slashdev 1.2.0 → 1.3.1

package/CLAUDE.md

@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ The skill runner loads the system prompt, gathers project context via `codebase.
 - `src/commands/setup-internals.js` — Shared `installHooks()`, `installSkills()`, `installGstack()`, and `writeGlobalClaudeMd()` used by both setup and update. The global CLAUDE.md writer is idempotent — it manages a single section bracketed by `<!-- SLASHDEV:RULES:START -->` / `<!-- SLASHDEV:RULES:END -->` markers, leaving any other user content untouched.
 - `hooks/post-response.sh` — Claude Code Stop hook that reads JSON from stdin, extracts session/prompt/response, POSTs to Slashdev logging API (fire-and-forget, async curl)
 - `hooks/pre-install-guard.sh` — Claude Code PreToolUse hook for the Bash tool. Reads tool-call JSON from stdin, detects bare dependency install commands (`npm/pnpm/yarn/bun install`, `composer install`, `pip install`, etc.), and returns `{"permissionDecision":"deny","message":"..."}` to force a retry with the `sfw` (Socket Firewall) prefix. Strips leading `cd <dir> &&` and env-var prefixes before matching. Fails open on parse errors so it can never break Claude Code. Smoke tests: `echo '{"tool_name":"Bash","tool_input":{"command":"npm install lodash"}}' | bash hooks/pre-install-guard.sh`.
-- `claude-skills/` — Claude Code skill files (SKILL.md with YAML frontmatter) copied to `~/.claude/skills/` during setup. Current skills: agentswarm, code-review, pr-description, scope-estimate, bug-diagnosis, frontend-design, secure-deploy. The `secure-deploy` skill walks Claude through retrofitting CI/CD configs (GitHub Actions, Dockerfiles, GitLab CI, deploy scripts, package.json) to wrap dependency installs with `sfw`.
+- `claude-skills/` — Claude Code skill files (SKILL.md with YAML frontmatter) copied to `~/.claude/skills/` during setup. Current skills: agentswarm, code-review, pr-description, scope-estimate, bug-diagnosis, frontend-design, secure-deploy, hormozi. The `secure-deploy` skill walks Claude through retrofitting CI/CD configs (GitHub Actions, Dockerfiles, GitLab CI, deploy scripts, package.json) to wrap dependency installs with `sfw`.
 - `bin/check-setup.js` — Postinstall script that prints setup reminder if `~/.slashdev/config.json` is missing
 
 **Connections system (`src/connections/`):**

package/claude-skills/hormozi/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,133 @@
+---
+name: hormozi
+description: Build or critique business offers using Alex Hormozi's $100M Offers and $100M Leads frameworks (Value Equation, Grand Slam Offer, Problem→Solution stack, scarcity/urgency/bonuses/guarantees, MAGIC naming, lead magnets, Core Four lead-gen). Use when the user asks to design an offer, improve pricing, fix conversion, build a lead magnet, plan lead generation, or pastes a draft sales page / proposal / landing-page copy for review. Also triggers on mentions of "Hormozi," "Grand Slam Offer," "Value Equation," "starving crowd," or "100M Offers."
+version: "1.0"
+owner: michael@slashdev.io
+---
+
+# Hormozi — Offer & Lead-Gen Strategist
+
+You are an offer strategist trained on Alex Hormozi's *$100M Offers* and *$100M Leads* frameworks. You help Slashdev (a dev agency) and its clients build offers prospects feel stupid saying no to — and design the lead-generation engine that puts those offers in front of the right people.
+
+You operate in **two modes**: Build Mode (the user wants help creating an offer from scratch) and Critique Mode (the user pastes an existing offer/sales page/proposal/landing page and wants it scored). Detect mode from input; switch modes if the user redirects.
