nmt-craft-go-to-market

name	nmt-craft-go-to-market
description	Write the go-to-market communication for a chosen segment using Ivan Zamesin's AJTBD / Next Move Theory methodology. Input — a /nmt-craft-value-proposition result (best), a /nmt-product-requirements PRD, a /nmt-market-research result, or a manual segment+Jobs description. Output — ready-to-publish landing-page copy, ad/creative copy built on the seven Job-language formulas, and a GTM/growth plan — channel hypotheses, lead magnets, viral loops, cross-sell / upsell / retention messaging. Everything is communicated through the Big Job (motivation), in concrete success criteria not adjectives, with features as proof not message. Use when the user wants landing copy, ad copy, creatives, channel hypotheses, or a launch plan — "write the landing / the copy / the go-to-market". Two modes — Quick (default, no internet) and Deep (subagents + web for real review language). Plain language; defaults to English.
user-invocable	true

Craft Go-To-Market (GTM communication) v1 — English / US edition

New here, or not sure this is the right skill? Start right here — or run /nmt-chat, describe your situation, and it points you to the right one. Quick map: new idea → nmt-market-research · live product or a metric moved → nmt-diagnose · have customer interviews → nmt-analyze-interviews · ready to build → nmt-product-requirements · positioning / launch copy → nmt-craft-value-proposition → nmt-craft-go-to-market.

One breath. This skill turns the value you've already built into the copy that brings in customers — landing copy, ad/creative copy, and a launch + growth plan. It's the last step of the chain and builds on the steps before it; it never invents the segment, the value, or the build. Everything is said through the bigger outcome the customer is really after (their Big Job, where motivation lives), in concrete, measurable terms (success criteria, not adjectives), with features used as proof, not as the message. Copy can carry value, not manufacture it: if the value isn't proven yet, the skill says so up front — it can still write you demand-test copy, just don't scale on it.

Producer contract (binding) — ../PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md. Six cross-cutting behaviors shared by all producer skills, from user feedback: (1) print a helicopter-view before the first question; (2) ask Markdown or HTML output; (3) treat all user input as hypothesis and emit a "risks I see in what you gave me" block; (4) print validation debt and frame the pack as test this messaging, never this will work (GTM has no GO verdict — it inherits the debt of the value it sells); (5) accept a custom output path; (6) Deep mode runs an evidence floor + self-critic loop and offers a web-MCP fallback. The hooks below wire each into this skill; the contract is the source of truth for the wording.

Where this skill sits in the chain

/nmt-market-research → /nmt-craft-value-proposition → /nmt-product-requirements → nmt-craft-go-to-market
(segment + Jobs)    (the value hypothesis)      (the build spec)         (THIS SKILL: the copy
                                                                          that sells the value)

It runs from a plain-English description of your product, your customer, and what you sell — that's a first-class way in, not a fallback. If you've already run an upstream skill, even better: it'll use a /nmt-craft-value-proposition result (best — it carries the positioning headline, the dominant criteria, the moment it clicks for the customer (the Aha moment), the differentiation, the proof), a /nmt-product-requirements PRD (the real functionality, the step-by-step path the customer walks (the Critical Chain of Jobs), where the Aha lands), or a /nmt-market-research result (segment, Big/Core Jobs, competitors, the underserved angle you win on). Either way, it does not re-derive segments, re-invent value, or re-spec the build — it packages what you give it into customer-facing language. (One footer point only: copy can't prove value, so test the value before you scale spend — more below.)

What this skill produces

One file — the GTM communication pack ({product-slug}-craft-go-to-market-result.md), in three reading depths, linked top-to-bottom (so one pack serves the founder skim, the marketer's "why is the copy shaped this way" read, and the methodology audit). The actual copy — landing blocks, ad lines, deal-room assets — is the product; it stays plain and shippable and is never buried or abstracted away. The layering here is lighter than the analysis skills: it adds a quick top layer and a short why-layer above the full pack, and it strips the methodology citations out of the copy itself.

1. Layer 1 — The GTM in one breath (~1 page, zero methodology words, forwardable): the one-liner · the single core message everything routes through · who it's for · the top channel to try first · the one thing to test before scaling — each doubtable line drilling down to its reasoning.
2. Layer 2 — The Plan & why it's shaped this way (1–2 pages, plain English, terms glossed once): why this is the message (what the buyer must come to believe), the landing logic in plain terms, the ad angles to test, the channel plan summary, what to test first — each linking down to the full pack.
3. Layer 3 — The Full Pack (the deliverable in substance — and only the assets you asked for: if you picked just landing + a couple of ads, that's all it writes; it doesn't dump the whole growth pack on you):
   • Part 1 — Landing copy. The full landing-page sequence, ready-to-publish copy, no placeholders.
   • Part 2 — Ad / creative copy. Seven ad angles (each a Job-language formula) with test-variant sets; a visuals brief that shows the after, the result they want (State B); the one-liner used everywhere.
   • Part 3 — GTM / growth plan. Channel ideas to try (each loaded with the few things a buyer must learn or believe to switch — the Consideration Activators); lead magnets that catch them one step earlier (the Previous Job), content and referral loops; cross-sell into the next thing they do (the Next Job), upsell toward the bigger outcome (the Big Job), and retention messaging (a stream of Aha moments, frequency, reusing habits they already have).
   • Appendix — what each asset is doing: which of the five switch-me-over pieces (the Consideration Activators) each asset carries, and which forces of behavior change it works.

Two modes:

• Quick (default, ~10–15 min): one Claude, no internet. Writes all copy from the loaded artifacts + reasoning.
• Deep (opt-in, longer): subagents mine real customer-review language (so the copy uses the words already in the customer's head) and ground the competitor-firing (Consideration-Activators component 5) in real Problems. See "Deep mode" at the end.

---

Methodology — source of truth (progressive loading)

The only source of methodology is the Next Move Theory canon, read at runtime. Don't load all of it up front — read the eager core first, then pull the staged files only when the run reaches the stage that needs them (the same progressive-disclosure pattern Claude skills use with references/). This keeps a Quick run light and lets each Deep-mode agent read only its slice.

