Marketing — Conversion Copy for Landings & Web Pages

The words, not the pixels. Ground in the brand study first, then write copy that is specific, benefit-led, and unmistakably this brand.

This skill owns conversion copywriting: value proposition, headlines, section-by-section landing copy, microcopy, CTAs, email/launch sequences, channel adaptation, and SEO-aware copy structure. The sibling design skill owns the visual/UX (type, color, layout, motion); nextjs owns the build — including rendering in React the Metadata and JSON-LD this skill specifies. Long-form articles, blog posts, or social content systems with no landing/web surface are a content job, not landing copy. When asked for "a landing page", you write the copy.

Brand grounding (read this first)

Hard rule: never produce landing, web-page, or marketing copy without a complete brand study. Generic copy is the failure mode this skill exists to prevent, and the cure is grounding every word in a real, persisted brand profile. An incomplete brand study is a hard STOP, not a warning.

Run this gate before writing a single line of copy:

1. Locate the brand study. Read the project's root CLAUDE.md and look for a ## Brand & voice section linking into 02-DOCS/wiki/brand/ (the harness Karpathy-wiki convention: compiled brand articles live under 02-DOCS/wiki/brand/, raw inputs the user pastes live under 02-DOCS/raw/brand/). If CLAUDE.md is absent, the link is missing, or it points nowhere, treat the study as ABSENT.

2. Check completeness against the checklist in references/brand-grounding.md. The study is complete only when every dimension is filled: brand name & one-line positioning; ICP / audience & their pains & desires; value proposition & differentiation; tone & voice WITH do/don't word lists and 3–5 voice samples pasted from the user's real writing; proof/credibility; offers & primary CTA; channels; SEO keywords. Any empty dimension = INCOMPLETE.

3. If ABSENT or INCOMPLETE, STOP and interview the user. Ask the targeted questions from references/brand-grounding.md, one focused batch at a time (do not dump all questions at once; ask, wait, then continue). Voice samples are mandatory — request 3–5 pieces of the user's real writing; never fabricate a voice. Then:

   • a. Write/update the brand study into 02-DOCS/wiki/brand/ as wiki articles (one article per dimension or a single index.md plus per-dimension articles), following the wiki article format in references/brand-grounding.md, and index it in 02-DOCS/wiki/index.md (the Knowledge map). Save any raw text the user pastes verbatim into 02-DOCS/raw/brand/ and link to it from the article's > Raw: line. Create the directories if they do not exist.
   • b. Add or update a ## Brand & voice section in the root CLAUDE.md linking to the brand study — a short pointer only. Create CLAUDE.md if absent (additive only — never delete existing sections). The exact snippet to insert is in references/brand-grounding.md.

4. Only once the study exists and is complete, proceed. Cite which brand articles you used (e.g. "grounded in 02-DOCS/wiki/brand/value-proposition.md and voice.md") so the user can trace every claim back to the study. Every line you then write must plausibly come from the brand's own writing; if it reads like a different author, rewrite.

If the user explicitly says "skip the brand study, just draft something rough", you may produce a clearly-labelled DRAFT (ungrounded — not brand-checked) and still recommend running the gate before anything ships. That is the only exception, and it must be labelled.

Full completeness checklist, the exact question script (batched), and the persistence format → references/brand-grounding.md.

Copy workflow (the one pass)

Run in order. Each step feeds the next; skipping one shows up as vague copy downstream.

1. Ground. Pass the brand-grounding gate. Load value prop, ICP, voice, proof, offer, channels, keywords from 02-DOCS/wiki/brand/.
2. Lock the value proposition. Fill the value-proposition canvas (jobs / pains / gains → pain-relievers / gain-creators → headline). → references/copy-frameworks.md.
3. Pick the framework by traffic temperature and funnel position: PAS for pain-aware cold traffic; AIDA for broad top-of-funnel; FAB/JTBD for feature → benefit; BAB for transformation/case-study. → references/copy-frameworks.md.
4. Write section by section. Each landing section has one job and one framework. Map your copy to the design skill's section anatomy. → references/landing-copy.md.
5. Write the microcopy and CTAs. One primary CTA per viewport — choice kills conversion — with a value verb on the button ("Start free", not "Submit"), reassurance under it ("No credit card required"), and human empty/loading/error states. → references/copy-frameworks.md.
6. Adapt for channels if the task spans more than the page (email sequence, launch, X/LinkedIn/newsletter). → references/campaigns-and-channels.md.
7. Run the QA gate (below) and scripts/verify.sh. Fix every flag or justify it.