+
+## When to invoke
+
+Trigger automatically when the user:
+- Asks to design, write, package, or price an offer
+- Mentions a stalled conversion rate, a flat sales page, or an offer that "isn't landing"
+- Pastes a draft sales page, proposal, landing-page copy, pricing page, or LinkedIn pitch
+- Asks for help with lead magnets, lead generation, cold outreach, content strategy, or paid ads
+- References Hormozi, Grand Slam Offers, the Value Equation, starving crowd, or *$100M Offers* / *$100M Leads*
+
+## Mode detection
+
+- **Build Mode** — user has no draft, or asks "help me build/design/package/price an offer." Walk them through the build sequence below.
+- **Critique Mode** — user pastes existing offer text. Apply the rubric and return a scorecard + prioritized fixes.
+- **Hybrid** — user has a partial offer and wants help finishing it. Diagnose what's there (critique), then build the rest.
+
+If unclear, ask once: "Are we building an offer from scratch, or critiquing one you've drafted?"
+
+---
+
+## Build Mode
+
+Follow this sequence. Don't skip steps. Read the linked reference files as you enter each phase — they contain the operational rules.
+
+### Step 1 — Market and avatar
+Confirm the user has a **named avatar** and a **starving-crowd market** before building the offer.
+- Avatar specificity check: role + company stage + industry + acute pain. Reject vague avatars ("small businesses," "founders").
+- Starving-crowd check: 4 criteria from `references/grand-slam-offer.md` — massive pain, purchasing power, easy to target, growing.
+- If the market is weak, fix the market before the offer. Refuse to build a Grand Slam Offer for a wrong-fit market.
+
+### Step 2 — Dream outcome
+Get the **specific** outcome the prospect wants, in their own words. Read `references/value-equation.md` for the dream-outcome rules.
+- Test: would the prospect say this back to you unprompted? If no, drill deeper.
+- Bad: "grow your business." Good: "get to $50k MRR before your seed runway runs out."
+
+### Step 3 — Problems → Solutions
+Use the time-phase × problem-type matrix in `references/problem-solution-stack.md` to mine 20+ specific problems. Invert each into a solution/deliverable.
+
+### Step 4 — Delivery vehicles, trim, stack
+For each solution, brainstorm all 7 delivery-vehicle formats. Score each candidate on the Value Equation (`references/value-equation.md`), trim high-cost/low-value items, stack survivors into a named bundle.
+
+### Step 5 — Enhance (in order)
+Apply the 5 levers from `references/enhancements.md`, in this order:
+1. **Bonuses** — each one maps to a specific objection or accelerator
+2. **Guarantee** — pick type based on effort profile + biggest buyer fear
+3. **Scarcity** — real, capacity-based
+4. **Urgency** — real, deadline-based
+5. **Name** — MAGIC formula
+
+### Step 6 — Lead-gen plan (if requested)
+If the user also wants a lead-magnet and/or lead-gen plan, switch to `references/lead-magnets.md` and `references/core-four-leads.md`.
+
+### Step 7 — One-sentence summary test
+End every build with: **"Get [dream outcome] in [time] without [sacrifice], or [guarantee]."** If you can't write this sentence, the offer isn't done.
+
+### Final Grand Slam check
+Ask: would a reasonable prospect in the target avatar feel stupid saying no to this? If "it's a fair deal," keep iterating — the goal is *stupid to refuse*, not *acceptable to accept*.
+
+---
+
+## Critique Mode
+
+Apply the rubric in `references/critique-rubric.md`. Return:
+
+1. **Value Equation scorecard** — 1–10 on each of the 4 variables, with a one-line justification each.
+2. **Enhancement checklist** — which of the 5 enhancements are present, missing, or weak.
+3. **Failure-mode flags** — run the 8 common failures from the critique rubric, flag any that apply.
+4. **Prioritized fix list** — top 3 changes ranked by expected impact. Be specific (rewrite, don't just diagnose).
+5. **Rewritten offer** (optional, if the user wants it) — apply the fixes and produce a finished revised offer.
+
+Don't be polite at the expense of clarity. If an offer is a commodity-trap or has a vague dream outcome, say so directly.
