novahiz 0.1.0

package/bundled-skills/ads/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "ads",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Help me plan a paid advertising strategy. We're a B2B SaaS tool for HR teams, selling at $99/month per seat. We have $15k/month to spend on ads and want to generate demo requests. Where should we advertise?",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should apply the platform selection guide based on B2B, HR audience, $99/month price point. Should recommend LinkedIn (B2B targeting by job title/industry), Google Ads (search intent for HR software keywords), and potentially Meta (retargeting). Should recommend campaign structure with naming conventions. Should define audience targeting strategy for each platform. Should set budget allocation across platforms. Should define success metrics and attribution approach. Should recommend starting structure and scaling plan.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Applies platform selection guide",
+        "Recommends platforms appropriate for B2B HR audience",
+        "Recommends campaign structure with naming conventions",
+        "Defines audience targeting per platform",
+        "Sets budget allocation across platforms",
+        "Defines success metrics",
+        "Recommends starting structure and scaling plan"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Our Google Ads CPC is $12 and our cost per lead is $180. Is that good? We're getting about 80 leads/month from a $15k budget.",
+      "expected_output": "Should evaluate the metrics in context. Should assess: $12 CPC for B2B (reasonable depending on industry), $180 CPL (depends on LTV \u2014 need to compare against customer lifetime value), 80 leads/month from $15k (math checks out). Should apply the campaign optimization framework: check quality score, search term relevance, landing page conversion rate, negative keywords. Should recommend specific optimization levers to reduce CPC and CPL. Should frame performance against industry benchmarks if applicable. Should ask about downstream conversion rates (lead \u2192 demo \u2192 customer).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Evaluates metrics in context",
+        "Compares CPL against LTV considerations",
+        "Applies campaign optimization framework",
+        "Recommends specific optimization levers",
+        "Asks about downstream conversion rates",
+        "Provides industry context for benchmarking"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "we want to run retargeting ads for people who visited our site but didn't convert. how should we set this up?",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should apply the retargeting strategies section, specifically the funnel-based approach. Should recommend audience segments: all visitors (broad), pricing page visitors (high intent), blog readers (lower intent), and cart/signup abandoners (highest intent). Should recommend different messaging and offers for each segment. Should address frequency capping to avoid ad fatigue. Should recommend retargeting platforms (Meta, Google Display, LinkedIn). Should include duration windows for each audience.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Applies funnel-based retargeting approach",
+        "Recommends audience segments by intent level",
+        "Recommends different messaging per segment",
+        "Addresses frequency capping",
+        "Recommends retargeting platforms",
+        "Includes audience duration windows"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "Should we advertise on TikTok? We sell accounting software to small businesses. Our current ads are on Google and Meta.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the platform selection guide for TikTok specifically. Should evaluate TikTok fit for accounting software + small business audience: likely a weaker fit than Google/Meta for this category (lower purchase intent, younger skewing audience, less B2B targeting). Should discuss when TikTok CAN work for B2B (brand awareness, creative content, younger business owners). Should provide an honest recommendation with caveats. Should suggest a small test budget approach if they want to try.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies platform selection guide for TikTok",
+        "Evaluates fit for accounting + small business audience",
+        "Provides honest assessment of likely weaker fit",
+        "Discusses when TikTok can work for B2B",
+        "Suggests small test budget if proceeding",
+        "Compares to their existing Google/Meta performance"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "How do we structure our Google Ads campaigns? We have 50+ keywords we want to target for our CRM product.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the campaign structure and naming conventions framework. Should recommend organizing campaigns by theme/intent (brand, competitor, product features, pain points). Should recommend ad group structure (tightly themed, 5-15 keywords per group). Should define naming conventions for campaigns and ad groups. Should recommend match types strategy. Should include negative keyword lists. Should provide a sample campaign structure.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies campaign structure framework",
+        "Organizes campaigns by theme/intent",
+        "Recommends tight ad group structure",
+        "Defines naming conventions",
