content, free tools, generous free tiers create reciprocal obligation. Give value before asking for anything.
+
+### Commitment & Consistency
+Once people commit, they want to stay consistent. Get small commitments first (email signup, free trial). People who've taken one step are more likely to take the next.
+
+### Authority Bias
+People defer to experts. Feature expert endorsements, certifications, "as seen in" logos, and thought leadership content. Credentials reduce perceived risk.
+
+### Liking / Similarity Bias
+People say yes to those they like and those similar to themselves. "Built by marketers for marketers" signals similarity. Use relatable spokespeople and shared-values positioning.
+
+### Scarcity (see Cognitive Biases above)
+
+### Unity Principle
+Shared identity drives influence. Position your brand as part of the customer's tribe. Use insider language and shared values.
+
+---
+
+## Pricing Psychology
+
+### Charm Pricing / Left-Digit Effect
+Prices ending in 9 seem significantly lower than the next round number. $99 feels much cheaper than $100. Use for value-focused products.
+
+### Rounded-Price (Fluency) Effect
+Round numbers feel premium. $100 signals quality; $99 signals value. Use round prices for premium products, charm prices for value products.
+
+### Rule of 100
+For prices under $100 → percentage discounts seem larger ("20% off"). For prices over $100 → absolute discounts seem larger ("$50 off").
+
+### Mental Accounting
+Same price framed differently changes perception. "$1/day" feels cheaper than "$30/month." "Less than your morning coffee" reframes the expense.
+
+---
+
+## Behavioral Models
+
+### BJ Fogg Behavior Model
+Behavior = Motivation × Ability × Prompt. All three must be present for action. High motivation but hard to do = won't happen. Easy to do but no prompt = won't happen. Design for all three in every CTA.
+
+### EAST Framework
+Make desired behaviors: **Easy** (reduce friction), **Attractive** (appealing visually and verbally), **Social** (show others doing it), **Timely** (ask at the right moment in the journey).
+
+### Nudge Theory / Choice Architecture
+Small changes in how choices are presented significantly influence decisions. Default selections, strategic ordering, and friction reduction guide behavior without restricting choice.
+
+### Activation Energy
+The initial energy required to start. High activation energy prevents action even if the overall task is easy. Pre-fill forms, offer templates, show quick wins. Make the first step trivially easy.
+
+### Feedback Loops
+Output becomes input. Build virtuous cycles: more users → more content → better SEO → more users. Identify and strengthen positive feedback loops in your marketing system.
+
+### Flywheel Effect
+Sustained effort creates self-sustaining momentum. Content → traffic → leads → customers → case studies → more content. Each element powers the next.
+
+### Theory of Constraints
+Every system has one bottleneck. Fix the constraint before optimizing elsewhere. If funnel converts well but traffic is low, more CRO won't help. Fix the bottleneck first.
+
+---
+
+## Mental Models for Strategy
+
+### Jobs to Be Done
+People don't buy products — they hire them to get a job done. A drill buyer wants a hole. Frame around the job (outcome), not the tool (feature).
+
+### First Principles
+Break problems down to basic truths. Ask "why" repeatedly to find root causes. Don't assume you need content marketing because competitors do — ask what problem it solves.
+
+### Inversion
+Ask "What would guarantee failure?" then systematically prevent those things. List everything that would make your campaign fail before building it.
+
+### Pareto Principle (80/20)
+80% of results come from 20% of efforts. Find the 20% of channels, customers, or content driving 80% of results. Cut or reduce the rest.
+
+### Second-Order Thinking
+Consider effects of effects. A flash sale boosts revenue (first order) but trains customers to wait for discounts (second order). Think two moves ahead.
+
+### Barbell Strategy
+Put 80% of budget into proven channels, 20% into experimental bets. Avoid moderate-risk, moderate-reward middle ground.