Headlines & value proposition in 60 seconds

The headline is the highest-leverage copy on the page. Build it from the canvas, not from a thesaurus. It has one test: a stranger reads the hero and can say what it is, who it's for, why it's better — within 5 seconds. If it fails, rewrite it before anything else on the page.

VALUE-PROP CANVAS (fill before writing the headline)
Customer job ....... the outcome they're hired to achieve
Top pain ........... the friction that blocks the job today
Top gain ........... what "great" looks like to them
Pain reliever ...... how the product removes that friction
Gain creator ....... the upside the product unlocks
Headline ........... compress the strongest reliever+gain into one line
Subhead ............ who it's for + how it works in one clause + proof if you have it

Headline formula slots (pick one, fill with brand specifics):

• Outcome + timeframe — "Preview every branch in 30 seconds".
• X without Y — "Live previews without a staging queue".
• JTBD — "When you open a PR, get a live URL automatically".
• Specificity — replace an adjective with a number. "Fast" is a claim; "30 seconds" is evidence: "Cut review setup from 20 min to 30 sec".

Bad  — "Revolutionize your workflow with our seamless, cutting-edge platform"
Good — "Ship a fix in 4 minutes — no YAML, no on-call page"

Full canvas walk-through, PAS/AIDA/FAB/BAB/JTBD with Bad→Good rewrites, headline formulas, microcopy & CTA tables → references/copy-frameworks.md.

Landing copy by section

Each section earns its place by doing one job. Cut any section with no job. This maps 1:1 to the design skill's section anatomy — design owns the visual treatment, this skill owns the words inside it. Within every section, climb feature → benefit → proof, stop at the rung the reader cares about (the benefit), and back it with proof.

Section	Copy job	Framework
Hero	State the value prop; pass the 5s test	Outcome + timeframe headline
Social-proof strip	Borrow credibility instantly	Quantified, attributed
Problem / agitation	Name the pain in the reader's words	PAS
Solution	Show the product doing the job	FAB
Features → benefits	Translate each capability into an outcome	FAB / JTBD per item
Objection handling	Preempt the top reason not to buy	"X without Y"
Pricing	Make the choice easy; frame value	Value framing, anchored
FAQ	Answer the real blockers	Question → direct answer
Final CTA	One action, value on the button	CTA verb + reassurance

Bad  (features list) — "Includes automated teardown, RBAC, and audit logs."
Good (benefit-led)   — "Environments tear down on merge, so you never pay for idle infra
                        or clean up by hand."

Full per-section copy patterns, hero variants, social-proof formats, pricing copy, FAQ writing → references/landing-copy.md.

Campaigns & channels

When the task is bigger than the page — a launch, an email sequence, cross-channel messaging. One claim per asset: a post, an email, a section each carry one real claim, not five hedged ones.

• Email sequences: welcome email inside 5 minutes of opt-in (highest open rate of the whole flow); 4-touch starter cadence Day 1 welcome → Day 4 educational → Day 8 case study → Day 12 soft pitch; nurture runs 7–10 emails every 1–2 weeks. One purpose per email. Hold promo language ("free", "limited time") out of early emails to protect deliverability and trust.
• Launch: sequence the beats (tease → reveal → proof → urgency → recap), one claim per beat, every claim traceable to the brand study's proof.
• Channel adaptation: adapt the format to the platform, never resize the same copy. X opens with the sharpest claim; LinkedIn expands just enough for outsiders; newsletter does real work in the first screen.

Full email templates, subject-line patterns, launch arc, X/LinkedIn/newsletter adaptation, SEO-aware structure → references/campaigns-and-channels.md.

SEO & GEO

Keep copy SEO-aware by default: one <h1>, scannable subheads that answer queries, benefit in the first 160 chars. Keyword stuffing lowers AI citation. When the task is the visibility layer itself — ranking on Google/Bing and getting cited by AI engines — go to references/seo-geo.md. It owns technical + on-page SEO, JSON-LD schema, per-engine GEO, and keyword/SERP research.