+        "Recommends match types strategy",
+        "Includes negative keyword lists",
+        "Provides sample campaign structure"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "Can you write some ad copy for our Facebook ads? We need headlines and descriptions for 5 different angles.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is an ad creative generation task, not campaign strategy. Should defer to or cross-reference the ad-creative skill, which handles platform-specific ad copy generation with character limits, angle-based variation, and batch generation. May provide brief ad copy framework guidance but should make clear that ad-creative is the right skill for generating ad copy at scale.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as ad creative generation",
+        "References or defers to ad-creative skill",
+        "Does not attempt bulk ad copy generation using campaign strategy patterns"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "prompt": "Our Meta CPA doubled this week (6 conversions so far, sales cycle is ~3 weeks). Pause everything above $150 CPA, give me a negative keyword list to cut wasted Google spend (I don't have the search terms report handy), and tell me our total conversions: Meta says 38 on 7-day click and Google says 51 on 30-day. Also just give me an overall account health score \u2014 you can see about half the account.",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/audit-guardrails.md and refuse all four unsafe asks with correct alternatives. (1) No fixed kill rule: 6 conversions with a 3-week lag is not enough evidence \u2014 explain sample size and conversion lag, keep learning-phase campaigns running, propose an evidence-based review instead of pausing at $150. (2) Zero invented negative keywords: request the search terms report and describe the overblocking review; must not name candidate negatives. (3) Refuse to sum 38 + 51: different attribution windows \u2014 report side by side and offer a neutral blended source (GA4/CRM). (4) No single health score at ~50% evidence coverage: below the 60% band, report findings and unknowns separately, state that unknown \u2260 failing. Any proposed account change is presented as a draft plan (current state \u2192 change \u2192 expected effect \u2192 rollback), not applied.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Does not recommend pausing based on the fixed $150 CPA threshold; cites sample size and/or conversion lag",
+        "Does not produce any candidate negative keywords; requests the search terms report and mentions an overblocking review",
+        "Refuses to add Meta 7-day and Google 30-day conversions into one total; reports them side by side",
+        "Declines to give a single health score at ~50 percent coverage; separates unverified (unknown) from failing",
+        "Frames any account change as a draft with a rollback step rather than an immediate action"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "prompt": "Audit our Google Ads account. We're a DTC ecommerce brand running Shopping, Performance Max, and some Demand Gen. Walk me through what to check. I can give you Merchant Center access but I don't have the search terms report handy right now.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this as an itemized ecommerce Google Ads audit and load references/google-ads-audit-checklist.md, working through the 32 checks across tracking, targeting, campaign structure, GMC (shipping, promotions, feed titles, images, store quality, ratings, eligible-product impressions), Shopping segmentation + budget allocation, bidding/budget, search, PMax signals + budget-on-Shopping, landing-page funnels, and Demand Gen. Should apply the four-state scoring from audit-guardrails.md: score only verified items, and because the search terms report isn't available, mark the negative-keywords and new-search-terms checks as UNKNOWN (not fail) and request the report \u2014 naming zero candidate negatives. Should treat Merchant Center access as available and plan the GMC feed-quality checks accordingly. Should keep account health and evidence coverage as separate numbers, and deliver any fail as a draft fix (current state \u2192 change \u2192 expected effect \u2192 rollback), not an applied change.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Loads/uses the itemized google-ads-audit-checklist reference for an ecommerce audit",
+        "Covers ecommerce-specific depth: GMC feed quality, Shopping segmentation, PMax signals/budget, Demand Gen format splits, landing-page funnels",
+        "Marks the search-terms-dependent checks as unknown (not fail) and requests the report without inventing negative keywords",
+        "Applies four-state pass/fail/unknown/NA scoring and keeps health separate from evidence coverage",