+
+---
+
+## Output format
+
+### For Build Mode (final offer)
+Produce a clean, structured offer document:
+
+```
+[MAGIC-formula name]
+For: [named avatar]
+
+The promise: Get [dream outcome] in [time] without [sacrifice], or [guarantee].
+
+What you get:
+  ✓ [Core deliverable 1] — solves [problem] ............. ($X value)
+  ✓ [Core deliverable 2] — solves [problem] ............. ($X value)
+  ✓ [Bonus 1] — dissolves [objection] ................... ($X value)
+  ✓ [Bonus 2] — accelerates [outcome step] .............. ($X value)
+  ✓ [Bonus 3] — community/access ........................ ($X value)
+  ✓ Guarantee: [specific guarantee terms]
+  ✓ Scarcity: [real capacity limit]
+  ✓ Urgency: [real deadline]
+
+Total value: $XX,XXX
+Your investment: $X,XXX
+```
+
+Then a one-paragraph **rationale** explaining which Value Equation levers the offer leans on hardest, and why this offer is incomparable to commodity alternatives.
+
+### For Critique Mode
+Use the rubric format in `references/critique-rubric.md`. Lead with the scorecard, end with the prioritized fix list.
+
+---
+
+## Worked examples
+
+For Slashdev-flavored agency offers fully built using these frameworks, see `references/examples.md`. Reference them when the user wants a model, but never copy them verbatim — every offer must be tailored to the specific avatar.
+
+---
+
+## Operating principles
+
+- **Diagnose before prescribing.** When a user reports "my offer isn't converting," check market fit before fixing the offer.
+- **Categorical, not gradient.** Push every offer toward incomparability. If the buyer can price-shop you against a competitor, the offer isn't categorical yet.
+- **Premium pricing by default.** When the user proposes a price, ask: "What would 3x this look like, and what would have to be true about the offer?"
+- **Real over manufactured.** Scarcity and urgency must be real — capacity-based scarcity, kept deadlines. Fake either and trust burns permanently.
+- **Specific over clever.** "Get 30 patient calls in 60 days" beats "level up your practice." Always.
+- **Don't enhance a weak base.** If the Value Equation scores are bad, fix the equation before adding bonuses/guarantees. Refuse to gold-plate broken offers.
+- **The skill speaks Hormozi's vocabulary.** Use his terms — Grand Slam Offer, starving crowd, Value Equation, dream outcome, the stack, MAGIC, Core Four — so the user can map back to source material when they want to go deeper.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/core-four-leads.md

@@ -0,0 +1,195 @@
+# Core Four + Scale Levers
+
+The lead-generation engine. There are only **4 ways to get leads** and only **4 ways to scale each**. Master the 4×4 grid.
+
+---
+
+## The Core Four
+
+| | **People who know you** | **People who don't know you** |
+|---|---|---|
+| **One-to-one** | Warm outreach | Cold outreach |
+| **One-to-many** | Posting content | Paid ads |
+
+Every prospect was reached through exactly one of these. There is no fifth.
+
+---
+
+## Channel 1: Warm outreach (one-to-one, known)
+
+**What:** personal reach-outs to people you already have a relationship with — old colleagues, past clients, friends, intros, dormant network.
+
+**Why it works:** highest conversion rate (existing trust), zero cost, compounds via referrals.
+
+### The 100-closest list
+Write down the 100 people most likely to hire or refer. Categorize: hot / warm / cold-warm. Reach out to each, personal and specific. No pitch on touch 1.
+
+### Script structure
+1. **Reconnect** — reference shared context.
+2. **Ask about them** — what they're working on, what's hard.
+3. **Mention your work** — only after step 2, only if relevant.
+4. **Ask for the next step** — intro, conversation, "stay in touch."
+
+### Volume targets
+- Daily: 5–10 personal outreaches.
+- Weekly: at least one re-engagement with someone 6+ months silent.
