slashdev 1.2.0 → 1.3.1

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

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+# Worked Examples — Slashdev Agency Offers
+
+Four fully-built Grand Slam Offers for a dev agency. Use as models for structure, depth, and tone. **Never copy verbatim** — every real offer must be tailored to the specific avatar, market, and current capacity.
+
+Each example shows: avatar → market check → dream outcome → problem→solution stack → enhancements → name → final offer document → Value Equation scorecard.
+
+---
+
+## Example 1 — The Founder's MVP Sprint
+
+### Avatar
+First-time technical founder, seed-stage SaaS, raised $1–3M in last 90 days, no in-house engineering team yet, runway under 18 months.
+
+### Market check
+- Massive pain? Yes — runway clock, investor pressure, no product to show.
+- Purchasing power? Yes — fresh seed capital.
+- Easy to target? Yes — Crunchbase, LinkedIn "Founder + Seed" filters, accelerator alumni lists.
+- Growing? Yes — record seed funding flows.
+
+### Dream outcome
+"Have a working, demo-able product in front of design partners and Series-A investors within 30 days, without spending 60% of my seed on a 6-month build."
+
+### Problem → solution stack (selected)
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---|---|
+| "I'll burn 60% of seed on agency hours." | Fixed-price 30-day sprint. |
+| "I don't have time to manage developers." | Async 15-min video standups; founder watches on own time. |
+| "What if the team disappears post-launch?" | 6 months of 30-min/month fractional-CTO calls included. |
+| "How do I show this to investors?" | Founder Pitch-Deck Template pre-built around the MVP. |
+| "What if I miss my Series-A window?" | Day-30 deadline guarantee — every late week free. |
+| "What if the code is bad?" | Third-party code-review pass included, you keep the report. |
+
+### Enhancements
+
+**Bonuses:**
+- Founder Pitch-Deck Template ($2,500 value) — dissolves "what do I show investors?"
+- Investor Outreach Email Sequence (5-touch) ($1,500 value) — accelerates "how do I get meetings?"
+- 6× monthly 30-min fractional-CTO calls ($3,000 value) — dissolves "what after launch?"
+- Third-party code review at delivery ($2,000 value) — dissolves "what if it's bad?"
+- Private founders' Slack ($1,000 value) — surprise/delight + community.
+
+**Guarantee (stacked):**
+- 30-day MVP delivery — every additional week free.
+- If the third-party code review fails, full refund.
+
+**Scarcity:** 2 MVP sprints per month, max.
+**Urgency:** Cohort starts the first Monday of every month.
+**Name (MAGIC):** "The Founder's MVP Sprint" (avatar + goal + container).
+
+### Final offer document
+
+```
+The Founder's MVP Sprint
+For: first-time technical founders, fresh seed, no eng team yet.
+
+The promise: A working, investor-ready MVP in 30 days — every late week is free.
+
+What you get:
+  ✓ 30-day fixed-price MVP build (incl. design, code, infra) .. ($45,000 value)
+  ✓ Founder Pitch-Deck Template ............................. ($2,500 value)
+  ✓ Investor Outreach Sequence (5-touch) .................... ($1,500 value)
+  ✓ 6× monthly fractional-CTO calls post-launch ............. ($3,000 value)
+  ✓ Third-party code review at delivery ..................... ($2,000 value)
+  ✓ Private founders' Slack ................................. ($1,000 value)
+  ✓ Guarantee: every late week is free; refund on failed code review
+  ✓ Scarcity: 2 sprints per month, max
+  ✓ Urgency: cohort starts first Monday monthly
+
+Total value: $55,000
+Your investment: $25,000 (flat, fixed price)
+```
+
+### Value Equation scorecard
+- Dream outcome: 9/10 (named, specific, time-boxed).
+- Likelihood: 8/10 (named mechanism, guarantee, code-review proof).
+- Time delay: 9/10 (30-day cap, weekly demos).