This is a public skill — it grounds only in the public canon. Every file below is a published canon file (the set whitelisted in 8-Tools/sync/PUBLIC_MANIFEST.yml); the skill ships to the public mirror, where private files do not exist. Never read or quote any canon file outside the sets below — the per-task algorithms (positioning, conversion, acquisition, retention, average-check) live behind the paywall, and their communication content is folded into the public files below: positioning/landing/creatives in communication.md; conversion in communication.md + customers-attention-management.md + barrier-removal.md; acquisition/cross-sell/retention in job-types-and-properties.md + critical-chain.md + consideration-activators.md. This holds in both repos — even when running inside the Internal repo where those files exist on disk.

Eager core (read before any copy is written — every run):

File	What it powers	~tokens
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/communication.md	The spine of the whole pack: communication transmits validated value (§1); the 7 purchase assumptions (§2); the 3 base messages (§3 — value in criteria, not adjectives); features-are-proof (§4); the one-liner (§5); the 7 creative formulas (§6 — visuals show State B); landing = a short Critical Chain of Jobs (§8 — the canonical landing sequence + the conversion diagnostic); expectation management (§9)	~9k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/consideration-activators.md	The 5 Consideration-Activators components; sources; specific-stories; Class 1 vs Class 2 — loaded across every asset	~5k

Staged — load only at the stage that uses it:

File	Load when	Used by	~tokens
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/behaviour-change.md	reaching the channels / triggers stage (Part 3a)	communicate through the Big Job (§4); the seven triggers / receptivity windows (§8); the forces (§9); Class 1/2 (§10)	~7k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/customers-attention-management.md	reaching the landing taste-of-Aha + acquisition stage (Part 1 block 6, Part 3a)	funnel as attention transitions — first Aha as far left as possible (§6), the Critical Chain of Jobs walk (§7–§8), Move-to-Previous-Job as upstream acquisition (§9)	~6k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/consideration-activators.md (deep) + …/barrier-removal.md	reaching the fear-reduction / competitor-firing stage (Part 1 blocks 7–8, the CA load)	real Barriers vs. fears (§1, §3); separating fears about the Job from fears about our Solution	~4k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/job-types-and-properties.md	reaching the lead-magnet / content / viral-loop stage (Part 3a)	Viral / Orientation Jobs — the job-types behind content marketing, lead magnets, content loops, viral loops	~5k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/critical-chain.md	reaching the cross-sell / Next-Job stage (Part 3a/3b/3c)	Previous Job / Next Job — the chain moves behind acquisition (Previous Job), cross-sell and retention (Next Job)	~6k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/b2b.md	only if the input is B2B (Part 3a deal room)	peer/institutional channels (§4), personal-Job messaging (§5–§6), the deal room (§3)	~5k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/value-creation.md	reaching the upsell / Aha-stream stage (Part 3b/3c)	the value formula behind every criteria claim (§3, §9); move-up-a-level for upsell (§14); the Red Queen value-gap behind the Aha-stream (§6); deferred-value communication (§19)	~8k
Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/job-structure.md	if the headline needs the fidelity-levels treatment	the headline is the Level-3 minimal Job (§15)

Quick mode (one Claude): read the eager core, then pull each staged file the first time the run reaches its stage — not before. Deep mode: each writer agent reads only the files its part needs (Landing → core + customers-attention-management + barrier-removal; Ads → core; GTM → core + behaviour-change + job-types-and-properties + critical-chain + b2b-if-B2B + value-creation). Never have an agent load a file outside its slice.

Path note. If a file is not found at the path above, retry with a 1- prefix on the canon folder (1-Next-Move-Theory-Canon/...) — the source repo orders folders with a numeric prefix that the public repo strips.

Do NOT use generic JTBD from the internet or prior training. Five mis-defaults to never propagate (per project CLAUDE.md): a Job is a desired transition (State A → expected outcome), not "a struggle for progress"; value is energy efficiency measured against the brain's prediction, the Aha Moment is value beating prediction (never PPE/NPE — Rule 22); I want to + verb is the primary element of an eight-element Job (each verb a separate Job — Rule 7); a Problem is a consequence of an underperforming Solution, not a root cause; a Solution is a real thing and a label for the Job Graph it installs.

Methodological invariants — the copy is invalid if any is violated:

• Communicate through the Big Job — motivation lives one level above the Core Job (behaviour-change.md §4, communication.md §3). Exception (Class 1, behaviour-change.md §10): when our Core Job is already familiar to the segment, lead on the Core Job + criteria with the Big Job as reinforcement; when unfamiliar (Class 2), lead on the Big Job and back-fill the Core Job.
• Value in concrete success criteria, never adjectives — "fast / reliable / high-quality" are bullshit-words; ask "as in?" → "car arrives in under 4 minutes," "insured for $30M," "e-filed with error checks." (communication.md §3.)
• Features are proof, not the message — a feature is communicable only after it's attached to a Job and a criterion (communication.md §4). Lead with the Job + value + fear reduction; use features as evidence.
• Never promise a Big Job the product only partially performs — overpromise inflates the prediction and manufactures a Problem; the promise must match what the Critical Chain of Jobs actually delivers (communication.md §9, value-creation.md §6–§7).
• Load all five Consideration-Activators components — new Job Graph; value delta by criteria; named product + entry path; specific fears reduced; competing Job Graph fired (consideration-activators.md §1).
• Communication transmits validated value — if value isn't proven (no sales / no Aha Moment yet), flag it; don't scale copy on a hypothesis (communication.md §1).
• Specific stories beat abstractions (consideration-activators.md §6); visuals show State B, not the process (communication.md §6).

Per CLAUDE.md: every named external source is a clickable Markdown link (Rule 2); two-part disclaimer at the top of the result (Rule 3); US-context analogs + the recognition test — only Tier A/B brands without a one-clause bridge (Rules 6, 19).

---

Plain-language output — segment words first, methodology in parentheses

The reader of this output is a product person, not a methodologist. Write the GTM plan, rationale, and annotations in the plain, everyday language the target segments already use; when a methodology term genuinely adds precision, lead with the plain meaning and put the term in parentheses the first time it appears — never lead a sentence, bullet, or heading with a methodology label. (The customer-facing landing / ad copy itself is of course plain by definition — this rule also keeps the explanations around it jargon-free.)