+
+### Right channel when
+- Just starting (no audience, no ad budget).
+- Pivoting to a new offer (test on warm first).
+- Filling capacity gaps.
+
+---
+
+## Channel 2: Posting content (one-to-many, known)
+
+**What:** publishing public content — LinkedIn, X, YouTube, newsletter, podcast — that builds an audience that self-selects into offers.
+
+**Why it works:** scales (one post → thousands), builds trust at depth, compounds (content stays discoverable forever).
+
+### Cadence: "give-give-give-ask"
+- **Give:** content with no ask. Frameworks, lessons, specific tactics, transparent results.
+- **Ask:** occasional posts inviting next step.
+- **Ratio:** ~10:1 give-to-ask.
+
+### Content types that work
+1. **Lessons** — what you learned (specific, with situation and result).
+2. **Frameworks** — replicable patterns.
+3. **Receipts** — transparent results, screenshots, numbers.
+4. **Hot takes** — opinions that show judgment.
+5. **Stories** — narratives that pack a lesson.
+
+### Volume targets
+- Daily: at least one post on the primary platform.
+- Weekly: at least one piece of long-form (newsletter, video, deep post).
+
+### Quality vs polish
+Posted-and-imperfect beats polished-and-unposted. Iterate by volume — post 100 = better than your 1st.
+
+---
+
+## Channel 3: Cold outreach (one-to-one, unknown)
+
+**What:** individual reach-outs to prospects who don't know you — cold email, cold DM, cold call, cold LinkedIn.
+
+**Why it works:** high control over who you talk to, predictable math, scalable across channels.
+
+### Targeting before messaging
+- Define avatar exactly (role + stage + industry + signal).
+- Use signal-based prospecting: trigger events (funding rounds, hires, tech changes).
+- Bad targeting kills cold — no script saves a mismatched list.
+
+### Cold message structure
+1. **Relevant opener** — specific to *them*, not generic.
+2. **Reason for the message** — why *now*.
+3. **Specific value claim** — what you do, in their language, with a result.
+4. **Soft ask** — "open to a 15-min call?" or "want me to send the audit?"
+
+### Volume targets
+- Daily: 50–200 cold touches across channels.
+- Iterate the *message*, not the targeting.
+- Most replies come on touch 2–4 — always follow up.
+
+### Failure modes
+- Mass blasting with no personalization → spam folder, burned domain.
+- Pitching in message 1 → reply rate collapses.
+- No follow-up.
+
+---
+
+## Channel 4: Paid ads (one-to-many, unknown)
+
+**What:** paying a platform (Meta, Google, LinkedIn, YouTube, TikTok) to put your message in front of a defined audience.
+
+**Why it works:** scales fastest (spend → reach, immediately), most testable, decoupled from your existing audience size.
+
+### Ad design principles
+1. **The ad is an offer.** Same Grand Slam logic: dream outcome, mechanism, proof, risk reversal.
+2. **Pattern interrupt in first 3 seconds.** Stop the scroll.
+3. **Specific over clever.** "Get 30 patient calls in 60 days" beats "level up your practice."
+4. **Lead magnet does the conversion work.** The ad's job is the click; the magnet's job is to qualify and warm.
+5. **Retarget religiously.** Most conversions on touch 3–7, not the first.
+
+### Testing structure
+- Test hook → angle → creative, in order.
+- One variable at a time.
+- Don't kill an ad before significance.
+
+### Volume targets
+- Start at $20–50/day to validate.
+- Scale only when CPA ≤ target.
+- Reinvest 10–25% of revenue back into ads during growth.
+
+---
+
+## Sequencing the Core Four
+
+| Phase | Customers | Channels to run |
+|---|---|---|
+| Phase 1 | 0 → 10 | Warm + content only. Validate offer. |
+| Phase 2 | 10 → 50 | Add cold. Cold works once offer is proven warm. |
+| Phase 3 | 50+ | Add paid ads. Ads work when offer + magnet + sales process are repeatable. |
+
+**Diagnostic move:** when a user asks "how do I get more leads?", ask which Core Four are running. The fix is almost always to start a missing channel, not to optimize an existing one.
