Artificial Societies (societies.io) platform help — a synthetic-audience simulator that models a target audience as a network of AI personas who influence each other on a social graph, so you can pre-test how a post spreads and predict engagement before publishing. Its self-serve product simulates your LinkedIn audience, scores content, and returns results in ~30s-2min; the enterprise Radiant tier builds 300-5,000-persona societies from first-party CRM/research data. Use when running a Societies simulation, pre-testing a LinkedIn/marketing post, interpreting its engagement score or the R-squared 0.78 / 95%-accuracy claims, or choosing Free (3 credits) vs paid Pro vs enterprise. UI-only — no public API, webhooks, or Zapier; a predicted engagement score is a directional pre-test, not real demand. Do NOT use for comparing synthetic-research/validator tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), or the pure-play interview-study tool with a public API (use /sales-syntheticusers).
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Artificial Societies (societies.io) platform help — a synthetic-audience simulator that models a target audience as a network of AI personas who influence each other on a social graph, so you can pre-test how a post spreads and predict engagement before publishing. Its self-serve product simulates your LinkedIn audience, scores content, and returns results in ~30s-2min; the enterprise Radiant tier builds 300-5,000-persona societies from first-party CRM/research data. Use when running a Societies simulation, pre-testing a LinkedIn/marketing post, interpreting its engagement score or the R-squared 0.78 / 95%-accuracy claims, or choosing Free (3 credits) vs paid Pro vs enterprise. UI-only — no public API, webhooks, or Zapier; a predicted engagement score is a directional pre-test, not real demand. Do NOT use for comparing synthetic-research/validator tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), or the pure-play interview-study tool with a public API (use /sales-syntheticusers).
argument-hint
[describe what you need help with in Artificial Societies]
license
MIT
version
1.0.0
tags
["sales","validation","pre-launch","platform"]
Artificial Societies Platform Help
Artificial Societies (societies.io, YC W25) is a synthetic-audience simulator. Where the other
synthetic-research tools run interviews against independent AI participants ([[sales-syntheticusers]],
[[sales-imario]]) or let you chat with one data-grounded persona ([[sales-delve]], Marketing Mary),
Societies models a whole audience as a network — 300 to 5,000+ AI personas placed on a social
graph who react to your content and influence each other, so the output is how a message
spreads and how opinion propagates, not just isolated reactions. Each run takes ~30s–2 min.
Its self-serve product (the LinkedIn-audience simulator, "Reach") is built for pre-publishing a post
or message: pick or build a target audience, paste your content, and get an engagement score plus
alternate variations to compare — its headline claim is an R²=0.78 fit to real LinkedIn engagement
(personas are built from LinkedIn data). The enterprise Radiant tier builds purpose-built societies
from first-party CRM/qual/quant data with follow-up qualitative interviews, SSO/SCIM, SOC2/GDPR.
It is not demand. The founders say it plainly — "synthetic audiences should never replace listening
to real people." A predicted engagement score is a directional pre-test that can produce false
positives (a bad message can still score high). Use it to shortlist and sharpen; earn the go/no-go
from real behavior.
Step 1 — Gather context
If references/learnings.md exists, read it first for accumulated platform knowledge.
Ask only what you can't infer:
What do you want from Artificial Societies?
A) Run a simulation and interpret the result — the engagement score, the network reactions, the variations
B) Pre-test a specific LinkedIn/marketing post or message before publishing
C) Understand the accuracy claims (R²=0.78, 95% opinion accuracy, 90% coherence) and how much to trust them
D) Pick a plan — Free (3 credits) vs Pro ($40/mo) vs Team vs enterprise Radiant
E) Automate/export programmatically (API reality)
What's the real question — "how do I use this tool?" or "should I build/ship this?" If it's the
go/no-go decision or a validator comparison, that's /sales-idea-validation (a synthetic score is not
demand) — route in Step 2.
The $40/mo self-serve product tests ; Radiant builds
data-grounded societies for larger studies. Answer for the tier the user is actually on.
Self-serve or enterprise?
content/messaging
Skip-ahead: if the user wants to compare synthetic-research tools or the validate-before-building
method, route to /sales-idea-validation immediately.