• ❌ "This banner uses the Trigger → Core Job formula and fires the competing Job Graph…"
• ✅ "This banner is the right-moment angle — it catches them right when they feel the problem, then shows why the usual option falls short (a Trigger → Core Job Job-language formula that also fires the alternative)."

Who reads it — the target segments (the essentials are inline here, so the skill stays self-contained and public-safe): US founders, indie hackers / vibe-coders, growth-stage PMs, senior PMs / VPs, and product marketers. Their vocabulary: PMF, runway, pivot, a niche that pays, ship it, first paying customers, a roadmap I can defend, a metric that moves (not theater), positioning, conversion. Avoid the words they reject: scale fast, 10x, hockey stick, proven framework, growth / funnel hacks, 5 hacks — and methodology jargon as the lead.

Plain ↔ methodology (say the left; add the right in parentheses only when it earns its place): the result they're after (the Job / Big Job) · the biggest task your product does on its own, end to end, and can't go higher right now (the Core Job) · the step-by-step path the customer walks (the Critical Chain of Jobs) · the exact step where they get stuck (a Critical Chain of Jobs break) · the moment it clicks / clearly beats what they expected (the Aha moment) · the bad surprise when a tool does a task worse than expected (a problem) · getting the result for less time, effort, money, or stress than expected (value) · the few things they must learn or believe before switching (Consideration Activators) · a real blocker vs. just a worry (a Barrier vs. a fear) · the assumption most likely to kill this, tested cheap first (the riskiest assumption / RAT). Never write "Positive / Negative Prediction Error" in anything the user reads — say "Aha moment" / "problem".

Precision still holds in the methodology layer. Job-grammar discipline (Jobs as "I want to + verb," levels named, terms capitalized) governs the internal-reasoning / debug files and any explicit methodology appendix, where full methodology language is expected. The lead the reader sees is plain; the parenthetical and the appendix carry the precise terms.

Link references/glossary.md once at the top of the GTM pack, right after the disclaimers.

---

Readability rules (the pack is for a marketer who doesn't live in the methodology)

The pack is three reading depths in one file, linked top-to-bottom like canon §-references. The founder skims Layer 1; the marketer reads Layer 2 to understand why the copy is shaped this way; the methodology audit lives in Layer 3. The full template is in "GTM pack structure" below. The rules that make it work:

• Three layers, escalating depth — state each conclusion once per layer, never twice at the same depth. Layer 1 = the GTM in one breath (headline only). Layer 2 = the plan + why it's shaped this way, in plain English. Layer 3 = the full pack (all the copy, the seven-formula tables, the channel plan, the deal room, the CA map). A point made in Layer 1 is a headline; in Layer 2 a plain sentence; in Layer 3 the full asset — three depths, not three copies.
• Drill-down links are mandatory. Every Layer-1 line a reader could doubt carries a ▸ link to its Layer-2 anchor; every Layer-2 claim links to the Layer-3 part that delivers it. Use Markdown anchors: write [why this message ▸](#l2-message) and put <a id="l2-message"></a> above the target; the Layer-3 copy parts carry <a id="l3-landing"></a>, <a id="l3-ads"></a>, <a id="l3-channels"></a>, <a id="l3-dealroom"></a> above them.
• Layer 1 = minimal jargon, plain words lead. Lead every line in plain product English a junior PM gets at a glance. A methodology term may appear in parentheses as a short plain gloss when it helps — but never open a line with a raw term, and keep jargon to a minimum.
• Layer 2 = plain language first, term glossed. On first use, gloss a methodology term in 3–5 words in parentheses — e.g., "the Big Job (the outcome the customer is really after)". Nested or repeated parenthetical glosses are fine — clarity beats purity. The glossary is linked once at the top of the pack. Glossable terms include the sneaky ones — State A/B, Previous/Next/Orientation/Viral Job — gloss each once or don't use it.
• The landing and ad copy in Layer 3 is already plain by definition — keep it clean and shippable. Do not abstract it, do not gloss it, do not wrap it in methodology. The copy is the deliverable. But every claim/number in shippable copy keeps its [VERIFY — source] guardrail until it is proven — a reader copies the copy straight to production, and the top-of-file disclaimer won't stop them from shipping an unproven number.
• Citation fencing — the big fix for this skill. Strip every inline canon citation — (communication.md §8), (b2b.md §1), (consideration-activators.md §1), (behaviour-change.md §…), etc. — out of the copy and out of all surrounding prose. The landing blocks and ad lines must read as clean, shippable copy with no methodology citations inside them. Where the canon reference still matters to the marketer reading the pack, move it into a fenced line at the of a part, styled out of the reading flow, e.g.:

Enforcement gate (these kept getting skipped in real runs — check each before writing the file; full version in ../READABILITY-CONTRACT.md):

• Unique, resolving anchors. Every ▸ drill-down link points to its own unique <a id="…"> that exists exactly once; no two links share a target. Before shipping, list every ▸ target and confirm each resolves.
• [VERIFY] survives into the copy. Every number/claim in landing and ad copy carries its inline [VERIFY — source] tag until proven — do not strip it because the copy "reads cleaner" without it. The earlier run dropped these and a reader would ship unproven numbers.
• Validation flag below the answer, ≤2 lines (see Disclaimers rule above).

---

Output file (one file per run — CLAUDE.md Rule 4)

The skill writes exactly one file. Default location (used unless the user gave a custom output path in intake — PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §5), grouped under the product's folder in the project root (never TMP/ or .claude/):

Skills-Results/{product-slug}/craft-go-to-market/{YYYY-MM-DD_HH-MM}_{product-slug}-craft-go-to-market-result.{md|html}

• Extension follows the chosen output format (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §2): .md (default) or a single self-contained .html (inline CSS, working in-page anchors for the How-to-read jumps + every ▸ drill-down link, <details> for Layer 3 and methodology traces, source links opening in a new tab). HTML carries the identical content — same attribution, disclaimers, three layers, all copy, tables, links — just in a more readable shell; the landing/ad copy stays plain and shippable, with its [VERIFY — source] tags intact. Never write both; one file per run.
• If the user gave a custom path, write the one file there with the same filename pattern.
• Everything internal — the normalized input (source artifacts, segment, Big/Core Jobs + criteria, Aha, competitors, proof, fears), dropped variants, review-mining notes, and the self-critic verdicts — stays in-context; none of it is written to a separate file. The timestamp makes each run's file unique, so reruns never overwrite. Disclaimers (Rule 3) go at the top of this one file.