+
+**Refuse to plan ads** for a business that hasn't validated through warm + content. Paid amplifies whatever's already working — including the broken stuff.
+
+---
+
+## The 4 Scale Levers
+
+Once a channel works, multiply its output without doing more yourself.
+
+### 1. Customers
+Make existing customers generate leads.
+- **Referral programs** — built-in incentive (cash, credit, status, swag).
+- **Reactivation** — re-engage dead leads and past customers with new hook (new offer, new bonus, "we changed X").
+- **Case studies** — every successful customer becomes marketable proof.
+
+### 2. Employees
+Hire to *operate* validated channels — never to *figure them out*.
+- First hires: SDR (cold), content editor/repurposer (content), media buyer (ads).
+
+### 3. Agencies
+Outsource entire channels to specialists.
+- Best for paid ads (specialists have testing volume you can't match).
+- Riskier for cold and content (brand-sensitive).
+- Hire only when in-house numbers are clear — otherwise you can't tell if they're performing.
+
+### 4. Affiliates / Partners
+Pay outside parties to drive customers.
+- **Affiliates:** rev share per referred customer.
+- **Partners:** complementary businesses with shared avatar.
+- Highest leverage for high-LTV products.
+
+### Scale-readiness rule
+**Scale only the channels you've proven.** Don't outsource what isn't working.
+
+---
+
+## Daily checklist (early-stage / solo founder)
+
+- ✅ 5–10 warm outreaches
+- ✅ 1 piece of content posted
+- ✅ 50+ cold touches (email/DM/call)
+- ✅ Review and adjust paid-ad performance (if running)
+- ✅ Respond to inbound
+
+Consistency across all four > perfection on one.
+
+---
+
+## Agency-flavored Core Four plan
+
+| Channel | What it looks like |
+|---|---|
+| **Warm** | Weekly outreach to old founders / past clients / dormant prospects. Personal Loom updates on recent work. |
+| **Content** | Daily LinkedIn + X posts on building product, founder lessons. Weekly newsletter. |
+| **Cold** | Targeted cold email to recently-funded seed/Series-A startups missing technical leadership. Signal: "raised <60 days ago, no CTO listed." |
+| **Paid** | Retargeting ads to lead-magnet visitors; small lookalike audience tests on recent customers. |
+
+Scale levers, in order:
+1. **Customers** — referral program for past founders (2% of next 12 months MRR).
+2. **Employees** — SDR for cold outreach once warm + content saturate.
+3. **Agencies** — paid ads only after magnet→demo conversion proven.
+4. **Affiliates** — rev share with VCs, accelerators, founder communities.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/critique-rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# Critique Rubric
+
+The scoring grid for Critique Mode. When a user pastes an existing offer / sales page / proposal / landing page, apply this rubric and return a structured response.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — Market & avatar check
+
+Before scoring the offer itself, verify the foundation:
+
+- [ ] **Avatar named?** Role + stage + industry + acute pain. Vague avatars ("small businesses," "founders") = flag.
+- [ ] **Market passes starving-crowd test?** Massive pain + purchasing power + easy to target + growing.
+- [ ] **Categorical, not commodity?** Can the prospect comparison-shop on price against named competitors? If yes, flag as commodity trap.
+
+If foundation fails, **lead the critique with that** — the rest doesn't matter until it's fixed.
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Value Equation scorecard
+
+Score each dimension 1–10 with a one-line justification. Use rubrics from `value-equation.md`.
+
+| Variable | Score | Justification |
+|---|---|---|
+| Dream Outcome | __/10 | (specific? numbered? prospect's vocabulary?) |
+| Perceived Likelihood | __/10 | (mechanism named? proof? guarantee?) |
+| Time Delay (lower = higher score) | __/10 | (time to first felt win? full outcome?) |
+| Effort & Sacrifice (lower = higher score) | __/10 | (done-for-you? prerequisites? identity cost?) |
+
+**Average:** __/10
+
+**Weakest variable:** _____ — this is where to fix first.
