content-writer

name	content-writer
description	Write marketing content in the user's brand voice using PAS (Problem-Agitate-Solution) and AIDA (Attention-Interest-Desire-Action) copywriting frameworks. Use when the user asks to write a LinkedIn post, blog article, email, ad copy, landing page section, social post, newsletter, or any short-to-medium form marketing content. Reads brand voice and ICP from knowledge/ so the output sounds like the company, not like generic AI. For improving copy that already exists, see copy-review. For a landing page specifically, see landing-page-writer. For a LinkedIn post, see linkedin-post. For long-form POV, see thought-leadership-writer.
metadata	{"grounded_in":["Breakthrough Advertising - Eugene Schwartz","The Copywriter's Handbook - Robert Bly","Building a StoryBrand - Donald Miller"],"reads":["knowledge/brand/voice.md","knowledge/icp/personas.md","knowledge/markets/positioning.md","knowledge/content-library/","knowledge/services/"],"writes":["output/content-writer/"]}

content-writer

Writes marketing content in the company's voice for the company's ICP. Every piece is structured around PAS or AIDA - not just written well, but architecturally sound for conversion.

Choosing the structure: awareness first

PAS and AIDA are not interchangeable, and picking by taste is the most common failure in this skill. Pick by where the reader already is, using Eugene Schwartz's awareness stages from Breakthrough Advertising (1966):

Reader is	Structure	Why
Unaware or problem-aware	PAS	They need the problem named and sharpened before any solution lands
Solution-aware or product-aware	AIDA	They accept the problem; the work is attention, interest and desire for this answer
Most aware	Neither, go straight to the offer	Structure is overhead when they are ready

Schwartz's second axis: market sophistication

Awareness is about the reader. Sophistication is about the market, specifically how many times this reader has already heard a claim like yours. Schwartz's five stages, each with the move that still works at that stage:

Stage	State of the market	The move that works	The move that is already dead
1	You are first with this claim	State the claim plainly and bluntly	Nothing yet, plain wins
2	Competitors are making the same claim	Enlarge the claim, be bigger and more specific than them	The plain claim, it is now background noise
3	Nobody believes the claim any more	Lead with the mechanism, how it actually works	Any promise, of any size
4	Competitors have copied the mechanism	Elaborate the mechanism, make yours more precise and more provable	The bare mechanism
5	The reader disbelieves the whole category	Lead with identification, who this is for and who they become	Claims and mechanisms both

Decision rule: ask the user how many direct competitors say roughly the same sentence in their hero copy. Zero to one is stage 1-2, so write the promise. Three or more is stage 3-4, so open with the mechanism. If the user says buyers are cynical about the whole category, treat it as stage 5 and open with identification. If you do not know, ask before drafting, do not guess.

Bly's craft layer

Robert Bly's The Copywriter's Handbook supplies the section-level craft. Two of his models are used directly here.

The 4 U's, applied to every headline and every subject line. Score each on a 1-4 scale:

U	Question	Fails when
Urgent	Is there a reason to read this now?	Timeless and therefore skippable
Unique	Has the reader seen this exact sentence before?	It could sit on a competitor's page unchanged
Ultra-specific	Are there numbers, names, and a concrete situation?	"Improve your results"
Useful	Is there a clear benefit to the reader, not to the brand?	The benefit is that the brand launched something

Threshold: a headline must score 3 or 4 on at least three of the four U's. If it scores 2 or below on Ultra-specific, rewrite it before anything else, because specificity is the U that carries the other three.

Bly's motivating sequence for anything longer than a headline: get attention, show the need, satisfy the need by positioning the offer as the answer, prove it, ask for action. If a draft has no proof step, it is a claim with a button on the end.

Where the piece must carry the brand's story rather than a single offer, use the customer-as-hero structure from Donald Miller's Building a StoryBrand, and see /messaging-framework.

Frameworks

PAS - Problem, Agitate, Solution (Dan Kennedy)

PROBLEM: Open by naming the exact problem the reader has. Specific, not vague. "You're spending 3 hours a week in reporting that no one reads" beats "reporting is hard."

AGITATE: Twist the knife. Make the problem feel real, costly, and urgent.

• What does it cost them? (time, money, credibility)
• What does it feel like to live with this problem?
• What happens if it stays unsolved for another year?

The agitation section must actually hurt. If it reads mild, it's not working.