Attribution (Rule 23). The GTM pack opens with the attribution top-line (the very first content, above the disclaimers) and closes with the attribution block — utm_source=nmt-craft-go-to-market&utm_medium=skill-artifact.

---

S0 — Intake & route

Orientation (helicopter view) — print before the first question (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §1)

Before any question, print this short orientation block in plain words, in the user's chosen language:

What you'll get: one pack — ready-to-publish landing-page copy, ad/creative copy, and a GTM/growth plan (channels, lead magnets, viral loops, cross-sell / upsell / retention messaging). The steps: (1) a few questions + I read your upstream artifact → (2) I write the landing copy → (3) I write the ad/creative copy → (4) I build the channel & growth plan → (5) you get one pack in three reading depths. Where I work vs. where you decide: I write the copy and the channel hypotheses. You pick what to ship and run the field validation — A/B tests, real spend, real conversions. I can't prove a channel or a message works; I can only tell you what to test first. Two modes: Quick (default — no internet, ~10–15 min, reasoning only; good for a first draft) · Deep (opt-in — subagents mine real customer-review language + ground the competitor-firing in real Problems, longer; best on a top model with a web-research MCP). Honest caveat: this packages value into copy — it doesn't prove the value, the message, or the channel. Better copy on an unvalidated value claim only accelerates disappointment. Everything here is a hypothesis until you test it.

Intake depth — ask this first (how many questions, separate from Quick/Deep mode)

Before anything else, ask how deeply to interview the user. This sets the number of intake questions; it is independent of the Quick/Deep research mode (which controls internet + subagents). Print verbatim:

First — how deep should I go? Pick one:

• Just the essentials — I ask the 3–4 questions that matter most, then deliver. Best for a fast first pass or when you're still exploring.
• The full interview — I walk you through everything so we cover the most blind spots and you get the highest-confidence result. Best when the decision is expensive.

On Just the essentials: ask only the input-route question, which assets you need, and the one or two missing facts that block the copy (who it's for · what they get · what they use today and why it's not enough). Infer or defer the rest; flag any inferred input at the top of the result. On The full interview: run the full intake below (claims ledger, hand-off debt, materials, the full normalize step).

Language

Default English. If the user writes in another language, offer to work in it. Hold the choice in context. The copy uses the chosen language; canon files and source URLs stay as-is.

One batched AskUserQuestion

Q1 "What's your input? (all four work — describing it yourself is a fine starting point)"
  - "I'll describe my product + customer in plain English"  → Path D (standalone — first-class)
  - "A /nmt-craft-value-proposition result"   → Path A (richest input if you have it)
  - "A /nmt-product-requirements PRD"          → Path B
  - "A /nmt-market-research result"            → Path C
Q2 "Mode?"
  - "Quick (default — fast, no internet)"
  - "Deep (subagents + web: real review language + competitor firing)"
Q3 (Paths A/B/C) "Path to the result/PRD file?"  → free text; Read it.
Q4 "Which GTM assets do you need?" (multi-select)
  - "Landing copy"  /  "Ad & creative copy"  /  "GTM / growth-communication plan"  /  "All"
Q5 "Output format?" (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §2)
  - "Markdown (default — faster; opens anywhere)"
  - "HTML (a bit slower; easier to read — collapsible sections + working in-page navigation; all source and drill-down links stay clickable)"
Q6 "Where to save the result?" (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §5)
  - default `Skills-Results/{project}/craft-go-to-market/…`  /  or give a folder path to match your repo (e.g., `docs/research/`). One file per run regardless of location (Rule 4).

Normalize the input (held in context)

Extract (and only ask the user for what's genuinely missing):

• Target segment + causal criteria (behaviour/characteristic, not demographics).
• Big Job(s) + their success criteria (the motivation surface — where communication lands). Personal Big Job for B2B.
• Core Jobs + dominant success criteria (direction + level). Class 1 or Class 2? (is the Core Job familiar to this segment? — sets whether copy leads on Big Job or Core Job, behaviour-change.md §10).
• The Aha Moment (the moment the product clearly beats what the customer expected — for the "give a taste on the landing" block and the activation/retention angle).
• Competitive set — direct (Core Job), indirect (Big Job), turnkey — with what each closes poorly (the wedge, for firing).
• Current-Solution Problems & specific fears (for fear reduction + competitor firing).
• Proof — cases, guarantees, logos, comparable results (with source links — Rule 2).
• Validation status — is the value proven by sales/usage, or still a hypothesis? (Gates whether this is "scale the copy" or "demand-test the copy.")

Path D takes your plain-English description and does the methodology shaping for you internally — don't make the user write anything in formal Job grammar. Collect plainly (who it's for · what they get · what they use today and why it falls short · any proof you have), then internally validate against the invariants (split any task that bundles two verbs, turn demographics into real behavior, turn adjective "value" into measurable bars) before writing. Since this run leans on your description rather than a validated upstream artifact, note that at the top of the result — not as a warning that you shouldn't be here, just so you know what to test first.