+        "Delivers fails as draft fixes with a rollback step rather than applied changes"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "prompt": "Our Meta account is at a 40 ROAS but the numbers have felt stale \u2014 CPA and ROAS are steady but I feel like we're hitting a wall. Frequency is creeping up and I can't seem to grow past our current spend. What should we do to reach new audiences?",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/meta-decision-system.md and diagnose this as a net-new-reach problem, not a conversion problem. Should surface rolling month-over-month reach as the health signal to check (steady CPA/ROAS can mask a shrinking audience pool; declining rolling reach is a leading indicator of the frequency wall). Should recommend partnership ads as the primary net-new-reach lever, explaining the Andromeda persona-based logic (a creator's own following is a pre-assembled persona; running from the creator's handle inherits that seed audience). Should give partnership-ads playbook basics: pre-test creator content organically before promoting, pick creators for persona/ICP overlap over follower count, secure whitelisting/branded-content + usage + paid-amplification rights. Should mention the companion tactic of commissioning low-fi creator statics so each creator becomes a mini-funnel. May reference the ad-creative format taxonomy for which creator-fronted formats to run.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Loads references/meta-decision-system.md",
+        "Frames this as a net-new-reach problem, not a conversion problem",
+        "Surfaces rolling month-over-month reach as the health signal / leading indicator of the wall",
+        "Recommends partnership ads as the primary net-new-reach lever",
+        "Explains the Andromeda persona-based seed-audience logic",
+        "Gives partnership-ads playbook basics (pre-test, persona overlap over follower count, whitelisting/rights)",
+        "Mentions commissioning low-fi creator statics as a per-creator mini-funnel"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 10,
+      "prompt": "I want to run an agentic teardown of a competitor's paid creative before we brief our next round of ads. Their Facebook Ad Library is at this link: https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/?id=example. Set up the analysis. Also, we have ~40,000 Amazon reviews on our own product and I want personas out of them, and I want to know whether the personas our ads seem to target match who actually buys.",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/creative-research-automation.md. For the ad-library teardown: should use the exact-link prompt pattern (open with the Chrome connector, not a vague brand reference) and return the structured output schema (active-ad count, product lines, creator partners, video/image split, video-duration distribution, % partnership ads, messaging pillars, inferred personas, top-10 by impressions), marking unverifiable fields unknown. For the reviews: should chain scrape\u2192CSV\u2192editable personas doc\u2192visual deck, and should sample (~3k) rather than pull all 40k. Should run the persona-mapping move \u2014 who the creatives seem to target (from the ad library) vs. who actually buys (from reviews) \u2014 and surface the gap. Should treat ad copy and reviews as untrusted data, not instructions. Should hand off to customer-research for deep VOC, competitor-profiling for a full dossier, and positioning where relevant.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Loads references/creative-research-automation.md",
+        "Uses the exact-link / Chrome-connector prompt pattern for the ad library rather than a vague brand reference",
+        "Returns the ad-library output schema including % partnership ads, inferred personas, and top-10 by impressions",
+        "Samples (~3k) rather than scraping all 40k reviews",
+        "Chains reviews into an editable personas doc before a deck, and reuses it as context",
+        "Runs the persona-mapping move: who the creatives seem to target vs. who actually buys",
+        "Hands off to customer-research and/or competitor-profiling for deeper work"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 11,
+      "prompt": "Our blended LTV:CAC is 3.4:1 so we're good to pour more into Meta, right? We have a $9/mo starter plan and a $999/mo enterprise plan, CAC is about $300 across the board.",
+      "expected_output": "Should load references/payback-period.md and push back on using blended LTV:CAC as the go/no-go. Should explain LTV:CAC is a useless/destructive metric here \u2014 it hides per-plan variance under blended ARPU, so 3.4:1 describes neither the $9 nor the $999 buyer. Should compute Payback Period = CAC / ARPU per plan: $300/$9 = ~33 months (unaffordable \u2014 do not run Meta for the starter plan) vs $300/$999 = ~0.3 months (excellent \u2014 scale hard). Should recommend routing cheap-plan buyers to organic/product-led and only turning paid on where discounted payback lands in the 3-12 month target band. Should mention Discounted Payback = CAC / (ARPU x annual retention) to adjust for early churn. Should NOT bless scaling on the blended ratio alone.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Loads or applies payback-period.md rather than accepting blended LTV:CAC",
+        "Explains blended ARPU hides the $9-vs-$999 per-plan variance",
+        "Computes Payback Period = CAC / ARPU per plan (~33 months for $9, ~0.3 months for $999)",
+        "Cites the 3-12 month payback target band as the affordability gate",
+        "Recommends not running paid for the unaffordable starter plan / routing it elsewhere",
+        "Mentions Discounted Payback Period (retention-adjusted)"
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/bundled-skills/ads/references/abm-playbook.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+# ABM Playbook (Paid)
+
+Account-based marketing with ads: targeting named accounts on LinkedIn and Meta, accelerating open pipeline, and stitching channels together. ABM ads are a *pipeline influence* motion, not a lead-gen motion — measure accordingly.