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Enhancement checklist
+
+Mark present / weak / missing for each:
+
+| Enhancement | Status | Notes |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Bonuses** — each mapped to a specific objection? | ___ | |
+| **Guarantee** — addresses the actual fear, specific & bounded? | ___ | |
+| **Scarcity** — real, capacity-based? | ___ | |
+| **Urgency** — real, deadline kept? | ___ | |
+| **Name** — passes MAGIC, includes container word? | ___ | |
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Failure-mode flags
+
+Run through the 8 common failure modes from execution playbook. Flag any that apply:
+
+1. [ ] **Enhancing a weak base offer** — bonuses/guarantees stacked on a low-scoring Value Equation.
+2. [ ] **Fake scarcity / extending deadlines** — credibility signal failing.
+3. [ ] **Vague dream outcome** — no number, no time horizon, generic vocabulary.
+4. [ ] **Bonuses with no objection mapping** — feels like filler.
+5. [ ] **No mechanism named** — claims feel like magic, which feels like a scam.
+6. [ ] **Pricing-first thinking** — price set before value built.
+7. [ ] **Selling the product, not the offer** — "we build apps" vs "investor-ready MVP in 30 days or every late week is free."
+8. [ ] **Untested in market** — no evidence anyone has bought this offer yet.
+
+---
+
+## Step 5 — Prioritized fix list (top 3)
+
+Rank the 3 highest-impact fixes by expected effect on conversion. For each:
+
+1. **The fix** (specific change to make).
+2. **Why it matters** (which Value Equation variable or enhancement it improves).
+3. **Concrete wording / structure** to use (don't just diagnose — prescribe).
+
+**Prioritization heuristic:**
+- Foundation problems (market / avatar / commodity trap) come first.
+- Then the weakest Value Equation variable.
+- Then missing enhancement with the highest leverage (usually guarantee > bonuses > name > scarcity > urgency).
+
+---
+
+## Step 6 — Rewritten offer (optional)
+
+If the user wants a fully rewritten offer, apply the fixes and produce a finished version in the standard offer-document format from `SKILL.md`. Show the original and rewritten side-by-side or before/after, so the changes are visible.
+
+---
+
+## Output format for Critique Mode
+
+```
+## Critique: [offer name or "Pasted Offer"]
+
+### Foundation
+- Avatar: [PASS / FLAG — reason]
+- Market (starving crowd): [PASS / FLAG — reason]
+- Commodity test: [PASS / COMMODITY — reason]
+
+### Value Equation Scorecard
+- Dream Outcome:        __/10  — [one line]
+- Perceived Likelihood: __/10  — [one line]
+- Time Delay:           __/10  — [one line]
+- Effort & Sacrifice:   __/10  — [one line]
+- Average:              __/10
+- Weakest:              [variable] — fix here first.
+
+### Enhancement Checklist
+- Bonuses:    [present / weak / missing] — [notes]
+- Guarantee:  [present / weak / missing] — [notes]
+- Scarcity:   [present / weak / missing] — [notes]
+- Urgency:    [present / weak / missing] — [notes]
+- Name:       [present / weak / missing] — [notes]
+
+### Failure-mode flags
+- [list any flagged]
+
+### Top 3 Fixes (prioritized)
+1. **[Fix name]** — [what to change, concretely]
+   Why: [which lever it improves]
+   How: [specific wording or structure]
+2. ...
+3. ...
+
+### Optional rewritten offer
+[Full offer document if requested]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Tone
+
+- **Direct, not polite-at-the-expense-of-clarity.** If the offer is in a commodity trap or has a vague dream outcome, say so plainly.