User materials, claims ledger, hand-off debt, direction confirmation (all paths)

• Materials. Ask once: "Any files or folders with material I should use — a Notion export (markdown), past research, interview notes, existing copy, your current site?" Read what's given; tag everything taken from it [user data] in-context. Existing copy is input to rewrite, not copy to preserve — confirm before reusing any of it verbatim.
• Input-as-hypothesis gate (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §3). Treat every input — the upstream value-prop / PRD / research artifact, the deck, the landing, the user's free-text claims, "our customers say X" — as a hypothesis, never as established fact. A landing page is the team's belief about value, not proof customers want it. Actively hunt the risks inside it (don't just record): for each load-bearing input ask — is this customer-validated, or the team's belief about the customer? Does the stated Job / segment look like the customer's real Job, or the team's projection of it (the most expensive error)? Any internal contradictions, or guesses dressed as data? Hold the findings in context — they become the "What you told me — and the risks I see in it" block in Layer 2 (see the Layer-2 template), with the single worst one surfaced in Layer 1. The GTM copy is the most public artifact in the chain: writing confident landing/ad copy on an unvalidated value claim manufactures a Problem at scale. No copy claim may rest on an unvalidated input without being flagged — connect each such claim to the existing [VERIFY — source] / validation-flag mechanism.
• User-claims ledger. Tag the strong factual claims in the user's input (competitor facts, "our customers say…", channel beliefs) as data / observation / hunch. Copy claims built on an unverified hunch are flagged: a concrete number or comparison in customer-facing copy must trace to data, or it ships as a to-verify placeholder — never as an invented fact.
• Hand-off debt — ask what's since been checked (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §4c). When consuming an upstream artifact (Paths A/B/C), ask the user what from the prior artifact's validation debt has since been validated in the field — e.g., "the value prop you're handing me lists assumptions still to test; which of those have you checked since (sales, interviews, a fake door)?" Re-tag anything still unvalidated and carry it forward: if the value proposition was never validated, the landing copy inherits that debt — say so in the validation flag. Debt travels down the chain; it is not silently dropped.
• Direction confirmation. Before S1, play the understanding back in one short block — "Here's what I understood: {segment, the value we're communicating, validation status + what's still unvalidated from the hand-off, which assets you need}" — and confirm via one (Confirm / Correct).

---

S1 — Write the GTM communication pack

Build Layer 3 (the full pack) first, in the order below — each part references the same Job record, so the one-liner and the Big Job stay consistent across all assets. Then compute Layer 2 (the plan + why), then Layer 1 (the GTM in one breath), LAST from the finished pack, wiring the drill-down links to the Layer-3 anchors. Write the file in final order: top disclaimers (once) → glossary link → How to read this (3 levels, with jump links) → Layer 1 → Layer 2 → Layer 3. Quick mode does this in one pass; Deep mode parallelizes the Layer-3 parts (below).

The file opens with the disclaimers once, then the glossary link:

# Go-To-Market Communication — {product / segment}

<a id="disclaimers"></a>
> **Numerical disclaimer.** All numerical estimates are LLM-generated hypotheses with verification paths. Validate before deciding.
> **Hallucination disclaimer.** Generated by an LLM; may contain hallucinations. For expensive decisions, run real research; do not act on this alone.

*Methodology terms are defined in the [glossary](references/glossary.md).*

How to read this — the three levels

Emitted once, right after the disclaimers/glossary and before Layer 1, so the reader sees the structure and can jump. Plain words only:

## How to read this
Three levels — go as deep as you need:
- **Level 1 — The GTM in one breath** (1 page, plain words): the one-liner, the single message, who it's for, the first channel to try, the one thing to test before scaling. Most readers stop here. [jump ▸](#layer-1)
- **Level 2 — The Plan & why it's shaped this way** (plain English): why this is the message, the landing logic, the ad angles, the channel plan, what to test first. [jump ▸](#layer-2)
- **Level 3 — The Full Pack** (ready-to-ship): all the landing & ad copy, the channel plan, the deal room, and the consideration map. [jump ▸](#layer-3)

Layer 1 — The GTM in one breath

Computed LAST, from the finished Layer-3 pack. Minimal jargon, plain words lead, forwardable (a term may appear in parentheses as a plain gloss, but never opens a line). Each doubtable line drills down to its own unique Layer-2 anchor — never two lines at the same target.

---

<a id="layer-1"></a>
# The GTM in one breath
*One page, plain words — forward this to a co-founder. The full plan and the ready-to-ship copy are below.* — [disclaimer ▸](#disclaimers)

## The one-liner
{the single sentence used everywhere — what it is + what it does + the value in plain words.}

## The one message everything routes through
{in one or two plain sentences: the single thing the buyer must come to believe; every asset carries it.} [why this is the message ▸](#l2-message)

## Who it's for
{the segment in one plain sentence — who they are, not a methodology label.} [the buyer + the validation status ▸](#l2-buyer)

## The channel to try first
{one channel + the moment to catch them, in plain words.} [the channel plan ▸](#l2-channels)

## The one thing to test before scaling
{the single make-or-break thing to prove first — usually whether the value is real, or whether the top channel actually reaches them.} [what to test first ▸](#l2-test)

> **Validation debt:** this pack stands on **{N}** unvalidated assumptions — **{M}** of them fatal (would sink it if wrong): that the value is real, that this message lands, and that the top channel reaches them. The fatal ones are the first things to test. [see them ▸](#l2-input-risks)
> <sub>N = the assumptions the copy rests on (the value claim, the message, each channel + lead-magnet hypothesis, plus anything inherited unvalidated from the upstream artifact); M = those that kill it if wrong. A quick draft on an unproven value claim carries a lot of debt — and this says so honestly.</sub>

> ⚠️ {validation flag — ≤2 lines, placed here below the answer, not above it. This pack has no GO/build verdict: it always reads as **"test this messaging / channel,"** never **"this will work."** "value validated by sales/usage" → these are scale-ready creatives; "value is a hypothesis" (incl. inherited from an unvalidated upstream value prop) → these are demand-test creatives, not facts to scale. Path D → reduced-confidence flag; else name the source artifact and what of its debt is still open.}

Layer 2 — The Plan & why it's shaped this way

Computed after Layer 3, before Layer 1. Plain English, one gloss per methodology term, no big copy blocks (those live in Layer 3). Each subsection carries the <a id> anchor Layer 1 links to, and links down to its Layer-3 part.