+- Effort & sacrifice: 8/10 (async, done-for-you, no eng knowledge needed).
+
+---
+
+## Example 2 — The Fractional CTO Blueprint
+
+### Avatar
+Seed-to-Series-A SaaS founder, has hired 1–2 engineers ad-hoc, knows they need a CTO but can't justify the full-time hire yet.
+
+### Dream outcome
+"Make the right early engineering hires and run the team well, without paying for a $300k full-time CTO."
+
+### Problem → solution stack (selected)
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---|---|
+| "I don't know what kind of engineer to hire first." | Hiring scorecard + role definition. |
+| "I can't evaluate technical candidates." | Outsourced technical interview rounds (we run them). |
+| "Once they're hired, what do I have them do?" | First-90-days plan, written for the role. |
+| "How do I tell if they're underperforming?" | Weekly engineering dashboard + monthly review template. |
+| "What if I get this wrong?" | Full refund + free re-hire if first hire fails review within 90 days. |
+
+### Enhancements
+
+**Bonuses:**
+- First-3-Engineers Hiring Scorecard ($1,500 value) — dissolves "what do I hire first?"
+- 30-min/month founder coaching call ($3,600 value annualized) — accelerates judgment.
+- Engineering team dashboard (Notion template) ($800 value) — dissolves "how do I tell?"
+
+**Guarantee:** "If your first hire fails the 90-day review, we re-run the search and pay for the interview rounds."
+
+**Scarcity:** 4 founders max on retainer at any time.
+**Urgency:** Quarterly price increases on retainer.
+**Name:** "The Fractional CTO Blueprint."
+
+### Final offer document
+
+```
+The Fractional CTO Blueprint
+For: seed-to-Series-A SaaS founders hiring their first engineers.
+
+The promise: Hire and run your first 3 engineers in 90 days — or we re-run the search free.
+
+What you get:
+  ✓ Weekly 1:1 strategy call (60 min) ........................ ($24,000 value/yr)
+  ✓ First-3-Engineers Hiring Scorecard ...................... ($1,500 value)
+  ✓ Outsourced technical interview rounds (up to 6/quarter) .. ($6,000 value)
+  ✓ First-90-days plan per hire ............................. ($1,500 value)
+  ✓ Engineering team Notion dashboard ....................... ($800 value)
+  ✓ Founders' Slack access .................................. ($1,000 value)
+  ✓ Guarantee: free re-run if first hire fails 90-day review
+  ✓ Scarcity: 4 founders max, currently 3 active
+
+Total value: $34,800/yr
+Your investment: $4,000/month
+```
+
+### Value Equation scorecard
+- Dream outcome: 8/10.
+- Likelihood: 9/10 (mechanism, guarantee, accountability).
+- Time delay: 8/10 (90-day milestone).
+- Effort & sacrifice: 9/10 (we run interviews, founder makes the call).
+
+---
+
+## Example 3 — The HIPAA Patient-Portal Accelerator
+
+### Avatar
+Mental-health clinic owner or clinical-SaaS founder, recently raised seed, needs HIPAA-compliant patient portal to land design partners or pass procurement.
+
+### Dream outcome
+"Ship a HIPAA-ready patient portal in 60 days that clears procurement at our first three clinics."
+
+### Stack highlights
+- Pre-built HIPAA compliance scaffolding (BAA-ready infra, audit logging, encryption at rest/transit).
+- Procurement-pack: documentation kit pre-formatted for clinic IT review.
+- Day-14 working demo guarantee.
+- HIPAA gap-scan lead magnet → offer.
+
+**Name:** "The Patient-Portal Accelerator."
+
+**Guarantee:** "If your first clinic's IT review fails on a compliance gap we missed, we fix it free *and* refund 50%."
+
+**Scarcity:** 1 clinical client per quarter.
+
+**Pricing anchor:** $75,000 flat.