Step 2 — Route or answer directly
If the user's question is about…
Route to
Comparing Societies vs other synthetic-research/persona/validator tools, or the go/no-go decision
/sales-idea-validation {question}
The pure-play synthetic-interview study tool (multi-participant studies, with a real public API)
/sales-syntheticusers {question}
A reusable Synthetic Individual across many jobs (memory, Pro-gated API)
/sales-imario {question}
Building the real smoke-test landing page to measure demand
/sales-funnel {question}
Actually posting/scheduling the content once it's tested (LinkedIn/social)
/sales-social-media-management {question}
Turning tested messaging into a real content program
/sales-content {question}
When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: /sales-idea-validation {original question}"
Otherwise, answer Societies-specific questions using Step 3.
Step 3 — Artificial Societies platform reference
Read references/platform-guide.md for the full reference — the two products (self-serve
LinkedIn/audience simulator vs enterprise Radiant), how a simulation works (persona network on a social
graph, opinion propagation, ~30s–2 min runs, content variations), how to define an audience
(demographics / professional targeting / first-party data), the accuracy claims and their caveats
(R²=0.78 LinkedIn, 95% opinion-distribution, 90% coherence — all vendor self-reported), the pricing
tiers (Free 3 credits → Pro $40/mo → Team → enterprise Radiant), and the no-public-API automation
reality plus how to read a synthetic result honestly.
Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump the full reference.
Step 4 — Actionable guidance
Treat the engagement score as a directional pre-test, not demand. The score is a synthetic
prediction — personas modeled from public/social data reacting to your content. It's genuinely useful
for A/B pre-testing messaging (which of two hooks lands, where an argument loses people), and the
R²=0.78 LinkedIn fit is a real signal — but it is not a stranger taking an action. Have the user
keep the comparative read (variation A beats B, this claim triggers pushback) and take the go/no-go
from real behavior — a live post's actual engagement, a smoke test, a pre-sale. Route the real test to
/sales-idea-validation and /sales-funnel.
Use it for relative comparison, not absolute truth. Its strength is ranking variations against
each other; its weakness is false positives on absolute scores (the founders' own example: a
non-working service scored 81, a working one 88 — both "high"). Tell the user to trust "B > A" more than
"88/100 = good," pick the winning variation, then validate it for real.
Match the product to the job. The self-serve tool (a tiny Free tier — 3 credits + a 2-week
trial — then Pro ~$40/mo unlimited; flag prices as best-effort to confirm on societies.io) tests
content and messaging against a LinkedIn-style audience — perfect for a solo founder pre-testing a post.
Radiant (enterprise, contact-sales) is for data-grounded studies on first-party CRM/research
data with follow-up interviews — overkill for a solo maker with no data to ground it in. Don't send a
solopreneur to the enterprise tier.
Define the audience as tightly as you can. Accuracy depends on the society matching your real
audience — use demographic (age/gender/location/income/education) and professional (company/industry/job
title) targeting, or first-party data on enterprise. A generic society gives a generic prediction; a
precisely-specified one is the whole point. Flag when the user's audience is too vague to simulate well.
There's no public API — don't plan an integration around it. If asked to automate, batch, or pipe
results elsewhere, say plainly there's no documented public API, no webhooks, no Zapier/Make, no MCP
(the docs.societies.io subdomain doesn't resolve). The self-serve product is browser-only; enterprise
Radiant ingests first-party data but exposes no public developer API. The thing worth automating is
the real signal (published-post engagement, landing-page conversions), not the simulated score.
If you discover a gotcha or tip not in references/learnings.md, append it there with today's date.
Gotchas
Best-effort from research (2026-07) — Societies' products, pricing, and accuracy claims move; verify at societies.io.
A synthetic engagement score is not demand. The founders say synthetic audiences "should never
replace listening to real people." Use it to pre-test messaging; earn the go/no-go from real behavior.
False positives are the failure mode. A bad message can still score high (81 vs 88 in the founders'
own example) — trust relative comparisons between variations far more than any absolute number.
Accuracy claims are vendor self-reported. R²=0.78 (LinkedIn engagement), 95% opinion-distribution
accuracy, 90% persona coherence — none independently audited. Treat as marketing until verified.
Personas skew to public/LinkedIn data. The R²=0.78 fit is for LinkedIn engagement specifically;
generalizing to other channels or niche/offline audiences is weaker (the founders flag this).
Two products, very different access. Self-serve (societies.io) = $40/mo, content/message testing.
Radiant = enterprise, contact-sales, first-party-data societies. Don't quote enterprise capabilities to
a self-serve user or vice versa.
No public API, no webhooks, no Zapier/Make/MCP. It's UI-only; there's no supported way to script,
batch, or export programmatically. docs.societies.io does not resolve.