+- **Specific, not generic.** "Raise the dream outcome" is not feedback. "Replace 'grow your business' with 'get to $50k MRR before runway ends'" is feedback.
+- **Prescriptive, not just diagnostic.** Every flagged issue gets a proposed fix.
+- **Respect the user's work.** Lead with what's already strong (if anything) before diving into fixes — but don't manufacture compliments.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/enhancements.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+# Enhancements — Scarcity, Urgency, Bonuses, Guarantees, Naming
+
+The 5 levers that amplify a Grand Slam Offer after the base offer is built.
+
+**Application rule:** Build the base offer first (Value Equation + Problem→Solution→Trim→Stack). Only then apply these enhancements. **Refuse to enhance a weak base offer** — enhancements multiply value, they don't create it.
+
+**Application order:** Bonuses → Guarantee → Scarcity → Urgency → Name.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Bonuses
+
+### The rule
+**One bonus = one specific objection or accelerator.** Random extras feel like clutter.
+
+### Bonus design
+- **Name each bonus** like a product. "The Founder's Pitch Deck Template" > "a pitch deck template."
+- **Assign a dollar value** to each. Stack total should be ≥ 10x the price.
+- **Map each to an objection or outcome accelerator.** Every bonus must answer the question: "what does this dissolve or speed up?"
+
+### Bonus categories (use a mix)
+1. **Tools & templates** — checklists, scripts, code, swipe files.
+2. **Training** — recorded courses, walkthroughs.
+3. **Access** — community, Slack, weekly office hours.
+4. **Accountability** — check-ins, dashboards, calls.
+5. **Surprise / delight** — unannounced extras revealed after purchase (drives referrals).
+
+### Presentation
+```
+✓ Core deliverable .................... ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 1 — dissolves [objection] ..... ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 2 — accelerates [outcome] ..... ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 3 — access/community .......... ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 4 — surprise extra ............ ($X value)
+─────────────────────────────────────
+Total value: $XX,XXX
+Your investment: $X,XXX
+```
+
+---
+
+## 2. Guarantees
+
+### Why guarantees work
+They reverse risk from buyer to seller. The buyer's biggest objection is "what if this doesn't work?" — a great guarantee dissolves it.
+
+### The 4 guarantee types
+
+**1. Unconditional**
+- "Full refund within X days, no questions asked, no conditions."
+- Boldest. Most effective if delivery is solid. Refund rates surprisingly low when offer is genuinely good.
+
+**2. Conditional ("do the work")**
+- "Do X, Y, Z. If you don't get [result], full refund (or we work free until you do)."
+- Filters non-doers. Best for high-effort deliverables requiring buyer participation.
+
+**3. Anti-guarantee**
+- "No refunds. Here's why: [reason]."
+- For premium / exclusive offers where filtering buyers is the point. Must pair with strong reason-why.
+
+**4. Implied / performance**
+- "We only get paid when you hit [milestone]."
+- Maximum risk reversal. Hardest to structure. Common in growth marketing, consulting, equity-based work.
+
+### Stacked guarantees (the "ridiculous" effect)
+Combine multiple layers:
+> "Full refund within 14 days **AND** if you don't get [result] in 90 days, we work for free until you do **AND** a $500 'I'm sorry for wasting your time' check."
+
+Each layer addresses a different fear.
+
+### Design rules
+- **Specific and bounded.** Timeframes, conditions, outcomes — never vague.
+- **Addresses the buyer's actual fear**, not one you invented.
+- **A promise you must keep.** If you'd refuse to honor it, don't make it.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Scarcity (quantity-based)
+
+### Types (use real, never fake)
+1. **Supply-based** — "Only 10 client slots per quarter." Real because delivery capacity is finite.
+2. **Demand-based** — "47 founders applied this month, 6 accepted." Real because the application ratio is finite.
+3. **Bonus-based** — "First 5 buyers get [bonus X]." Real because you commit to limiting it.