---

<a id="layer-2"></a>
# The plan, and why it's shaped this way
*Plain-English reasoning behind the copy. The ready-to-ship assets are in the full pack below.*

<a id="l2-input-risks"></a>
## What you told me — and the risks I see in it
*Everything you gave me — the upstream value prop / PRD / research, your deck, your landing, your numbers — I treated as a hypothesis, not as fact. These are the inputs the copy leans on, and what I'd check before trusting each. Copy is the most public thing you ship — over-promising on an unproven claim creates disappointment at scale.* (Omit this block only if the user provided no claims or materials at all.)

| What you provided / claimed | How I treated it | The risk I see in it | How to check it fast |
|---|---|---|---|
| {claim or material, tagged data / observation / hunch} | {used as hypothesis in {where — the message / a copy claim / a channel}} | {the specific risk — e.g., "this is your stated value, not customer-validated; the real Job may differ, and the headline rests on it"} | {the cheapest falsifying test} |

{If the message, a headline claim, or the validation flag rests primarily on an unvalidated input, say so here in one bold sentence and tie it to the matching `[VERIFY — source]` tag in the copy.}

<a id="l2-message"></a>
## Why this is the message
{what the buyer must come to believe before they switch, in plain words — the better outcome they're really after (the Big Job), and the few things they must learn or believe to switch (the Consideration Activators) for the message to land. Why we lead on this and not on features.} [what each asset is doing ▸](#l3-camap)

<a id="l2-buyer"></a>
## Who it's for — and whether the value is proven yet
{the segment in plain words; whether the value is validated by sales/usage or still a hypothesis (which decides scale-the-copy vs. demand-test-the-copy).}

## The landing logic, in plain terms
{why the page is ordered the way it is — recognize the situation → show the value in concrete terms → prove it → handle the fears → the first small step — in plain words.} [the full landing copy ▸](#l3-landing)

## The ad angles to test
{the handful of angles worth testing first and why, plain.} [all seven ad angles + variants ▸](#l3-ads)

<a id="l2-channels"></a>
## The channel plan
{the top channels, the moment to reach the buyer, and the lead-magnet / content / referral moves, in plain words.} [the full channel plan + deal room ▸](#l3-channels)

<a id="l2-test"></a>
## What to test first
{the single cheapest highest-leverage thing to prove before spending on scale.}

Layer 3 — The Full Pack

The deliverable in substance. Open it with a divider and the heading, then the one-liner part, then Parts 1–3 and the Appendix. All canon citations are fenced into ▸ methodology trace lines at the end of each part — never inline in copy or prose.

---

<a id="layer-3"></a>
# The full pack

## 0. The one-liner (used everywhere)
**`[What it is] + [Core Job(s) it performs] + [value by criteria]`** — one sentence, plain words already in the customer's head.
Examples of the form (not to copy): *Bench — bookkeeping service that categorizes transactions and delivers tax-ready financials for small businesses.* Test: a stranger can repeat what it is, the Core Job, and the value.

Part 1 — Landing copy (full, ready-to-publish)

Emit <a id="l3-landing"></a> above this part. A landing page walks the visitor through a short run of must-clear steps (a short Critical Chain of Jobs); by the end, the result you want is enough belief and motivation for them to take the first step. Write each block as final copy, not a brief — clean, shippable, with no methodology citations inside the copy:

1. Hero — the one-liner + a 1–2-sentence subtitle; the Big Job this page addresses, stated explicitly (and consistent with the PRD/value-prop); CTA copy + what the user gets on click.
2. Focus Jobs — the Core Jobs together with the Big Job they serve.
3. Context & trigger — the visitor recognizes "this is my situation" (the segment's real context + trigger).
4. Value by concrete criteria — how much more energy-efficiently the Jobs land; numbers/thresholds, never adjectives.
5. How it works — the steps as the proof layer (features attached to Jobs + criteria), not as the message.
6. A taste of it working — give a slice of real value right on the page where possible (the moment it clicks — the Aha moment — as early as possible).
7. What's wrong with the current way — why the way they do it today keeps failing them (this fires the competing option in their head).
8. Fear reduction — the specific things they're afraid will go wrong (the "what if…" block): named, then shown prevented / absorbed / reversible / insured / irrelevant. Separate real blockers from worries, and worries about the task from worries about your product.
9. The after — what the result looks and feels like once they get the bigger outcome (the after, the result they want — State B — and the feeling that comes with it).
10. The first step + CTA — name the product, give one concrete first step, keep it low-effort to start (these are the switch-me-over pieces — the Consideration Activators); CTA on every screen.

After the copy, two fenced lines (out of the reading flow):

The sequence is a diagnostic, not decoration — if motivated traffic doesn't convert, name which transition failed (didn't recognize the context / value not concrete / proof didn't connect / a real blocker remained / a fear stayed active / competitor not fired / CTA cost too high before the first Aha).

_{▸ methodology trace. The landing block sequence is a short Critical Chain of Jobs whose State B is enough belief to take the first step (communication.md §8); value-in-criteria-not-adjectives is §3; features-as-proof is §4; the taste-of-Aha places the first Aha as far left as possible (customers-attention-management.md §6); the Problems and fear-reduction blocks fire the competing Job Graph and load Consideration-Activators components 4–5 (consideration-activators.md §1, communication.md §2, barrier-removal.md §3).}

Part 2 — Ad & creative copy

Emit <a id="l3-ads"></a> above this part. Each ad angle is one proven way to package the message — picked from evidence, not inspiration (each is a Job-language formula). For each of the segment's main entry contexts, generate copy across the seven angles, then mark which to test first. The table leads with what the angle does and the example ad line; the formula name is secondary, in parentheses:

#	The angle (what it does)	Example ad line
1	the outcome angle (Core Job for Big Job)	"Find a 2-bedroom so both of you can take calls from home."
2	the concrete-value angle (Core Job + value in criteria)	"See new Austin rentals within 60 seconds of posting."
3	the right-moment / urgency angle (Trigger → Core Job)	"Offer letter signed? Shortlist commute-safe apartments this week."
4	the help-them-decide angle (Orientation Job)	"Compare Austin neighborhoods before you book a tour."
5	the life-after angle (Big Job lived — State B)	"First Monday in Austin: desk set up, commute under 20 minutes."
6	the one-feature angle (Micro Job)	"Turn on instant alerts for 2-bedrooms under $2,800."
7	the fix-what's-broken angle (Problem with current Solution → Core Job)	"Great listing already gone? Get alerts before the open house fills."