+
+### Why this works
+The avatar's biggest fear is *failing procurement*. The offer is built around that single fear: pre-built compliance, procurement-pack bonus, IT-review guarantee. The price is high but the alternative (failing procurement → no first clinic → no Series-A story) is much higher.
+
+---
+
+## Example 4 — The Productized AI Integration
+
+### Avatar
+Existing SMB SaaS, $1–5M ARR, no in-house ML, wants to ship an AI feature (chatbot, summarization, search, document parsing) without committing to a 6-month build.
+
+### Dream outcome
+"Launch an AI feature that customers actually use within 4 weeks, without hiring ML engineers."
+
+### Stack highlights
+- Fixed-price 4-week build.
+- Choose one of 5 productized AI features (each pre-scoped).
+- Bonus: free Slack/AI ROI calculator (also the lead magnet).
+- Performance bonus: "If activation rate doesn't hit 30% by week 8, we iterate free for 30 days."
+
+**Name:** "The AI Feature Sprint."
+
+**Scarcity:** 3 sprints per month.
+
+**Pricing anchor:** $15,000 flat.
+
+### Why this works
+Productizing across 5 features lets you price low (pre-scoped) while keeping margin healthy. The activation guarantee dissolves "what if customers don't use it" — the actual fear for SaaS founders shipping AI.
+
+---
+
+## Pattern across all 4 examples
+
+Notice the recurring moves:
+1. **Avatar is narrow and named.** Not "founders" — "seed-stage SaaS founders, no eng team."
+2. **Dream outcome is specific and time-boxed.** "X in 30 days," "Y by quarter-end."
+3. **Bonuses each map to a named objection.** Pitch deck → "what do I show investors?" Code review → "what if it's bad?"
+4. **Guarantee addresses the *actual* fear**, not a generic refund.
+5. **Scarcity is real and capacity-driven** (slots per month).
+6. **Urgency is structural** (monthly cohorts, quarterly price increases).
+7. **The name passes MAGIC** with a container word ("Sprint," "Blueprint," "Accelerator").
+8. **One-sentence summary works:** "Get [outcome] in [time] without [sacrifice], or [guarantee]."
+9. **Total perceived value ≥ 2× the price** (often higher — these examples are conservative).
+
+Use these as scaffolds, not templates. Every real offer must be tuned to the actual avatar, real capacity, real guarantee you'd honor.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/grand-slam-offer.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Grand Slam Offer
+
+The target. An offer presented so compellingly the buyer feels stupid saying no.
+
+## Definition
+
+A **Grand Slam Offer** = a combination of:
+- A product/service that solves a real problem,
+- A price that's irrelevant relative to perceived value,
+- Value-building components (bonuses, guarantees, scarcity, urgency, naming),
+- A named mechanism that makes results feel believable and inevitable.
+
+It is not "a good deal." It's *stupid to refuse*.
+
+---
+
+## The Grand Slam test
+
+After designing or reviewing an offer, ask: **Would a reasonable prospect in the target avatar feel stupid saying no?**
+
+- "It's a fair deal" → not a Grand Slam yet.
+- "Why would I not?" → Grand Slam.
+
+If the offer doesn't pass, identify which Value Equation variable is weakest and iterate there before adding more enhancements.
+
+---
+
+## The commodity test
+
+A **commodity** = any product/service the buyer can directly compare on price against a competitor.
+
+**Run this test:** can the prospect Google "[your category] near me" or "[your category] alternatives" and get a list with comparable prices?
+
+- Yes → commodity. The offer is in a category that's already been priced down by the market.
+- No → categorically differentiated. You've moved into a new comparison frame.
+
+### Two kinds of differentiation
+1. **Gradient** — "20% better/cheaper/nicer." Buyer still comparison-shops you. Loses.
+2. **Categorical** — "we don't sell that; we sell *this*." Buyer can't compare. Wins.
+
+### Categorical moves
+- Re-package: same work, different bundle ("custom web dev" → "30-day investor-ready MVP with founding-investor deck").
