SkillAtlasSkill 详情

marketing

Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.

审核状态:已审核Quality 72Security 90

复制安装命令

用 Codex 或 Claude 安装复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它先审查 Skill 页面再帮你安装。

复制前请先查看来源、License 和安全提示。

项目 README

来源文件:README.md

抓取于 2026年8月31日

VexJoy Agent

VexJoy Agent

Essays and writing behind this toolkit live at vexjoy.com.

AI agents skip steps.

"Looks correct" replaces running tests. "Trivial change" replaces verification. The agent confidently ships broken code because nothing structurally prevented it from skipping the work.

Harnesses have a second problem: given only a skill list, they do not route eagerly enough, or correctly enough. Good skills sit unused. So this toolkit connects the skills, agents, and workflows we want directly into the harness, automatically. You don't have to understand what is here. Say what you want in plain English and you get all the value we have put into it: the right specialist with the right methodology, behind gates that demand exit codes, not assertions.

44 domain agents, 122 workflow skills, 78 hooks, 136 scripts. Agents carry knowledge, skills enforce methodology, hooks block incomplete work, scripts handle determinism.

Works across Claude Code (/do), Codex ($do), Factory (/do), Reasonix (/do).

What It Looks Like

$ claude

> /do debug this Go test

  Routing: go-engineer + systematic-debugging
  Phase 1/4: Reproduce: running test, capturing failure...
  Phase 2/4: Hypothesize: 3 candidates from stack trace...
  Phase 3/4: Verify: isolated root cause in connection pool timeout
  Phase 4/4: Fix: patch applied, test passing, PR opened

  ✓ Delivered: PR #847, fix connection pool timeout in health check

The router reads intent, picks a Go agent paired with a debugging skill, and runs the full lifecycle. You typed one sentence. The system did the rest.

The Pipeline

  ROUTE        PLAN         EXECUTE      VERIFY       DELIVER      RECORD
 ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐    ┌──────┐
 │ /do  │───▶│ Task │───▶│Agent │───▶│Tests │───▶│  PR  │───▶│Route │
 │Router│    │ Plan │    │+Skill│    │Gates │    │Branch│    │Result│
 └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘    └──────┘

Anti-Rationalization

This is the single thing that separates it from "agent with a system prompt."

Agent SaysWhat Happens
"Code looks correct, skip tests"Exit gate requires test output. Blocked.
"Trivial change, no verification"Hook blocks completion without evidence.
"Similar to before"Skill demands case-specific proof.
"User is in a hurry"Protocol overrides time pressure.
"I'm confident"Gate demands exit code, not assertion.

Hooks fire automatically. Gates block completion. Skills encode counter-arguments at every skip-worthy step. The agent verifies or it doesn't finish.

For what I do, the difference is enormous. If you're doing simple single-file edits, maybe less so.

Knowledge Work Is First-Class

The same routing serves knowledge work. The content engine researches, drafts in a calibrated voice, validates against 397 AI patterns, and repurposes finished pieces for each platform. /html turns any request into a single self-contained HTML file: report, slide deck, prototype, data viz, diagram. Non-engineers who try the toolkit consistently name the HTML artifacts as the thing they love. No code, no setup beyond the installer.

It Proves Its Own Changes

Changes to the toolkit itself ship with evidence. New skills get blind A/B tests against a no-skill baseline before merge. Routing and writing-standard decisions carry measured verdicts; PHILOSOPHY.md cites the numbers. Experiments that lost go into the negative-results registry, what-didnt-work.md; the registry now covers routing reversals, unvalidated A/B citations, and disabled lint rules alongside the original program refutations.

The automated nightly evolution loop (/evolve, writes to evolution-reports/) ran regularly through mid-May 2026. It is currently dormant; recent evidence has come from manual PRs instead.

Installation

git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git ~/vexjoy-agent
cd ~/vexjoy-agent
./install.sh

Links into ~/.claude/ and mirrors into ~/.codex/, ~/.factory/, ~/.reasonix/ — each mirror only when that runtime is detected (its command on PATH or its home dir already exists). The installer asks symlink (live updates via git pull) or copy (stable snapshot).

Want only part of the toolkit? Run ./install.sh --configure to pick which skills, agents, and hooks install, or copy .local.example/profile.yaml to .local/profile.yaml and edit. No profile file = full install, unchanged behavior. Credit: @thomasvan. Details: .local.example/README.md.