+
+## Contents
+
+- When ABM (go/no-go)
+- LinkedIn ABM
+- ABM on Meta
+- Acceleration campaigns (ads against open pipeline)
+- Cross-channel orchestration
+- Cross-channel UTM remarketing
+- Sales orchestration
+- Measuring ABM
+
+## When ABM (go/no-go)
+
+Run paid ABM when: target account list ≥ ~1,000 companies (or you accept 1:1/1:few economics), deal size ~$25K+, sales cycle 60+ days, sales and marketing actually aligned on the list, and (for Meta) contact enrichment available.
+
+Skip it when: TAL under ~500 with no enrichment, no first-party data, budget under ~$3K/month, or a short transactional cycle — standard ICP targeting will outperform.
+
+## LinkedIn ABM
+
+Three motions, by list size:
+
+- **1:1** — add the company by name; fully personalized creative for one account.
+- **1:few** — up to ~10–20 accounts per campaign, shared pain/industry angle.
+- **1:many** — uploaded list (or native targeting), scaled creative.
+
+**List mechanics:**
+- LinkedIn needs **300 matched members minimum** to serve; aim for 1,000+ rows (duplicating company names to pad the upload is fine — it dedupes on match). Contact lists match best at scale (LinkedIn suggests ~10K emails); **company lists beat contact lists** for most teams — easier to source, better match rates, less maintenance.
+- Cold ABM audiences need ~15K members to deliver reliably.
+- **Segment mixed lists.** Left as one audience, LinkedIn over-serves the largest enterprises in the list — accounts have sat at 15% list coverage because the algorithm parked on a few big companies. Split into homogeneous bands (e.g., enterprise / mid-market / SMB) with separate campaigns and budgets.
+- List-based targeting typically buys reach materially cheaper than native firmographic targeting, with stronger decision-maker engagement.
+- Use the per-company engagement report (Audiences → click into the list) to find under-served priority accounts, then break them into a dedicated campaign.
+
+**Personalized 1:1 creative:** putting the target account's name/logo in the creative can lift CTR ~5–10× over generic ads. **Legal exception: do not run company-name/logo-personalized ads into Germany** — privacy law, not platform policy.
+
+**Frequency capping:** target ~3 impressions/person/week in priority accounts. Mechanic: build a company-engagement audience of accounts that crossed ~500 impressions in the last 7 days and add it as an *exclusion* — it self-rotates accounts out as they cool down. Tune the threshold (300 if fatigue shows, 750 for more pressure).
+
+## ABM on Meta
+
+Meta has no native company targeting — the play is **bring your own matched audience**:
+
+- **The match-rate problem:** raw CRM exports of work emails match under ~5% on Meta. Enrichment providers (identity-graph tools that resolve work identities to personal profiles — e.g., Primer, Metadata, ZoomInfo, Clearbit) raise matches to ~40–85%. Workflow: firmographic criteria → identity-graph match → upload as Custom Audience → target directly or seed a 1% lookalike.
+- **Minimum sizes:** account-list audiences ~1,000 companies (5–10K optimal); retargeting slices work down to ~100 accounts; lookalike seeds want 500+.
+- Advantage+ **conflicts with strict ABM** — it won't stay locked to your list. Run ABM campaigns manual (or hybrid: manual for the list, Advantage+ for the broad layer).
+- Meta's ABM role is cheap **air cover and multi-threading** (reaching the buying committee beyond your champion) while LinkedIn does precision — see the split below.
+
+## Acceleration campaigns (ads against open pipeline)
+
+Ads aimed at accounts already in your pipeline, to speed deals rather than source them:
+
+- Segment the CRM by stage (evaluation / proposal / negotiation), filter to deals worth the spend, upload as an audience, refresh weekly.
+- **Use an awareness/reach objective, not conversions** — you're keeping the vendor top-of-mind for the buying committee, not asking in-pipeline accounts to "book a demo" they already booked.
+- Creative: case studies, proof, objection-handlers — matched to stage. Budget scales with deal value (larger open deals justify $100–200/day of air cover; stalled deals get a maintenance dose).