+- Re-target: same offer, narrower avatar ("dev agency" → "HIPAA-compliant patient portals for clinical SaaS").
+- Re-name: MAGIC formula (`enhancements.md`).
+- Re-mechanism: name the system that makes it work ("our 3-phase sprint process").
+
+---
+
+## The starving-crowd test (market check)
+
+Before building or critiquing the offer itself, score the market on 4 criteria:
+
+| Criterion | Question | Pass condition |
+|---|---|---|
+| **Massive pain** | Is the problem acute, urgent, emotionally loaded? | Yes, with a real consequence of inaction. |
+| **Purchasing power** | Can they afford premium pricing? | Yes, budget exists or can be unlocked. |
+| **Easy to target** | Do they congregate somewhere reachable? | Yes — forums, conferences, LinkedIn segments, titles. |
+| **Growing** | Is the market expanding? | Yes, rising tide or category emergence. |
+
+**Decision rule:** if the offer is failing, **change the market before changing the offer**. A Grand Slam Offer in the wrong market still fails.
+
+---
+
+## Niching down
+
+Niche until you can name the avatar exactly: **role + company stage + industry + acute pain**.
+
+- "Small businesses" → no.
+- "Founders" → no.
+- "Seed-stage SaaS founders without a CTO who just raised in the last 60 days" → yes.
+
+Niching narrows the audience but raises the price per prospect, because perceived fit moves from "general" to "exactly for me." Hormozi's claim: a tight niche supports up to 10x the pricing of a generic one.
+
+---
+
+## What the 4 levers of the offer multiply
+
+A Grand Slam Offer affects all 4 business growth dials:
+
+1. **Leads** — premium offers attract premium prospects (and content/referrals around the offer compound).
+2. **Conversion** — feel-stupid-saying-no = higher close rate.
+3. **Price** — perceived value supports higher dollar amounts.
+4. **Retention / LTV** — premium clients pay attention, do the work, get results, refer.
+
+If a business is struggling, the offer is almost always the highest-leverage thing to fix — before traffic, ads, or hiring.
+
+---
+
+## Quick checklist
+
+Before declaring an offer a Grand Slam:
+- [ ] Avatar is named (role + stage + industry + pain).
+- [ ] Market passes all 4 starving-crowd criteria.
+- [ ] Offer is categorical, not gradient (passes the commodity test).
+- [ ] Dream outcome is specific (would the prospect say it back?).
+- [ ] Mechanism is named.
+- [ ] Value Equation scores 7+ on all 4 dimensions.
+- [ ] Bonuses each map to an objection or accelerator.
+- [ ] Guarantee reverses the buyer's actual fear.
+- [ ] Scarcity is real (capacity-based).
+- [ ] Urgency is real (kept deadline).
+- [ ] Name passes MAGIC.
+- [ ] One-sentence summary works: "Get [outcome] in [time] without [sacrifice], or [guarantee]."
+- [ ] Total perceived value ≥ 10x price.
+- [ ] Final test: a reasonable prospect feels stupid saying no.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/lead-magnets.md

@@ -0,0 +1,115 @@
+# Lead Magnets — the Free Grand Slam Offer
+
+A lead magnet is a Grand Slam Offer priced at $0. The "price" is contact info and attention, not money. **All Value Equation rules still apply.**
+
+---
+
+## Two non-negotiables
+
+1. **Complete, not teased.** The recipient must actually solve the narrow problem with what you gave them. No "buy the paid thing to finish."
+2. **Narrow, not broad.** Solve *one* small specific problem, not "everything you need to know about X."
+
+A great lead magnet solves a problem completely, then *reveals the next problem* — which is what the paid offer solves.
+
+---
+
+## The 6 lead-magnet types
+
+### 1. Free trial / sample
+A bounded slice of the paid product (7-day software trial, sample chapter, free first session).
+- **Best for:** products where experiencing the thing is the conversion mechanism.
+- **Risk:** giving too much (no reason to upgrade) or too little (no real experience).