CLIEntry Point
Claude Code/do
Codex$do
Factory/do
Reasonix/do

Full setup: docs/start-here.md

Codex CLI Parity

Mirrors agents, skills, and supported hooks into ~/.codex/. The original six-hook allowlist was correct for Codex v0.114, when tool hooks only intercepted Bash. Current support requires Codex v0.144.1+ and classifies the 74 Claude hook registrations as 26 native, 35 adapter-backed, and 13 unsupported (61 supported). These are registration counts, not unique hook files. The installer also preserves explicit per-subagent model routing for GPT-5.6 Sol by setting the MultiAgent V2 compatibility keys documented in openai/codex#31814.

Codex now exposes apply_patch to tool hooks. VexJoy's adapter converts each patch operation into the Write/Edit payload expected by existing guards, but it cannot intercept writes performed through unified_exec, unmatched MCP tools, WebSearch, or other unsupported tool paths. PreCompact and Stop adapters also receive less telemetry than Claude Code: Codex does not provide Claude's conversation_history or session_data. This is expanded compatibility, not full Claude parity.

After install or any hook-definition change, run /hooks in Codex and review the new definitions before trusting them. Codex hash-trusts hook commands and skips changed, unreviewed definitions.

Gemini CLI / Antigravity CLI Support (removed)

Gemini CLI support removed (deprecated upstream, transitioned to Antigravity CLI); Antigravity support pending CLI maturity. Per Google's transition announcement, Gemini CLI stops serving requests on 2026-06-18 for Google AI Pro / Ultra and free Gemini Code Assist for individuals. Gemini API integrations (image-gen backends, sprite pipeline, GEMINI_API_KEY) are unaffected and stay in the toolkit.

If a prior install mirrored into ~/.gemini/, remove the stale mirrors with:

rm -rf ~/.gemini/skills ~/.gemini/agents ~/.gemini/hooks ~/.gemini/scripts ~/.gemini/antigravity/plugins/vexjoy-agent
Factory CLI Support

Mirrors agents (as "droids"), skills, and all hooks into ~/.factory/. Hook config merges into ~/.factory/settings.json with paths rewritten.

Reasonix Support

Mirrors skills, scripts, and the allowlisted hooks (scripts/reasonix-hooks-allowlist.txt) into ~/.reasonix/ (no agent or custom-command surface, so neither is installed; the /do router rides in as a skill). Reasonix fires only 4 events (PreToolUse, PostToolUse, UserPromptSubmit, Stop), so only hooks for those events are allowlisted. Hook config is written to the hooks key of ~/.reasonix/settings.json in Reasonix's native flat shape (one entry per hook, match regex over the tool name); the generator builds absolute python3 commands, so no path rewrite is applied. MCP/model/permissions in ~/.reasonix/config.json are user-owned and left untouched.

Token-saving mode

The toolkit supplies its own routing, domain knowledge, methodology, and enforcement. The default system prompt duplicates most of that.

claude --system-prompt "."

Strips built-in tool-use instructions. The toolkit's agents, skills, hooks, and CLAUDE.md provide equivalent coverage.

Four Layers

LayerCountDoes
Agents44Domain knowledge: idiom tables, failure mode catalogs, error-to-fix mappings
Skills122Phased methodology with gates. Can't skip steps. Each phase has exit criteria requiring evidence.
Hooks78Fire on lifecycle events. Block incomplete work. Zero LLM cost.
Scripts136Determinism: test runners, linters, validators. No LLM judgment.

Full skill catalog: docs/skills.md.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  SKILL.md                                       │
│  ┌─ Frontmatter ─────────────────────────────┐  │
│  │ triggers, pairs_with, success-criteria     │  │
│  └────────────────────────────────────────────┘  │
│  Reference Loading Table (conditional imports)   │
│  Phased Instructions (numbered, with gates)      │
│  Verification (evidence requirements)            │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Built with the Toolkit

A game built entirely by Claude Code using these agents, skills, and pipelines:

Choose Your Path

I just want to use it Install, learn /do, done.

I do knowledge work Writing, research, data analysis, moderation, HTML artifacts. No code.

I'm a developer Architecture, extension points, adding agents and skills.

I'm an AI power user Routing tables, pipelines, hooks, telemetry DB.

I'm an AI agent Machine-dense inventory. Tables, paths, schemas.