Free tier is tiny. 3 credits + a 2-week trial, then Pro at $40/mo for unlimited simulations —
confirm current terms on societies.io before relying on them.
Related skills
/sales-idea-validation — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method + the full synthetic-research and validator landscape (use this to decide build-or-not and to compare Societies against iMario/Synthetic Users/Delve; a synthetic score is not demand)
/sales-syntheticusers — Synthetic Users platform help (the pure-play synthetic interview-study tool — multi-participant AI interviews with a real public REST API; contrast its independent-participant studies against Societies' influence-network simulation)
/sales-imario — iMario platform help (reusable Synthetic Individuals with persistent memory across six jobs, Pro-gated API; the reusable-persona cousin to Societies' one-shot network runs)
/sales-delve — Delve AI platform help (analytics-connected data-grounded personas + Digital Twins you chat with; contrast a single chattable persona against Societies' whole-audience network)
/sales-funnel — Build the smoke-test / fake-door landing page that measures the real demand a synthetic score only predicts
/sales-social-media-management — Actually publish and schedule the content once Societies has helped you pick the winning variation
/sales-do — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code
Examples
Example 1: "Societies scored my LinkedIn post 88 — should I post it?"
User says: "I ran my launch announcement through Artificial Societies and it scored 88. Is that good enough to publish?"
Skill does: Explains the score is a synthetic prediction, useful for comparison but prone to false positives on absolute numbers (the founders' own example: a non-working service scored 81, a working one 88 — both "high"). Advises running two or three variations and trusting "B beats A" over the raw 88, then picking the winner. Notes the R²=0.78 LinkedIn fit means the relative read is trustworthy, but real engagement on the live post is the actual signal — and if this is really a build-or-not question, routes to /sales-idea-validation.
Result: The user pre-tests variations, ships the winner, and reads the real post's engagement as the truth.
Example 2: Free vs Pro vs enterprise Radiant
User says: "I'm a solo founder. Do I need the enterprise version of Societies, and what does it cost?"
Skill does: Maps the tiers — Free (3 credits + 2-week trial) → Pro ($40/mo, unlimited simulations) for self-serve content/message testing → Team → enterprise Radiant (contact-sales, first-party-data societies with follow-up interviews). Explains Radiant is for data-grounded studies a solo maker has no data to ground yet, so Pro is the right tier for pre-testing posts. Flags prices as best-effort to confirm on societies.io.
Result: The user picks Pro and skips an enterprise sales call they don't need.
Example 3: Can I automate Societies via API? (developer/automation)
User says: "I want to run posts through Societies from a script and pull the scores into my own dashboard."
Skill does: States plainly there's no documented public API, no webhooks, no Zapier/Make, no MCP — the docs.societies.io subdomain doesn't resolve and the self-serve product is browser-only; enterprise Radiant ingests first-party data but exposes no public developer API. Suggests that if a pipeline is required, the thing worth automating is the real signal — published-post engagement (a social API) or landing-page conversions — not the simulated score, and points to /sales-social-media-management and /sales-funnel.
Result: The user avoids building on a non-existent API and automates the real signal instead.
Troubleshooting
The score feels high even for a message I know is weak
Symptom: Societies returns an encouraging engagement score for content that flopped or feels off.
Cause: Synthetic personas modeled from public data over-predict plausible-sounding content; absolute
scores carry false positives (the founders' own 81-vs-88 example).
Solution: Stop reading the absolute number as a verdict. Run multiple variations and use Societies
for the relative comparison (which variation wins), then validate the winner with real behavior — a
live post's engagement or a smoke test via /sales-idea-validation and /sales-funnel.
The prediction doesn't match my real audience
Symptom: Reactions don't look like how your actual audience responds.
Cause: The society is too generic or the R²=0.78 fit is LinkedIn-specific and you're testing a
different channel/niche.
Solution: Tighten the audience definition (demographics + professional targeting, or first-party data
on enterprise) so the society matches your real audience; treat non-LinkedIn or niche/offline predictions
as weaker, and always confirm against a small real test.
I want an API or a way to export/automate
Symptom: Want to script Societies or pull scores into another system.
Cause: Societies has no documented public API, webhooks, or iPaaS connectors; docs.societies.io
does not resolve.
Solution: There's no supported programmatic path — the self-serve product is used in the browser.
Automate the real signal instead (published-post engagement, landing-page analytics), and see
/sales-idea-validation and /sales-funnel.