+
+### 2. Free service
+You do something *for* the prospect — audit, strategy call, SEO scan, design teardown.
+- **Best for:** services where your expertise is the value and the prospect can't evaluate it from outside.
+- **Risk:** delivery cost — must convert at a rate that pays for itself.
+
+### 3. Free physical item
+A tangible thing mailed to the prospect (book, hardware sample, branded tool).
+- **Best for:** high-ticket B2B where item cost is small vs. LTV; reciprocity through physical presence.
+- **Risk:** shipping logistics; only viable for premium offers.
+
+### 4. Software / tool
+A working tool that does something useful (calculator, template generator, Chrome extension, Notion template, Figma file).
+- **Best for:** technical / quantitative niches. Great fit for dev agencies.
+- **Risk:** must actually work and look polished — broken tools destroy trust.
+
+### 5. Useful information
+Knowledge in consumable form (guide, ebook, video course, swipe file, framework doc).
+- **Best for:** when the prospect's bottleneck is knowledge or vocabulary.
+- **Risk:** most-abused format. Make it short, finished, immediately applicable.
+
+### 6. Audit / checklist
+A diagnostic the prospect runs against their own situation ("Score your landing page in 60 seconds," "10-point investor-readiness checklist").
+- **Best for:** revealing problems the prospect didn't know they had — sets up the paid offer naturally.
+- **Risk:** if the audit doesn't surface real problems, no follow-up logic.
+
+---
+
+## 5-step design sequence
+
+### Step 1 — Identify the ideal-client problem
+Use the same problem-mining matrix as the paid offer (`problem-solution-stack.md`). Pick problems the paid offer solves *as a whole*. The magnet will target one narrow slice.
+
+### Step 2 — Pick a narrow problem to solve completely
+Not "marketing." Specifically: "headline for a B2B SaaS landing page that converts at 5%+."
+
+**Test:** can you solve this problem in 10 minutes of the prospect's time, end-to-end? If no, narrow further.
+
+### Step 3 — Pick the format that fits the consumption mode
+- They want to *see* it work → free trial / tool / service.
+- They want to *learn* → useful info / checklist.
+- They want to *get* → physical item / template.
+- They want to *understand themselves* → audit.
+
+Format must match how the prospect *actually consumes content* in this niche. Engineers don't want ebooks. Coaches don't want code samples.
+
+### Step 4 — Make it easy to consume
+- Short (length scales inverse to value perception past ~10 pages).
+- Clear (no jargon they don't already know).
+- Linear (one path through, no choose-your-own-adventure).
+- Self-contained (no "set up an account first").
+
+### Step 5 — Engineer the bridge to the paid offer
+The end of the lead magnet must do one job: **make the next step obvious and easy**.
+- Surface the next problem the magnet's win creates.
+- Offer the paid solution as the answer.
+- Include a clear, low-friction next step (book a call, watch a demo, see the offer).
+
+The bridge isn't a hard pitch — it's a continuation of the same logic that made the magnet useful.
+
+---
+
+## Naming lead magnets
+
+Apply the MAGIC formula. Bonus rule: **name a specific result, not a topic**.
+
+- Bad: "The Ultimate Guide to MVPs"
+- Better: "The 14-Point MVP Launch Audit"
+- Best: "The 14-Point MVP Launch Audit — score your build's investor-readiness in 10 minutes"
+
+---
+
+## Common failure modes
+
+1. **Teasing instead of giving.** "Free guide" ends with "buy the course to find out the rest." Burns trust permanently.
+2. **Solving too much.** 90-page free ebook nobody reads. No win, no trust, no bridge.
+3. **Wrong format for the avatar.** Free PDF for a dev audience that prefers GitHub repos.
+4. **No bridge.** Great magnet, but the "what next" is unclear or absent.
+5. **Magnet solves a problem the paid offer doesn't extend from.** Attracts prospects who don't need the paid thing. Watch magnet-to-paid conversion, not just opt-ins.