I'm on LinkedIn 🚀 Thought leadership. Agree? 👇

Philosophy

  • Zero-expertise operation. Say what you want. The system classifies, dispatches, enforces, delivers.
  • LLMs orchestrate, programs execute. Deterministic work belongs to scripts. LLM judgment handles design decisions, diagnosis, review.
  • Density. Every word carries instruction, rule, or decision. Cut everything else.
  • Breadth over depth. Right context ensures correctness. Unfocused context adds cost.
  • Structural enforcement. Exit codes enforce what instructions can't. Quality gates are automated, not advisory.
  • Everything pipelines. Complex work decomposes into phases. Phases have gates. Gates prevent cascading failures.

Full design philosophy: PHILOSOPHY.md

Maintenance

One report-only script surfaces upkeep work; it prints a digest and never edits, deletes, or blocks.

  • python3 scripts/stale-skill-scan.py --top 20 ranks stale skills and agents as pruning candidates. Run it quarterly; see docs/deprecation-template.md.

Scheduled work follows the same boundary as everything else: judgment uses agents; repeatable plumbing uses scripts.

NeedUse
Run a deterministic command on a schedulescripts/agent-scheduler.py with runner: "command"
Run an agent judgment on a schedule, webhook, or file changescripts/agent-scheduler.py with the default runner: "claude"
Install or remove a user crontab entry safelyscripts/crontab-manager.py
Audit shell cron reliabilitycron-automation
Keep one interactive objective moving until criteria verifyobjective-loop

Contributing

See CONTRIBUTING.md.

License

MIT. See LICENSE.

内容与创作数据与 AI

低风险

  • 来源需自行核对维护者身份。
  • 未检测到明显脚本安装指令。
  • 可能需要外部 token、网络权限或第三方服务。
  • 未检测到高风险命令。
  • 扫描发现:0 条。

Codex — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/business/marketing" 文件夹复制到 Codex 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Codex — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Codex 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Codex 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/business/marketing" 文件夹复制到 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Claude Code — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Claude Code 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Claude Code 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/business/marketing" 文件夹复制到 Cursor 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

Cursor — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Cursor 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Cursor 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/business/marketing" 文件夹复制到 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

GitHub Copilot — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 GitHub Copilot 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 GitHub Copilot 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — Git Clone 安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 克隆仓库:git clone https://github.com/notque/vexjoy-agent.git
  3. 将 "skills/business/marketing" 文件夹复制到 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中。
  4. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。

Windsurf — 手动复制安装

  1. 安装前请先查看来源仓库和风险报告。
  2. 从源仓库下载 SKILL.md 及相关文件。
  3. 在 Windsurf 的 skills 目录中创建新文件夹。
  4. 将所有 skill 文件复制到新文件夹中。
  5. 重启 Windsurf 让新的 skill 生效。
查看 SKILL.md 原文
name: marketing
description: "Marketing: SEO audits, campaign planning, content strategy, email sequences, competitive analysis, brand review, performance reporting."
routing:
  triggers:
    - "marketing"
    - "SEO"
    - "campaign"
    - "content strategy"
    - "email sequence"
    - "brand review"
    - "competitive analysis"
    - "marketing performance"
  not_for: "executive strategy, build-vs-buy calls, or growth positioning decisions (use business-ops) — this is tactical marketing execution, not C-suite decision support"
  category: business
  force_route: false
  pairs_with:
    - business-ops
user-invocable: true

Marketing

Umbrella skill for marketing workflows: SEO audits, campaign planning, content strategy, email sequences, competitive analysis, brand review, and performance reporting. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand -- this skill detects the mode, loads the right references, and executes the appropriate framework.

Scope: Marketing strategy, content, and analysis. Use business-ops for executive-level growth decisions, voice-writer for voice-calibrated content, publish for blog pipeline mechanics, and research-pipeline for formal multi-source research.


Reference Loading Table

Classify the user's request into exactly one mode before proceeding. If the request spans multiple modes, choose the primary one and note the secondary.