SOLUTION: Introduce the solution after the pain has been established. Not before. The solution lands harder because the reader now knows why they need it.

Why PAS works: readers are motivated by pain more than gain (loss aversion). Establishing the problem first makes the solution feel necessary, not optional.

AIDA - Attention, Interest, Desire, Action (Elias St. Elmo Lewis)

ATTENTION: Stop the scroll. The first line or headline must interrupt pattern. It cannot be a warm-up.

INTEREST: Build interest by connecting to what they care about. Make it relevant to this reader's specific situation - not all readers in general.

DESIRE: Create want. Show the outcome, the transformation, the result. Not the feature - the life after using it.

ACTION: Tell them exactly what to do next. One action, specific, low-friction. "Book a 20-min call" beats "get in touch."

When to use each

Audience state	Formula	Best for
Pain-aware (they know the problem)	PAS	Blog intros, email openers, LinkedIn posts about problems
Not-yet-aware (problem is latent)	AIDA	Ads, landing pages, cold outreach
Longer form	PAS to open + AIDA to close	Full blog posts, sales emails, case study narrative

Check before writing: Is the audience pain-aware or not? This determines the formula.

Pain-aware signal: they actively complain about or search for this problem. Not-yet-aware signal: they'd need to see the problem framed before recognizing it.

When to use

• "Write a LinkedIn post about X"
• "Draft a blog intro on Y"
• "Write an email announcing Z"
• "Give me 3 ad headline variants"
• "Write the hero copy for our landing page"

Inputs needed

• Topic or angle (required)
• Format: LinkedIn post, blog, email, ad, landing page section, social caption (required, ask if unclear)
• Length: short / medium / long (optional, default to format-typical)
• CTA: what action you want the reader to take (optional)

Process

1. Load context:

   • Read knowledge/brand/voice.md. If missing, stop and say: "I need your brand voice. Run /brand-context or paste 3+ past pieces into uploads/ and rerun."
   • Read knowledge/icp/personas.md. If missing, ask the user to describe the audience in one line.
   • Read knowledge/markets/positioning.md if the topic relates to product or service.
   • Skim knowledge/content-library/ for 2-3 past pieces on similar topics. Mirror their structure.

2. Determine audience awareness and select formula, then state both axes explicitly before drafting:

   Schwartz awareness stage: <unaware | problem-aware | solution-aware | product-aware | most-aware>
   Schwartz sophistication stage: <1-5, and the evidence for it>
   Structure selected: <PAS | AIDA | offer-only>
   Opening move: <promise | enlarged promise | mechanism | elaborated mechanism | identification>
   

   Is the audience pain-aware?

   • Yes: use PAS. Open with the problem, agitate, then solve.
   • No: use AIDA. Open with attention, build interest, create desire, drive action.
   • Long form: use PAS for the opening section, AIDA for the conversion section.

   Then let sophistication override the opening line only, not the structure. A stage-4 market still gets PAS if the reader is problem-aware, but the solution section leads with the mechanism rather than the promise.

3. Clarify if needed. One question max. Examples: "Long-form blog or short LinkedIn?" "Aimed at CMOs or content marketers?"

4. Draft. Apply the formula structurally:

   PAS structure (pain-aware)

   PROBLEM (10-20% of piece):
   <Name the exact problem. Specific. Use numbers or a scenario.>
   Example: "You wrote the brief. Briefed the agency. Reviewed 3 rounds. The campaign launched.
   And the SQL number didn't move."
   
   AGITATE (20-30% of piece):
   <Make it real. What does this cost them? What does it feel like? What is the trajectory if nothing changes?>
   Example: "Three months later you're in the board meeting explaining why Q3 pipeline missed.
   The campaign was 'awareness.' The numbers say 'waste.'"
   
