landing-page

name	landing-page
description	Writes complete landing-page copy section by section — headline options, lead, mechanism, proof, offer, FAQ, and CTA blocks — with a design note per section. Use when the page needs copy a designer can build from directly, not a wireframe full of placeholders.
argument-hint	[the offer + who it's for + where the traffic comes from]

Landing Page — one argument, delivered in sections

A landing page is a single argument. The visitor arrives mid-thought — from an ad, an email, a post — carrying a problem and a doubt. Every section either advances the argument or leaks visitors. This skill writes the argument in order, in the buyer's language, and shows its proof or admits it does not have it.

Inputs

• The offer, the audience, and the traffic source feeding the page: $ARGUMENTS
• From marketing-brief.md if present: the offer, positioning & message, top pains and desired outcomes, objections & beliefs, the language bank (voice-of-customer), any recorded proof and results, and the banned-phrases list.

Do this

1. Fix the entry state. What did the visitor just see, and what do they already believe? An ad click, an email click, and an organic search arrive at different temperatures. The headline continues their thought — it never restarts the conversation.
2. Write five headline options, one per structure, each with its subhead. Recommend one and give the reasoning in a line:
   • Outcome-led — the result, specific, no adjectives doing the work.
   • Problem-led — the pain named so precisely it reads like surveillance.
   • Mechanism-led — the how, for markets tired of big promises.
   • Proof-led — the strongest verifiable number, up front.
   • Identity-led — who this is for, said plainly enough to repel the wrong visitor.
3. Write the lead (the first screen): the problem in the buyer's own words, the cost of leaving it unsolved, and the promise the rest of the page will keep. Language bank, not marketing voice.
4. Write the mechanism section. Why this works when what they already tried did not. Name the mechanism plainly — a believable "how" does more selling than a louder "what".
5. Write the proof section using only evidence from the brief or the user: results, testimonials, demonstrations, credentials. List every proof gap explicitly rather than papering over it.
6. Write the offer block. What they get, the price or the CTA that reveals it, the risk reversal, and urgency only where it is real. No invented countdowns.
7. Write the FAQ from real objections — stated and real, answer-first, 5–8 questions. If the brief's objections section is thin, run /marketing:objection-map first; a FAQ answering questions nobody asks is decoration.
8. Place the CTA blocks — after the lead, after proof, after the offer, at the close. One action, identical everywhere; only the surrounding wording shifts with commitment level.

Output

The full page in section order — headlines with the pick, lead, mechanism, proof, offer, FAQ, CTA blocks — each with a one-line design note (what the section must look like to do its job). End with the proof-gap list: the missing evidence that would most strengthen the page.

Rules

• Headlines may exaggerate curiosity, never facts. The page must cash every cheque the headline writes.
• Evidence over invention: no fabricated testimonials, numbers, or logos. A proof gap named is fixable; a proof gap faked is fatal.
• One CTA action per page. A page asking for two things gets neither.
• Every section advances the argument or gets cut. Length is fine; padding is not.