ModeSignal PhrasesReference
SEO_AUDITSEO audit, keyword research, content gaps, technical SEO, on-page analysis, competitor SEOreferences/seo-audit.md
CAMPAIGNCampaign plan, product launch, lead gen, awareness campaign, channel strategy, budget allocationreferences/campaign-planning.md
CONTENTContent strategy, editorial calendar, content framework, funnel mapping, blog structure, content typesreferences/content-strategy.md
EMAILEmail sequence, drip campaign, nurture flow, onboarding emails, re-engagement, email automationreferences/email-sequences.md
COMPETITIVECompetitive analysis, competitor research, battlecard, positioning comparison, market landscapereferences/seo-audit.md (competitor section) + references/campaign-planning.md (positioning)
BRANDBrand review, voice check, style guide, messaging consistency, tone auditreferences/content-strategy.md (voice section)
PERFORMANCEMarketing report, performance analysis, campaign results, metrics summary, ROI analysisreferences/campaign-planning.md (metrics section)

Load the reference(s) required by the detected mode. Always load references/llm-marketing-failure-modes.md regardless of mode — it contains detection heuristics and concrete examples for every marketing failure pattern below.


LLM Failure Modes

See references/llm-marketing-failure-modes.md for the complete failure mode catalog (generic copy, keyword stuffing, fabricated metrics, hallucinated competitor data, tone mismatch, vanity metrics, template regurgitation, unsubstantiated claims, channel-agnostic recommendations, recency bias). Universal failure modes in skills/shared-patterns/llm-domain-failure-modes-base.md.


Mode: SEO_AUDIT

Framework: RESEARCH -> AUDIT -> PRIORITIZE

Phase 1: RESEARCH -- Gather keyword and competitive data.

Inputs required:

  • URL or domain (or topic for keyword-only research)
  • Audit type: Full site audit | Keyword research | Content gap analysis | Technical SEO check | Competitor SEO comparison (default: full site)
  • Target keywords (optional)
  • Competitors (optional -- identify 2-3 via web search if not provided)

Load references/seo-audit.md for the full methodology.

Execute keyword research:

  • Classify by intent: informational, navigational, commercial, transactional
  • Assess: primary keywords, secondary keywords, long-tail opportunities, question-based keywords
  • Estimate difficulty and opportunity relative to the site's current authority

Gate: Keywords classified by intent. Competitors identified.

Phase 2: AUDIT -- Evaluate the site against SEO fundamentals.

On-page: title tags, meta descriptions, H1/H2 structure, keyword usage, internal linking, image alt text, URL structure. Technical: page speed, mobile-friendliness, structured data, crawlability, broken links, HTTPS, Core Web Vitals, indexation. Content gaps: competitor topic coverage, content freshness, thin content, missing content types, funnel gaps, topic cluster opportunities.

Guard against keyword stuffing (see failure modes). Keyword density > 2% is a finding, not a recommendation.

Gate: All audit sections completed with evidence.

Phase 3: PRIORITIZE -- Produce actionable output.

Output:

  1. Executive summary (3-5 sentences: biggest strength, top 3 priorities, overall assessment)
  2. Keyword opportunity table (15-25 keywords, sorted by opportunity score)
  3. On-page issues table (page, issue, severity, fix)
  4. Content gap recommendations (topic, why it matters, format, priority, effort)
  5. Technical SEO checklist (check, pass/fail/warning, details)
  6. Competitor comparison matrix (dimensions x competitors x winner)
  7. Prioritized action plan: Quick Wins (this week, <2 hours each) and Strategic Investments (this quarter)

Gate: Every recommendation has expected impact, effort estimate, and dependencies.


Mode: CAMPAIGN

Framework: BRIEF -> PLAN -> CALENDAR

Phase 1: BRIEF -- Define objectives and audience.

Inputs required:

  • Campaign goal (drive signups, increase awareness, launch product, generate leads, re-engage churned users)
  • Target audience (demographics, roles, industries, pain points, buying stage)
  • Timeline with fixed dates
  • Budget range (optional)

Load references/campaign-planning.md for channel selection, budget allocation, and metrics frameworks.

Define: campaign name, one-sentence summary, SMART primary objective, secondary objectives. Build audience profile: "[Role] at [company type] struggling with [pain point] looking for [outcome]. Discovers solutions through [channels], cares about [priorities]."

Guard against generic messaging (see failure modes). Core message must reference the specific audience pain point, not a generic benefit.

Gate: SMART objective stated. Audience profile complete with pain points and channels.

Phase 2: PLAN -- Design channel strategy and content.

Channel strategy: for each recommended channel, state why it fits the audience and objective, content format, effort level, budget allocation (if budget provided). Cover owned (blog, email, social), earned (PR, influencer, community), and paid (SEM, social ads, display).