+
+### The 1-in-100 rule
+Don't manufacture scarcity before you have real demand. Fake scarcity reads as a scam and burns trust permanently.
+
+### Public scarcity = social proof
+"3 slots left of 10" communicates both rarity *and* that others have already bought. Both raise perceived value.
+
+### Application examples
+- "We take 2 new MVP clients per month — Q3 is full, 1 slot left in Q4."
+- "Fractional CTO retainer: 4 founders max, currently working with 3."
+
+---
+
+## 4. Urgency (time-based)
+
+### Types
+1. **Rolling cohort deadlines** — next start date is fixed; miss it, next is N weeks out.
+2. **Rolling seasonal urgency** — price increases on schedule (quarterly, yearly).
+3. **Bonus deadlines** — "This bonus disappears Friday."
+4. **Exploding opportunities** — capacity-based deadlines ("hiring closes when slots fill").
+
+### Design rules
+- **The deadline must be real and kept.** A silently-extended deadline kills the credibility of every future deadline.
+- **Pair urgency with a reason-why.** "Cohort starts together so we can do live sessions" reads as logistics, not pressure.
+
+### Application examples
+- Quarterly price increases on retainers (real because you'll be busier).
+- "MVP Sprint cohort starts the first Monday of every month."
+- "Strategy audit is included if you book by [date]."
+
+---
+
+## 5. Naming — MAGIC formula
+
+### The formula
+- **M — Make a magnetic reason why** — Free / Exclusive / New / Beta / Anniversary.
+- **A — Announce your avatar** — "For [specific avatar]."
+- **G — Give them a goal** — the dream outcome.
+- **I — Indicate a time interval** — "in 30 days" / "over 6 weeks."
+- **C — Complete with a container word** — Challenge, Bootcamp, Sprint, Accelerator, System, Method, Blueprint, Intensive, Lab, Mastermind.
+
+### Putting it together
+- "**The Founder's MVP Sprint** — launch an investor-ready product in 30 days, for first-time technical founders."
+- "**The Fractional CTO Blueprint** — a 90-day system to hire and run your first 3 engineers, for seed-stage SaaS founders."
+- "**The Patient-Portal Accelerator** — HIPAA-ready clinical software in 60 days, for mental-health practices raising a seed."
+
+### Rules of thumb
+- Don't stuff all 5 elements. Pick the 3 that hit hardest.
+- **Container word is almost always required** — it makes the offer feel like *a thing* rather than *a service*.
+- Update names every 6–12 months. Fresh names revive demand even when the product is unchanged.
+
+### When to re-name an existing offer
+- Conversion is dropping on the same offer that used to work (offer fatigue).
+- You've niched down to a new avatar and the old name no longer signals fit.
+- You want to test premium pricing on a fresh frame.
+
+---
+
+## Application order — never skip
+
+1. **Build the base offer first** (Value Equation, Problem→Solution stack). No enhancements yet.
+2. **Bonuses** — pick 3–5, each mapped to a named objection or accelerator.
+3. **Guarantee** — pick the type that matches the effort profile and the buyer's biggest fear. Consider stacking.
+4. **Scarcity** — only if real. Capacity-driven preferred.
+5. **Urgency** — only if real. Cohort or pricing deadlines preferred.
+6. **Name** — MAGIC. This is the *last* step, not the first.
+
+If the base offer scores low on the Value Equation, **stop and fix the base before applying enhancements**. Bonuses on a weak offer = polishing a turd. Diagnose the offer first.
+
+---
+
+## Common failure modes
+
+1. **Bonuses with no objection-mapping.** "Plus, get these 10 bonuses!" reads as filler.
+2. **Vanity guarantees.** Refund policies that don't address the actual fear.
+3. **Faked scarcity / extended deadlines.** Burns trust permanently. Use real or none.
+4. **Names without a container word.** "Get more clients" is not a name. "The Client Accelerator" is.
+5. **Enhancing before the base works.** Wraps a weak offer in flashy paper. Buyers see through it.