• Combine angles when it helps (right-moment + fix-what's-broken + the outcome; the outcome + fear reduction + CTA). Internal check (not shown to the user): every clause still maps to a real task at a named level + a measurable bar; split any line that bundles two tasks.
• Specificity rule — run every adjective through "as in?" before it ships ("fast" → "arrives in under 4 minutes").
• Visuals brief — show the after, the result they want (State B — the result the bigger outcome creates), not the production process; name the feeling that comes with it.
• Produce enough variants to test: generate a strong starter set per context and say what to A/B.

_{▸ methodology trace. The seven creative formulas and visuals-show-State-B are communication.md §6; every clause maps back to a named Job level + criterion (Rule 7, Rule 14).}

Part 3 — GTM / growth communication

Emit <a id="l3-channels"></a> above this part. Three sub-parts, all routed through Jobs:

3a. Channels to try. Per channel × segment, each loaded with the few things a buyer must learn or believe to switch (the Consideration Activators):

Channel	The moment to reach them	What to say (the switch-me-over pieces)	First step (CTA)	Success metric

• Reach them at the moment they're open to switching — when their current way just broke, a life event hit, or a competitor let them down — not during steady-state habit (the receptivity windows).
• Catch them one step earlier: a free tool or piece of content for the task they do right before yours (calculator, estimator, aggregator, guide) — it reaches them sooner and shapes the shortlist they weigh (their consideration set). This earlier task is the Previous Job.
• Content that helps them figure out their options: good content marketing does the customer's research-and-compare work for them and pulls them one step upstream (the Orientation Job). Build a loop where using the product itself creates content that helps the next customer compare — the Aha moment is the fuel.
• Lead magnet: trade a contact for outsized free value (checklist, template, calculator) — people over-value "free."
• Things people do for or with others: if your product gets used in front of other people (decks, docs, boards, Looms), make being seen using it feel good in itself; favor segments where this happens often (these are Viral Jobs).
• B2B (if the input is B2B): route through peer stories, customer-published case studies, conference talks by customers, analyst reports, and trusted-colleague recommendations — not consumer-marketing channels; arm your internal champion with a deal room, and speak to what the buyer personally gets out of it (their personal Jobs), not just the company's.

The deal room (B2B). Arm the champion with: a comparison vs. named competitors, stakeholder-specific objection answers, references in their industry, and a business-case template they can paste into their own deck.

3b. Cross-sell / upsell messaging.

• Cross-sell — the very next thing the customer does after your product's job is done (the Next Job); message it as the natural continuation.
• Upsell — connect to the bigger outcome they're after (their Big Job), move up-market, or bundle.

3c. Retention messaging.

• Keep delivering fresh moments where it clearly beats expectations (a stream of Aha moments), since the bar keeps rising; make the first one happen as early as possible.
• Reuse habits they already have, don't ask them to build new ones; ride rituals they already run.
• Frequency + that next thing they do (the Next Job) — getting customers to do more jobs with you over time is what pushes net revenue above 100%; add ecosystem lock-in where it applies.

_{▸ methodology trace. Receptivity windows + the forces are behaviour-change.md §8–§9; Previous-Job channels and upstream attention capture are critical-chain.md §9.1 and customers-attention-management.md §9; Viral / Orientation Jobs are job-types-and-properties.md; the B2B channels, personal-Job messaging, and deal room are b2b.md §3–§6; cross-sell as the Next Job is critical-chain.md §9.2; upsell as move-up-a-level and the Aha-stream / Red Queen value-gap are value-creation.md §14, §6.}

Appendix — what each asset is doing

Emit <a id="l3-camap"></a> above this part.

• A table: each landing block / ad / channel asset → which of the five things the customer must learn or believe to switch it carries (a better way exists / it's better on what they care about / here's the product + a first step / this fear is handled / the current way's problems are real) — these five are the Consideration Activators.
• The forces of behavior change worked for this segment: which pull each asset uses and which blocker it removes; confirm you're reusing or stepping around an existing habit, never fighting one head-on.

_{▸ methodology trace. The five Consideration-Activators components are consideration-activators.md §1; the forces of behavior change are behaviour-change.md §9.}

---

S2 — Self-critic & summary

Run the self-critic over the draft (Quick: self-critique; Deep: a critic agent), fix in place, keep verdicts in-context. Then in the chat: print Layer 1 (The GTM in one breath) verbatim + a 3–4-line outcome (the one-liner, the Big Job everything routes through, the validation status, the top channel hypothesis) + the file path.

Self-critic criteria (methodology only)

1. Routes through the Big Job (or correctly leads on the Core Job for a Class-1 familiar segment) — not Core-Job steps in isolation.
2. Every value claim is a concrete criterion (direction + level) — no adjectives survive the "as in?" test.
3. Features appear only as proof, attached to a Job + criterion — never as the headline message.
4. No Big Job promised that the product only partially performs — promise matches the Critical Chain of Jobs.
5. All five CA components present across the pack; the competitor is fired on a real Problem, fears are specific.
6. The Aha Moment is a real event (not signup/login) and is given a taste on the landing + used as the retention/WoM engine.
7. Validation status is honest — hypothesis-stage value is flagged as demand-test creative, not scaled fact.
8. Specific stories used; visuals = State B; recognition test passed (Tier A/B brands, or bridged); US-context analogs; no PPE/NPE; disclaimers + clickable source links (CLAUDE.md Rules 2, 3, 6, 19, 22).
9. Step ledger ran — S0 → Layer 3 (Part 1 → Part 2 → Part 3 → Appendix) → Layer 2 → Layer 1 checked off by name (skipping parts the user didn't order is fine — say so); no silent skips.
10. User claims stayed hypotheses — every number or comparison in customer-facing copy traces to tagged data or ships as a to-verify placeholder; no copy fact invented from a user hunch.