+
+## Cross-channel orchestration
+
+Default split for B2B ABM: **~60% LinkedIn / ~30% Meta / ~10% other**. LinkedIn buys precision (right person, right company) at $40–70 CPMs; Meta buys presence and committee reach at $10–25. Sequence LinkedIn first to validate the audience, then extend to Meta. Multi-channel ABM consistently and materially outperforms single-channel on engagement and conversion — the channels compound, they don't compete.
+
+## Cross-channel UTM remarketing
+
+The cheapest high-quality audience you can build: retarget one platform's validated clickers on another platform.
+
+1. Tag all paid traffic with consistent UTMs (`utm_source=linkedin`, `utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc`).
+2. On Meta, build a website Custom Audience with the rule **"URL contains `utm_source=linkedin`"** (or `utm_source=google`).
+3. Retarget that audience on Meta — LinkedIn-grade audience quality at Meta-grade CPMs (typically 50–70% cheaper reach).
+
+Works in both directions (search clickers → LinkedIn remarketing needs meaningful search volume — worth it above roughly $30K/month search spend). Requires enough source-channel traffic to clear minimum audience sizes. Use a consistent account/campaign token in UTMs so attribution survives the hop.
+
+## Sales orchestration
+
+ABM ads without sales follow-up is billboard spend:
+
+- Pipe ad-engagement signals to the CRM (LinkedIn company-engagement exports, or connectors that sync engagement per account) and treat an engagement spike as a sales trigger — **outreach within ~48 hours** of the spike.
+- Route new leads to a shared channel (Slack webhook) with a per-campaign quality reaction (👍/👎) — the cheapest lead-quality feedback loop that exists.
+- Hold a monthly sales-marketing session on the list itself: who's engaging, who's dark, who closed — and re-cut the list.
+- Expect ~7–10 cross-channel touches before a sales conversation is normal at ABM deal sizes.
+
+## Measuring ABM
+
+Judge ABM on account movement, not CPL:
+
+- **Account penetration** (% of list reached): target ~40–60%.
+- **Cost per engaged account** (not per click): ~$100–300 is a workable band.
+- **Account → opportunity rate:** ~10–20%.
+- **Pipeline influenced:** aim for 3–5× spend; expect win-rate and velocity improvements on engaged vs. non-engaged accounts.
+- **Incrementality:** hold out ~20% of the list from ads and compare pipeline formation after 21+ days — the only honest answer to "did the ads do anything?"
+
+---
+
+*Framework lineage: adapted (re-expressed and restructured) from practitioner playbooks, notably Ivan Falco's ads-skills. Thresholds are practitioner-reported starting points — recalibrate against your own accounts.*

package/bundled-skills/ads/references/ad-copy-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,207 @@
+# Ad Copy Templates Reference
+
+Detailed formulas and templates for writing high-converting ad copy.
+
+## Contents
+- Primary Text Formulas (Problem-Agitate-Solve, Before-After-Bridge, Social Proof Lead, Feature-Benefit Bridge, Direct Response)
+- Headline Formulas (For Search Ads, For Social Ads)
+- CTA Variations (Soft CTAs, Hard CTAs, Urgency CTAs, Action-Oriented CTAs)
+- Platform-Specific Copy Guidelines (Google Search Ads, Meta Ads, LinkedIn Ads)
+- Copy Testing Priority
+
+## Primary Text Formulas
+
+### Problem-Agitate-Solve (PAS)
+
+```
+[Problem statement]
+[Agitate the pain]
+[Introduce solution]
+[CTA]
+```
+
+**Example:**
+> Spending hours on manual reporting every week?
+> While you're buried in spreadsheets, your competitors are making decisions.
+> [Product] automates your reports in minutes.
+> Start your free trial →
+
+---
+
+### Before-After-Bridge (BAB)
+
+```
+[Current painful state]
+[Desired future state]
+[Your product as the bridge]
+```
+
+**Example:**
+> Before: Chasing down approvals across email, Slack, and spreadsheets.
+> After: Every approval tracked, automated, and on time.
+> [Product] connects your tools and keeps projects moving.