+6. **Hidden delivery friction.** "Check spam folder," "wait 24 hours" — every step of delay drops conversion.
+
+---
+
+## Agency-flavored examples
+
+| Paid offer | Matched lead magnet | Type |
+|---|---|---|
+| "30-day investor-ready MVP" | "14-point MVP launch audit" | Audit |
+| "Fractional CTO retainer" | "First-3-engineers hiring scorecard" | Audit / template |
+| "HIPAA-compliant patient portal sprint" | "Free HIPAA-compliance gap scan" | Free service |
+| "Productized AI integration" | "Free Slack/AI ROI calculator" | Software / tool |
+| "Async-only dev team retainer" | "The Founder's Async Standup Template (Notion)" | Useful info / template |
+
+In each case the magnet solves a *narrow* problem completely, and the win reveals the *next* problem that the paid offer solves.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/problem-solution-stack.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Problem → Solution → Trim & Stack
+
+The 4-step build process for constructing a Grand Slam Offer from a blank page.
+
+---
+
+## Step 1 — List every problem (mine 20+)
+
+Use the **time-phase × problem-type** matrix. For one named avatar pursuing one dream outcome, brainstorm problems across both axes.
+
+### Time-phase axis
+- **Before they buy** — objections, doubts, decision paralysis, fear of being wrong.
+- **At purchase** — payment friction, onboarding confusion, second-guessing.
+- **During delivery** — implementation difficulty, time cost, motivation dips, skill gaps.
+- **After delivery** — maintenance, scaling, "what's next," result decay.
+
+### Problem-type axis (apply to each phase)
+- **Tactical/practical** — they don't know how.
+- **Time** — they don't have hours.
+- **Skill/capacity** — they can't do it themselves.
+- **Emotional** — fear, shame, overwhelm.
+- **Social** — what will partner/team/peers think.
+- **Financial** — opportunity cost, tools, hiring beyond price.
+- **Identity** — "I'm not a tech/sales/marketing person."
+
+### Volume rule
+**Mine at least 20 specific problems for one avatar.** Fewer = the offer will miss obstacles the prospect actually has. More is better.
+
+### Specificity rule
+Problems must be specific, not categorical. Bad: "they're busy." Good: "they don't have time to review and approve design decisions during the build."
+
+---
+
+## Step 2 — Invert each problem into a solution
+
+For every problem, write the deliverable, system, template, or process that dissolves it.
+
+### Phrasing pattern
+- "A system for ___" — for recurring problems.
+- "How to ___" — for knowledge problems.
+- "Done-for-you ___" — for capacity problems.
+- "Template / script / checklist for ___" — for tactical problems.
+
+### Output: two-column table
+
+| Problem | Solution |
+|---|---|
+| "I don't have time to manage the build day-to-day." | "Weekly 15-min async video standup — watch on your own time." |
+| "What do I show investors after the build?" | "Founder's pitch deck template + investor outreach sequence." |
+| "What if the team disappears after launch?" | "30-min/month fractional-CTO call for 6 months post-launch." |
+| ... | ... |
+
+---
+
+## Step 3 — Brainstorm delivery vehicles for each solution
+
+The same solution can be delivered through **7 different vehicles** with very different Value Equation scores. For every solution, force a brainstorm across all 7:
+
+| # | Delivery vehicle | Effort & sacrifice (buyer) | Cost to deliver (you) | Time to value |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1 | **1:1 personal attention** | Low | Highest | Fast |
+| 2 | **Small group cohort** | Low–medium | High | Medium |
+| 3 | **Large group / course** | Medium | Medium | Slow |
+| 4 | **Done-for-you service** | Lowest | Highest | Fast |
+| 5 | **Done-with-you** | Medium | Medium | Medium |
+| 6 | **DIY with tools/templates** | High | Low | Fast (if templates good) |
+| 7 | **Reference material (PDF/video)** | Highest | Lowest | Self-paced |
+
+**The point:** if a solution scores low on the Value Equation in its current vehicle, try a different vehicle before dropping it. A "training module" can become a "done-for-you setup" and now scores 9 instead of 4.