   SOLUTION (50-70% of piece):
   <Introduce the solution now. It lands harder because the reader already feels the pain.>
   

   AIDA structure (not-yet-aware or conversion-focused)

   ATTENTION (first line / headline):
   <Interrupt. Specific claim, question, or surprising fact. Not a warm-up.>
   
   INTEREST (20-30% of piece):
   <Connect to what they care about. Make it relevant to their specific situation.>
   
   DESIRE (40-50% of piece):
   <Show the outcome. The life after. Specific results, not features.>
   
   ACTION (closing):
   <One action. Specific. Low-friction. Time-bound if possible.>
   

Format-specific defaults

Format	Length	Formula	Structure
LinkedIn post	80-200 words	PAS or AIDA	Hook (1 line), body (3-5 short paragraphs), CTA or question
Blog intro	100-150 words	PAS	Problem, agitate, what this post solves
Blog (full)	800-1500 words	PAS open + AIDA close	H1, intro, 3-5 H2 sections, CTA conclusion
Email	80-150 words	PAS	Subject line, 1-line hook (problem), body (agitate), single CTA (solution)
Ad headline	5-10 words each	AIDA (Attention only)	Generate 5 variants
Landing hero	1 H1 + 1 sub	AIDA	H1 = Desire (outcome), sub = how you get there

Rules

• Match knowledge/brand/voice.md exactly. If the brand uses contractions, use them. If not, don't.
• Never invent statistics, customer quotes, results, or product capabilities. If a number would strengthen the piece and you do not have one, write [SOURCE NEEDED: <what>] and tell the user. Product claims come only from knowledge/services/, which step 1 loads.
• "Make the pain hurt" means describe the real cost specifically, not invent a figure for it. A fabricated cost in the agitation section is the most persuasive false claim in the whole piece.
• If the user's request conflicts with brand voice (e.g. they ask for emojis but the brand avoids them), flag it and ask.
• The formula is structural, not cosmetic. Don't write good content in the wrong order.
• PAS agitation that is mild is worse than no PAS. Make the pain real or skip to AIDA.

Stop conditions

Do not produce a draft when any of these is true. Say which one, and what you need.

1. No brand voice file and no sample pieces. Stop. The output will be generic and the user will rewrite all of it. Ask for /brand-context or three past pieces.
2. The user asks for a number the knowledge base does not contain. Do not invent it, do not estimate it, do not pattern-match one from an example in this file. Write [NEEDS INPUT: <the exact figure needed>] and name it in your reply.
3. The requested claim is regulated (health outcome, financial return, legal effect, employment, safety). Draft it, mark it [LEGAL REVIEW], and say it must not ship unreviewed.
4. The user names two CTAs. One piece, one action. Ask them to pick, and say why: two actions split attention and neither gets taken.
5. The topic is a competitor comparison and knowledge/markets/ has nothing on that competitor. Comparative claims made from memory are the fastest route to a correction letter.

Warning signs in your own draft

Ranked worst first. The first two are ship-blockers, the rest are rewrite prompts.

1. A specific figure you cannot point at a source for. Blocker.
2. A named customer, quote, logo or result the user did not supply. Blocker.
3. The agitation section could be pasted into a competitor's post unchanged. The problem is not specific enough to be worth solving.
4. The hook restates the topic rather than opening a gap. Rewrite the first line only.
5. More than one CTA, or a CTA with no verb ("more info").
6. Long-form draft with no proof step anywhere, which is Bly's motivating sequence broken.

Related skills

• /copy-review for grading and fixing copy that already exists rather than writing new copy
• /landing-page-writer for a full page, where SB7 replaces PAS and AIDA as the spine
• /linkedin-post for a post that needs a named hook formula and platform-specific length rules
• /thought-leadership-writer when the piece needs to defend a contestable thesis at 1200 words or more
• /newsletter-writer when the piece is one issue of a recurring publication with a fixed spine
• /ad-campaign-writer when the output is paid ad variants rather than owned content
• /brand-context first, whenever knowledge/brand/voice.md does not exist yet
• /messaging-framework when the same words need to hold across every asset, not just this one
• /content-repurposer after this piece ships, to turn it into other formats

What this skill cannot know

These are real limitations of this skill. It cannot resolve them from the knowledge base, so ask the user or emit [NEEDS INPUT: <what>] rather than filling the gap.

1. Whether a figure in knowledge/ is still current. A conversion rate or price written six months ago reads exactly like one written yesterday. Ask when the number was last confirmed before putting it in public copy.
2. Whether a named customer has agreed to be named. Consent lives in a contract or an email thread, not in the content library. A logo sitting in knowledge/ is not evidence of consent for this specific piece.
3. How sophisticated the market actually is. Schwartz's stage is a judgement about what competitors are currently saying. This skill cannot see their live pages, so the stage has to come from the user or from a fetched page, never from assumption.
4. Whether the claim needs legal, medical or financial review in the user's market. Rules differ by jurisdiction and by channel. Flag it, do not adjudicate it.