Key messages: core message (one sentence), 3-4 supporting messages tied to pain points, proof points, and message variations by channel.

Content pieces needed: asset name, type, description, priority, timeline.

Success metrics: primary KPI with target, 3-5 secondary KPIs, tracking method, reporting cadence.

Guard against vanity metrics (see failure modes). Every KPI must connect to a business outcome.

Gate: Channel strategy justified. Metrics tied to business outcomes. Content assets listed with priorities.

Phase 3: CALENDAR -- Build the execution timeline.

Week-by-week content calendar:

WeekContent PieceChannelOwner/NotesDependenciesStatus

Calendar rules: start with milestones, work backward, map content to funnel stages, batch by theme, balance channels, leave 20% flexibility.

Include: risks and mitigations (2-3), budget allocation breakdown (if budget provided), next steps with immediate action items.

Gate: Calendar complete. Dependencies mapped. Budget allocated (if applicable).


Mode: CONTENT

Framework: AUDIT -> FRAMEWORK -> MAP

Phase 1: AUDIT -- Assess current content state.

Inputs required:

  • Content type (blog, social, email, landing page, press release, case study, or strategy-level)
  • Topic or theme
  • Target audience
  • Key messages (2-4)

Load references/content-strategy.md for templates, writing patterns, and SEO fundamentals.

If strategy-level: audit existing content volume, channels, performance, publishing cadence, and audience engagement. Identify the binding constraint: Discovery, Content quality, Conversion, Retention, or Capacity.

Gate: Current state understood. Binding constraint identified (if strategy-level).

Phase 2: FRAMEWORK -- Select and apply the right content framework.

For individual content pieces, apply the appropriate template from references/content-strategy.md:

  • Blog: headline options (2-3), hook, 3-5 sections with subheadings, conclusion with CTA, SEO recommendations
  • Social: platform-specific format, hook in first line, hashtags, engagement prompt
  • Email: subject line options (2-3), preview text, scannable body, one primary CTA
  • Landing page: headline/subheadline, value props, social proof placement, CTA hierarchy
  • Press release: headline, dateline, lead paragraph (who/what/when/where/why), boilerplate
  • Case study: title with result, challenge/solution/results structure, customer quote placeholder

SEO for web content: primary keyword in headline + first paragraph + one subheading + meta description. 2-3 internal links. 1-2 external authority links. Keyword density < 2%.

Guard against generic copy (see failure modes). Every headline must be specific to the audience and topic. "Unlock the power of [X]" is rejected.

Guard against template regurgitation (see failure modes). Content must reflect user's specific audience, product, and constraints.

Gate: Content drafted. SEO recommendations attached (for web content). No generic phrasing.

Phase 3: MAP -- For strategy-level requests, build the content plan.

Editorial calendar: content types, topics, channels, cadence, funnel stage mapping. Distribution strategy: primary channels, repurposing plan, promotion tactics. Funnel mapping: awareness content, consideration content, decision content -- identify gaps.

Gate: Content plan covers all funnel stages. Cadence matches capacity. Distribution strategy defined.


Mode: EMAIL

Framework: ARCHITECT -> DRAFT -> OPTIMIZE

Phase 1: ARCHITECT -- Design the sequence structure.

Inputs required:

  • Sequence type: Onboarding | Lead nurture | Re-engagement | Product launch | Event follow-up | Upgrade/upsell | Win-back | Educational drip
  • Goal (what the sequence achieves)
  • Audience (who receives it, what stage, segmentation)
  • Brand voice (if configured, apply automatically; otherwise ask)

Load references/email-sequences.md for sequence templates, branching logic, and benchmarks.

Define: narrative arc (story across all emails), journey mapping (each email to a buyer/user stage), escalation logic (how intensity builds), success definition (what action triggers exit).

Recommended email count and cadence by type:

  • Onboarding: 5-7 emails over 14-21 days
  • Lead nurture: 4-6 emails over 3-4 weeks
  • Re-engagement: 3-4 emails over 10-14 days
  • Win-back: 3-5 emails over 30 days
  • Product launch: 4-6 emails over 2-3 weeks

Gate: Sequence type selected. Email count and cadence defined. Narrative arc documented.

Phase 2: DRAFT -- Write each email.