+
+---
+
+## Step 4 — Trim and stack
+
+### Trim
+For each candidate deliverable, you now have:
+- 4 Value Equation scores (dream outcome / likelihood / time / effort).
+- 1 cost-to-deliver score (your time and dollar cost).
+
+**Trim rule:**
+- Drop: high cost-to-deliver AND low Value Equation. These bleed margin without helping the offer.
+- Keep: high Value Equation regardless of cost (these are the spine).
+- **Especially keep:** low cost-to-deliver AND high Value Equation (templates, frameworks, automations). These become bonuses — they multiply perceived value cheaply.
+
+### Stack
+Combine surviving deliverables into a single named offer. Present visually:
+
+```
+The [MAGIC-formula name]
+
+✓ Core deliverable 1 — solves [problem] ............. ($X value)
+✓ Core deliverable 2 — solves [problem] ............. ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 1 — dissolves [objection] ................... ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 2 — accelerates [outcome] ................... ($X value)
+✓ Bonus 3 — community / access ...................... ($X value)
+✓ Guarantee: [specific terms]
+✓ Scarcity: [real capacity limit]
+✓ Urgency: [real deadline]
+
+Total value: $XX,XXX
+Your investment: $X,XXX
+```
+
+---
+
+## Quality tests (apply at the end)
+
+Before finishing the stack:
+
+- [ ] **Coverage test:** every major problem from step 1 is addressed by at least one deliverable.
+- [ ] **10x value rule:** total perceived value is ≥ 10x the price.
+- [ ] **One-sentence summary test:** the offer compresses to "Get [dream outcome] in [time] without [sacrifice], or [guarantee]." If you can't write the sentence, the offer isn't done.
+- [ ] **Bonus-objection map:** every bonus names the specific objection or accelerator it addresses.
+- [ ] **Mechanism named:** the offer has a named system/process/method that explains *why* it works.
+- [ ] **Grand Slam test:** a reasonable prospect feels stupid saying no.
+
+---
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+1. **Listing 5 problems instead of 20.** Thin problem list → thin offer → uncovered objections.
+2. **Solutions phrased as features, not deliverables.** "We're experienced" is not a deliverable. "30-min monthly fractional-CTO call for 6 months" is.
+3. **Picking the obvious delivery vehicle without brainstorming the other 6.** Most upgrades from 4/10 to 9/10 come from changing the vehicle, not the content.
+4. **Trimming the spine to keep margin healthy.** Cut bonuses first, not core deliverables. Trim is about removing waste, not lowering the offer.
+5. **Stacking before scoring.** Without Value Equation scores, the stack is just a wish list. Score first, then stack.

package/claude-skills/hormozi/references/value-equation.md

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+# Value Equation
+
+The master scoring lens. Every offer component is scored against this. Used in both Build Mode (to design deliverables) and Critique Mode (to score existing offers).
+
+## The formula
+
+```
+                 Dream Outcome  ×  Perceived Likelihood of Achievement
+Value  =  ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+                 Time Delay     ×  Effort & Sacrifice
+```
+
+To raise value: raise the numerator OR lower the denominator. Best offers do both.
+
+---
+
+## The 4 variables
+
+### 1. Dream Outcome (numerator — maximize)
+The specific result the prospect wants, in *their* words.
+
+**Levers that raise it:**
+- Name the outcome with a number and timeline.
+- Use the prospect's vocabulary, not your industry's jargon.
+- Tie to identity ("the founder who shipped on time") not just metric.
+
+**Failure modes:**
+- Selling the process ("we use Next.js") instead of the outcome.
+- Generic outcomes ("grow your business") instead of dream ("$50k MRR before runway ends").
+
+**Scoring 1–10:**
+- 1–3: vague, abstract, no number, no time horizon.