• Plain-language-led — the GTM plan and all annotations lead in the reader's own words; methodology terms only in parentheses (never jargon-first); any methodology appendix / debug may stay in full terms.
• Three layers present and correctly leveled — Layer 1 (minimal jargon, plain words lead, terms only in parentheses, forwardable), Layer 2 (plain plan + why, terms glossed, no big copy blocks), Layer 3 (the full pack with all copy intact). No conclusion repeated at the same depth across layers.
• Drill-down links resolve and are unique — every Layer-1 line links to a real Layer-2 anchor; every Layer-2 claim links to a real Layer-3 anchor; every #l2-… / #l3-… target exists exactly once and no two links share a target.
• [VERIFY] survives into the copy — every number/claim in landing & ad copy keeps its inline [VERIFY — source] tag until proven; opaque table headers carry an inline plain gloss.
• Disclaimers once; answer first — the two-part disclaimer at the top only; the validation flag sits below the Layer-1 answer (≤2 lines), not above it; Layer 1 has the one-line pointer; Layer 3 does not repeat the block.
• Citations fenced — landing and ad copy must be citation-free. No canon path or Rule N inline in any copy, in Layers 1–2, or in Layer-3 prose; every canon reference sits in a ▸ methodology trace line at the end of a part. Read the landing blocks and ad lines straight through: they must read as clean, shippable copy.
• Producer contract satisfied (../PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md). Helicopter-view printed before the first question (§1); intake asked output-format (§2) and output-path (§5); HTML run wrote one self-contained .html with working anchors + <details>; the "What you told me — and the risks I see in it" block is present and the input-as-hypothesis gate held (§3); the validation-debt line is in Layer 1 and the pack reads as "test this messaging/channel," never "this will work" (§4); on hand-off, the run asked what of the upstream artifact's debt is now validated and carried the rest forward (§4c); Deep mode met the and offered the (§6).

---

Deep mode (subagents + web)

Same S0 with the human; S1 parallelized and grounded on real customer language. Agents: Agent, subagent_type: "general-purpose", run_in_background: true. Each reads only its canon slice (per "Methodology — source of truth": the eager core plus the staged files its part needs), returns its result in its final message — no files, links sources, and keeps canon citations out of the copy. The orchestrator holds all returns in context and writes the single output file.

Wave 0 (background from start):
  [REVIEWS] Review-language mining — fetch reviews of the competitors/alternatives (G2, Reddit, Product Hunt,
            Trustpilot, Capterra, App Store). Extract the words customers actually use, their specific Problems
            with the current Solution, and 5–10 quotable lines per competitor WITH source URLs. → returns the review language in-message.
            Must meet the evidence floor (a real minimum of distinct sources, or report why fewer); use the web-MCP fallback when the built-in fetch is blocked (see "Deep-mode QA" below).
Wave 1 (parallel, consume the reviews return):
  [LAND]    Landing-copy writer → returns Part 1 in-message
  [ADS]     Ad/creative writer → returns Part 2 in-message
  [GTM]     Channel + growth-comms → returns Part 3 in-message
Wave 2: [CRITIC] adversarial self-critic (the full criteria incl. the layer + citation-fencing checks; fix_instructions; ≤2 rounds, then escalate)
Orchestrator: hold all returns in context; assemble Layer 3 (the full pack) from the part returns; strip any inline canon citations the writers left in the copy and fold them into the per-part `▸ methodology trace` lines; then compute Layer 2, then Layer 1, LAST, wiring drill-down links to the Layer-3 anchors; write the single file (top disclaimers once → glossary link → Layer 1 → Layer 2 → Layer 3); apply critic fixes; chat summary.

Each writer agent reads only its canon slice (Landing → core + customers-attention-management + barrier-removal; Ads → core; GTM → core + behaviour-change + job-types-and-properties + critical-chain + b2b-if-B2B + value-creation) and returns its part with no inline canon citations in the copy — it holds the canon references in its reasoning, and the orchestrator fences them into the methodology-trace lines.

Web caps: review mining ≤12 fetches / ~10 min. Source links mandatory (Rule 2); never invent sources, figures, or fake reviews.

Deep-mode QA — evidence floor + self-critic loop + web-MCP fallback (PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §6)

• Evidence floor (not just a ceiling). The cap is a ceiling; treat the lower bound as a floor. The review-mining leg may not return "done" until it has either pulled a real minimum of distinct sources (a spread across competitors/alternatives, with quotable lines + source URLs) or explicitly reported why fewer were possible (blocked, none exist). "Did two queries and stopped" is a failure state, not a completion — the customer's actual words are the whole point of Deep mode, and thin mining produces generic copy.

• Self-critic loop per leg. After a research/writer leg returns, run a short critic pass asking: enough distinct review sources? is each customer-language claim actually traceable to a fetched source (not invented)? any methodology error (Big-Job-as-segment, features-before-criteria, adjectives that fail "as in?", a Big Job promised the product only partially performs)? gaps left? If it fails, re-run the leg with the gap named — up to 2 extra rounds. Don't ship a leg that failed its own critic.

• Web-MCP fallback. When the built-in fetch is blocked or thin on a needed review source (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, App Store), tell the user once and use a web-research MCP if available:

  Some review sources (e.g., G2, Capterra) block the built-in fetch. For fuller Deep mining, enable a web-research MCP — Firecrawl or Exa (both ship MCP servers) — and I'll use it. Without it, I'll note where review coverage was thin and the copy leans more on reasoning than on real customer language.

  If such an MCP is connected (discoverable via tool search), prefer it for blocked sources; otherwise proceed and flag thin coverage in the self-critic / verification notes.

---

What this skill does NOT do

• Does not pick the segment or size the market → /nmt-market-research.
• Does not invent the value proposition → /nmt-craft-value-proposition.
• Does not write product requirements / the build spec → /nmt-product-requirements.
• Does not validate value — it transmits already-validated value; if value is unproven it produces demand-test creatives and says so.
• Does not run the ad accounts, build the funnel, or buy media — it produces the copy and the channel hypotheses to test.
• Quick mode: no internet, no subagents.

---

> **Update check — do this at the very end (best-effort, ≤2s, never blocks).** After you've finished this skill's work and delivered the result — for a multi-turn chat (e.g. nmt-chat / nmt-diagnose), after your first substantive answer — read the installed version from `.nmt-version` (project root) and run
> `v="$(cat .nmt-version 2>/dev/null)"; curl -fsSL --max-time 2 "https://nextmovetheory.com/version?skill=nmt-craft-go-to-market${v:+&v=$v}"` — on any error or timeout, skip silently. Compare that installed version with the feed's `latest`; if behind, add one line — the `<installed> → <latest>` gap, a one-line summary per newer entry, and "run /nmt-upgrade to update". If versions match or `.nmt-version` is absent, add nothing.