For each email produce:

  • Subject line: 2-3 options, varied approaches, under 50 characters
  • Preview text: 40-90 characters, complements (not repeats) subject
  • Purpose: one sentence
  • Body copy: full draft, hook/body/CTA structure, short paragraphs, personalization tokens
  • Primary CTA: button text and destination
  • Timing: days after trigger or previous email
  • Segment/condition notes: who receives, who skips

Guard against generic copy (see failure modes). Subject lines must not be interchangeable between companies.

Guard against tone-deaf messaging (see failure modes). A win-back email is not a product launch email. Tone must match the emotional context.

Gate: All emails drafted. Subject lines specific. Tone matches sequence stage.

Phase 3: OPTIMIZE -- Add branching, testing, and benchmarks.

Sequence logic:

  • Branching conditions (opened but not clicked -> softer re-ask; clicked CTA -> skip ahead)
  • Exit conditions (conversion defined and enforced)
  • Re-entry rules, suppression rules

Flow diagram (text-based):

[Trigger] --> Email 1 (Day 0)
                |
          Opened? --Yes--> Email 2 (Day 3)
                |              |
                No        Clicked? --Yes--> [EXIT: Converted]
                |              |
                v              No
          Email 1b (Day 2)     v
                +--------> Email 3 (Day 7)

A/B test suggestions: 2-3 tests with what to test, split method, success metric.

Performance benchmarks:

MetricOnboardingLead NurtureRe-engagementWin-back
Open rate50-70%20-30%15-25%15-20%
CTR10-20%3-7%2-5%2-4%
Conversion15-30%2-5%3-8%1-3%
Unsubscribe<0.5%<0.5%1-2%1-3%

Gate: Branching logic defined. Exit conditions explicit. Benchmarks set.


Mode: COMPETITIVE

Framework: RESEARCH -> COMPARE -> RECOMMEND

Phase 1: RESEARCH -- Gather competitor intelligence.

Inputs required:

  • Competitor name(s)
  • Your company/product context (recommended)
  • Focus areas (messaging, product, content, pricing, market presence -- default: all)

Research using web search:

  • Primary sources: website (homepage, product, pricing, about, careers), blog, social, press releases
  • Secondary sources: review sites (G2, Capterra), analyst reports, news coverage, community forums

For each competitor: one-sentence positioning, target audience, size/stage indicators, recent developments.

Guard against hallucinated competitor data (see failure modes). Every claim must come from a search result or user-provided data. Include dates.

Gate: All competitors researched from verifiable sources. Data dated.

Phase 2: COMPARE -- Build structured comparisons.

Messaging analysis: tagline, core value prop, messaging themes (3-5), tone characterization, how they describe the problem. Product positioning: category, emphasized features, claimed differentiators, pricing approach. Content strategy: blog frequency, content types, social presence, thought leadership themes.

Messaging comparison matrix:

DimensionYour CompanyCompetitor ACompetitor B
Primary tagline
Target buyer
Key differentiator
Tone/voice
Core value prop

Content gap analysis: topics they cover that you don't, formats they use that you don't, audiences they reach that you don't.

Gate: Comparison matrix complete. Gaps identified with evidence.

Phase 3: RECOMMEND -- Actionable positioning and next steps.

Positioning gaps to exploit. Messaging angles unclaimed by competitors. Audience segments underserved. 3-5 actionable recommendations split into quick wins and strategic moves.

Optional battlecard output: quick overview, their pitch, honest strengths, weaknesses, your differentiators, objection handling table, landmines to set/defuse.

Gate: Recommendations grounded in comparison data. No fabricated intelligence.


Mode: BRAND

Framework: LOAD -> REVIEW -> REVISE

Phase 1: LOAD -- Establish review criteria.

Inputs required:

  • Content to review (pasted, file path, or URL)
  • Brand guidelines source (configured, user-provided, or generic review)

Load references/content-strategy.md for voice attribute frameworks and style guide patterns.

Gate: Content loaded. Review criteria established.

Phase 2: REVIEW -- Evaluate against brand standards.

With brand guidelines: voice/tone alignment, terminology compliance, messaging pillar consistency, style guide compliance. Without guidelines: clarity, consistency, professionalism. Always check: unsubstantiated claims, missing disclaimers, comparative claims, regulatory language, testimonial issues.

Output as findings table:

IssueLocationSeveritySuggestion

Severity: High (contradicts brand, compliance risk), Medium (inconsistent but not damaging), Low (minor style issue).

