| name | ethical-persuasion-design |
| description | Use when creating or improving persuasive copy, launch offers, fundraising appeals, onboarding prompts, sales pages, calls to action, or behavior-change messages where the goal is effective persuasion without deception, coercion, fake proof, fake scarcity, or overstated authority. |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"version":"0.1.0","displayName":"Ethical Persuasion Design","category":"Marketing","tags":"influence,persuasion,ethics,copywriting"} |
Ethical Persuasion Design
Design persuasive requests by matching a real user benefit with truthful cues that help the audience decide. Use Influence principles as evidence-routing tools, not as shortcuts to bypass judgment.
Quick Start
- Read
guidelines.md to choose the smallest useful reference set.
- Load
references/persuasion/knowledge.md for concepts and references/persuasion/rules.md for operating rules.
- Use
workflows/design-persuasive-request.md for repeatable tasks.
- For audits, surface both the active influence cue and the ethical rewrite.
Contents
| File | Purpose |
|---|
| references/persuasion/knowledge.md | Core concepts and source-grounded definitions |
| references/persuasion/rules.md | Rules, boundaries, and practical guidelines |
| references/persuasion/examples.md | Bad/better examples for applied situations |
| references/persuasion/smells.md | Red flags and anti-patterns to detect |
| references/persuasion/checklist.md | Fast review checklist |
| workflows/design-persuasive-request.md | Create persuasive messaging that is useful, credible, and agency-preserving. |
Operating Principles
- Use only honest evidence. Do not invent popularity, scarcity, credentials, endorsements, or social connection.
- Separate helping a good decision from pushing a shortcut response. If the cue is counterfeit, treat it as a red flag.
- When rewriting, preserve user agency: add context, alternatives, and enough time to decide when stakes are meaningful.
Output Pattern
- Diagnosis - name the influence principle or cue.
- Evidence Check - state what proof supports or is missing from the cue.
- Risk - explain manipulation, trust, or decision-quality risk.
- Rewrite or Recommendation - provide an ethical alternative.
Validation
Use the prompts in evals/evals.json as smoke tests. A good result identifies the relevant Influence principle, preserves user agency, and avoids fabricated evidence or coercive pressure.