+- 4–6: specific outcome but generic vocabulary or weak emotional pull.
+- 7–9: named outcome, prospect's vocabulary, clear time and metric.
+- 10: prospect would say this back to you unprompted.
+
+### 2. Perceived Likelihood of Achievement (numerator — maximize)
+The prospect's belief that *this* will work for *them*, specifically.
+
+**Levers that raise it:**
+- **Mechanism** — a named, specific reason your thing works (e.g., "3-phase sprint that's launched 47 funded products").
+- **Social proof** — testimonials, case studies, logos, numbers, named clients.
+- **Guarantees** — risk reversal (see `enhancements.md`).
+- **Demonstration** — walkthroughs, samples, audits, free trials.
+- **Authority** — credentials, press, founder story.
+
+**Scoring 1–10:**
+- 1–3: claims with no proof, no mechanism, no guarantees.
+- 4–6: some testimonials or one mechanism, but limited.
+- 7–9: named mechanism + multiple proof types + a guarantee.
+- 10: stacked proof, named mechanism, ridiculous guarantee — feels inevitable.
+
+### 3. Time Delay (denominator — minimize)
+Time between purchase and *first felt result* (not final result).
+
+**Two timelines matter:**
+- **Time to first win** (build this into week 1).
+- **Time to full outcome** (the headline timeline).
+
+**Levers that lower it:**
+- Quick wins in week 1 (day-1 deliverable, week-1 milestone).
+- Pre-purchase quick wins (audit, template, mini-result).
+- Async/parallel delivery (don't gate on weekly calls).
+
+**Scoring 1–10:**
+- 1–3: months until first felt result, vague timeline.
+- 4–6: weeks to first win, named timeline for full outcome.
+- 7–9: days to first win, fast full timeline.
+- 10: tangible value delivered before purchase or on day 1.
+
+### 4. Effort & Sacrifice (denominator — minimize)
+What they have to *do* (effort) and *give up* (sacrifice — time, identity, comfort, money beyond price).
+
+**Levers that lower it:**
+- Done-for-you > done-with-you > do-it-yourself.
+- Pre-built templates, scripts, automations.
+- Remove prerequisites ("no coding required").
+- Remove identity-cost ("you don't have to become a tech person").
+
+**Scoring 1–10:**
+- 1–3: high hands-on time, prerequisite skills, identity shift required.
+- 4–6: moderate involvement, some templates, some prerequisites.
+- 7–9: mostly done-for-you, minimal prerequisites, async-friendly.
+- 10: turnkey — they show up, results happen.
+
+---
+
+## Quick-apply checklist (use on every deliverable in an offer)
+
+For each deliverable:
+- [ ] Dream Outcome contribution: __/10
+- [ ] Likelihood contribution: __/10
+- [ ] Time to felt value: __/10 (lower-time = higher score)
+- [ ] Effort & Sacrifice required: __/10 (lower-effort = higher score)
+- [ ] Cost to deliver (your $/time): __ (separate; informs trim)
+
+**Trim rule:** drop anything that is high cost-to-deliver AND scores low on the 4 dimensions. Keep low-cost/high-value (these become bonuses) and high-cost/very-high-value (these are the spine).
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+1. **Optimizing one variable, ignoring the other three.** The equation is multiplicative — a 10 on dream outcome with a 1 on likelihood still scores low.
+2. **Conflating dream outcome with deliverables.** "We give you 10 calls" is a deliverable, not an outcome. The outcome is what those calls produce.
+3. **Vanity guarantees.** Guarantees that don't address the buyer's actual fear don't raise likelihood. A 30-day refund doesn't help when the fear is "this won't work for my niche."
+4. **Time-delay theater.** Promising "results in 30 days" when the first felt value isn't until day 25. Build in a day-1 deliverable.
+5. **Hiding the effort cost.** Buyers discover the real effort post-purchase and refund. Disclose effort honestly, then design the offer to lower it.