Guard against unsubstantiated claims (see failure modes). Flag every superlative without evidence.

Gate: All issues identified and severity-rated.

Phase 3: REVISE -- Provide actionable fixes.

Before/after for top 3-5 highest-severity issues. Legal/compliance flags listed separately. Overall assessment: alignment quality, biggest strengths, most important improvements.

Gate: Revisions provided. Compliance flags separated.


Mode: PERFORMANCE

Framework: GATHER -> ANALYZE -> RECOMMEND

Phase 1: GATHER -- Collect performance data.

Inputs required:

  • Report type: Campaign | Channel | Content | Overall marketing | Custom
  • Time period
  • Data source: user-provided metrics (paste, CSV, key numbers)
  • Comparison period (optional)
  • Stakeholder audience (optional -- executive summary vs. detailed)

Load references/campaign-planning.md for metric definitions and benchmarks.

If user has not provided data: prompt with "Please paste or share your performance data. I can work with spreadsheets, CSV data, or just the key numbers."

Guard against fabricated metrics (see failure modes). All performance data comes from the user or connected tools.

Gate: Data received from user. Report type and time period confirmed.

Phase 2: ANALYZE -- Interpret the data.

Key metrics dashboard:

MetricThis PeriodPrior PeriodChangeTargetStatus

Status: On track | At risk | Off track.

Trend analysis: directional trends (4+ periods), inflection points, seasonality, anomalies, leading indicators. What worked: top 3-5 wins with data and replication hypothesis. What needs improvement: bottom 3-5 with diagnosis and recommended fixes.

Attribution context: clarify what model is in use. Note limitations. Last-touch understates awareness channels; first-touch understates conversion channels.

Gate: Trends identified with evidence. Wins and misses attributed to causes.

Phase 3: RECOMMEND -- Prioritize next actions.

For each recommendation: what to do, why (linked to data), expected impact, effort, priority.

Impact/effort matrix:

Low EffortHigh Effort
High ImpactDo firstPlan next sprint
Low ImpactDo if timeDeprioritize

Next period focus: top 3 priorities, tests to run, metric targets.

Report formatting: tables for data, bold key numbers, executive summary suitable for forwarding. Detailed appendix for granular data.

Gate: Recommendations linked to data. Priorities ranked. Next-period targets set.


Error Handling

ErrorCauseSolution
No audience contextUser says "write a blog post about X" without who/whyAsk for audience, pain point, and desired outcome before generating
Generic outputDraft uses cliche marketing phrasesReject and rewrite with specifics. Check against failure modes table.
Unverifiable competitor claimsNo search results support the claimState explicitly what could not be verified. Never fill gaps with plausible fiction.
Metrics without contextNumbers presented without comparison or trendAlways include prior period, target, or benchmark for context
Keyword stuffing in recommendationsSEO advice over-optimizes for densityCap at 1-2%. Natural language first.
Tone mismatchSame voice for incident response and product launchCheck situation context. Adjust tone while keeping brand voice consistent.
Scope creep across modesRequest spans 3+ modesPick the primary mode. Complete it. Offer secondary mode as follow-up.
Data fabrication requestUser asks "what would good metrics look like"Provide benchmark ranges with sources. Never present benchmarks as the user's actual data.

References

ReferenceWhen to LoadContent
references/seo-audit.mdSEO_AUDIT mode: keyword research, on-page analysis, technical SEO, content gaps, competitor benchmarkingFull audit methodology with intent classification, technical checklist, competitor comparison framework
references/campaign-planning.mdCAMPAIGN and PERFORMANCE modes: audience segmentation, channel strategy, budget allocation, success metrics, timeline planningChannel selection matrices, budget frameworks, metrics by campaign type, reporting templates
references/content-strategy.mdCONTENT and BRAND modes: content frameworks, writing patterns, editorial calendar, voice documentation, style enforcementContent type templates, SEO fundamentals, headline formulas, CTA patterns, brand voice frameworks
references/email-sequences.mdEMAIL mode: sequence architecture, subject line patterns, engagement metrics, A/B testingSequence type templates, branching logic, flow diagrams, benchmark tables
references/llm-marketing-failure-modes.mdAll modes (load selectively): where LLMs fail at marketing tasksDetailed failure taxonomy with examples, detection heuristics, and mitigation strategies

发现问题?提交给管理员复核

评分:

评论 (0)

暂无评论,成为第一个评论者吧!