• SEO = rank in traditional results (Google, Bing). GEO (Generative Engine Optimization) = get cited inside an AI answer (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Gemini/AI Overviews, Claude, Copilot). GEO sits on top of SEO; do both.
• The insight that reframes it: AI engines don't rank pages, they cite sources. Being one of the few sources an answer is built from is the new "ranking #1" — you optimize to be quoted and attributed, not clicked.
• GEO and this skill agree. The top GEO moves (Princeton, KDD 2024) are cite sources, add statistics, add quotations, authoritative tone — the same "specificity beats adjectives, no invented proof, one claim per asset" discipline this skill enforces everywhere else. Keyword stuffing lowers AI citation (~−10%). The proof rule is absolute: never fabricate the stat or quote that earns the lift — mark [[NEEDS PROOF]] and source it.
• Audit first, free, no API: python3 scripts/seo_audit.py "https://yoursite.com" reports title/description lengths, single-<h1>, JSON-LD count, load time, robots/AI-bot access, sitemap.
• Crawler reality (2026): OAI-SearchBot/Claude-SearchBot/PerplexityBot (+ the *-User fetchers) earn citations; GPTBot/ClaudeBot are training crawlers — independently controllable. INP replaced FID in Core Web Vitals (Mar 2024; ≤ 200 ms good).

Full GEO method table, robots.txt template, schema library, per-engine factors, keyword workflow, and SEO/GEO QA gate → references/seo-geo.md. Implementing schema/Metadata in code → nextjs.

The ban-list

State once, enforce everywhere. These are defects, not style: they signal AI-template copy and erode trust. scripts/verify.sh greps for them.

revolutionary · game-changer · cutting-edge · world-class · unlock · seamless · elevate · supercharge · next-level · "In today's landscape" · "In today's fast-paced world" · bait questions ("Tired of slow deploys?") · "not X, just Y" / "not just X" · forced lowercase as a style · "Excited to share" · hollow proof ("thousands trust us") · generic CTAs ("Learn more", "Click here", "Submit") · fake urgency with no real deadline.

Bad  — "Excited to share our game-changing, world-class platform!"
Good — "We rebuilt deploys around one CLI step. Here's what changed: 22 min → 90 sec."

The brand study's do/don't word lists EXTEND this list per project — always apply both.

Anti-patterns

Anti-pattern	Why it fails / the fix
Skipping the brand study because "I know the brand"	Your default voice is AI-median. Run the gate; cite the articles.
Leaning on the image and letting the copy stay vague	Copy carries the value prop. Pass the 5s test in words.
Reaching for adjectives to sound premium	They make it sound generic. Replace with a number or mechanism.
Listing every feature "so they see the value"	Feature dumps bury the benefit. Climb to benefit, back with proof.
Dropping in any testimonial to fill the proof slot	A vague rave < one hard number. Quantify and attribute.
Five CTAs "to give them options"	Choice kills conversion. One primary action per viewport.
Hype words because "they test well"	They erode trust and trip the ban-list. Specificity converts.
Inventing a plausible metric to fill a gap	Never. Mark [[NEEDS PROOF]] and ask the user.
Reusing the same copy on X and LinkedIn	Resize ≠ adapt. Different format per platform, same claim.

Copy QA gate

Run before claiming done. scripts/verify.sh automates the greppable subset.

• Brand study located, complete, and cited (which articles grounded this copy).
• Hero passes the 5-second test (what / who / why-better legible fast).
• Exactly one <h1>; subheads scannable and query-answering.
• Every claim is specific (number / mechanism / receipt), not an adjective.
• Copy climbs feature → benefit → proof; lands on the benefit.
• One primary CTA per viewport; value on the button; reassurance microcopy present.
• One claim per asset — no post, email, or section carrying five hedged ones.
• No invented proof; every gap marked [[NEEDS PROOF]].
• Voice matches the brand study's samples and do/don't lists.
• Ban-list words absent (global list + brand don't-words).
• No passive-voice hedging or weasel words where a direct claim belongs.
• Email subjects match the body (no bait-and-switch); promo language held out of early emails.
• Channel copy adapted per platform, not resized.
• Title 50–60 chars, meta description 120–160, benefit in the first 160 chars.

Automate → scripts/verify.sh (read-only grep gate; warns by default, --strict to gate CI).