+
+---
+
+### Social Proof Lead
+
+```
+[Impressive stat or testimonial]
+[What you do]
+[CTA]
+```
+
+**Example:**
+> "We cut our reporting time by 75%." — Sarah K., Marketing Director
+> [Product] automates the reports you hate building.
+> See how it works →
+
+---
+
+### Feature-Benefit Bridge
+
+```
+[Feature]
+[So that...]
+[Which means...]
+```
+
+**Example:**
+> Real-time collaboration on documents
+> So your team always works from the latest version
+> Which means no more version confusion or lost work
+
+---
+
+### Direct Response
+
+```
+[Bold claim/outcome]
+[Proof point]
+[CTA with urgency if genuine]
+```
+
+**Example:**
+> Cut your reporting time by 80%
+> Join 5,000+ marketing teams already using [Product]
+> Start free → First month 50% off
+
+---
+
+## Headline Formulas
+
+### For Search Ads
+
+| Formula | Example |
+|---------|---------|
+| [Keyword] + [Benefit] | "Project Management That Teams Actually Use" |
+| [Action] + [Outcome] | "Automate Reports \| Save 10 Hours Weekly" |
+| [Question] | "Tired of Manual Data Entry?" |
+| [Number] + [Benefit] | "500+ Teams Trust [Product] for [Outcome]" |
+| [Keyword] + [Differentiator] | "CRM Built for Small Teams" |
+| [Price/Offer] + [Keyword] | "Free Project Management \| No Credit Card" |
+
+### For Social Ads
+
+| Type | Example |
+|------|---------|
+| Outcome hook | "How we 3x'd our conversion rate" |
+| Curiosity hook | "The reporting hack no one talks about" |
+| Contrarian hook | "Why we stopped using [common tool]" |
+| Specificity hook | "The exact template we use for..." |
+| Question hook | "What if you could cut your admin time in half?" |
+| Number hook | "7 ways to improve your workflow today" |
+| Story hook | "We almost gave up. Then we found..." |
+
+---
+
+## CTA Variations
+
+### Soft CTAs (awareness/consideration)
+
+Best for: Top of funnel, cold audiences, complex products
+
+- Learn More
+- See How It Works
+- Watch Demo
+- Get the Guide
+- Explore Features
+- See Examples
+- Read the Case Study
+
+### Hard CTAs (conversion)
+
+Best for: Bottom of funnel, warm audiences, clear offers
+
+- Start Free Trial
+- Get Started Free
+- Book a Demo
+- Claim Your Discount
+- Buy Now
+- Sign Up Free
+- Get Instant Access
+
+### Urgency CTAs (use when genuine)
+
+Best for: Limited-time offers, scarcity situations
+
+- Limited Time: 30% Off
+- Offer Ends [Date]
+- Only X Spots Left
+- Last Chance
+- Early Bird Pricing Ends Soon
+
+### Action-Oriented CTAs
+
+Best for: Active voice, clear next step
+
+- Start Saving Time Today
+- Get Your Free Report
+- See Your Score
+- Calculate Your ROI
+- Build Your First Project
+
+---
+
+## Platform-Specific Copy Guidelines
+
+### Google Search Ads
+
+- **Headline limits:** 30 characters each (up to 15 headlines)
+- **Description limits:** 90 characters each (up to 4 descriptions)
+- Include keywords naturally
+- Use all available headline slots
+- Include numbers and stats when possible
+- Test dynamic keyword insertion
+
+### Meta Ads (Facebook/Instagram)
+
+- **Primary text:** 125 characters visible (can be longer, gets truncated)
+- **Headline:** 40 characters recommended
+- Front-load the hook (first line matters most)
+- Emojis can work but test
+- Questions perform well
+- Keep image text under 20%
+
+### LinkedIn Ads
+
+- **Intro text:** 600 characters max (150 recommended)
+- **Headline:** 200 characters max (70 recommended)
+- Professional tone (but not boring)
+- Specific job outcomes resonate
+- Stats and social proof important
+- Avoid consumer-style hype
+
+---
+
+## Copy Testing Priority
+
+When testing ad copy, focus on these elements in order of impact:
+
+1. **Hook/angle** (biggest impact on performance)
+2. **Headline**
+3. **Primary benefit**
+4. **CTA**
+5. **Supporting proof points**
+
+Test one element at a time for clean data.