| name | sales-funnel |
| description | Drafts, reviews, and advises on sales-funnel copy (hero, CTA, landing page, about page, lead magnet, pricing page, email sequence, manifesto, webinar) using Russell Brunson's DotCom / Expert / Traffic Secrets frameworks — Hook-Story-Offer, Epiphany Bridge, Value Ladder, Application Funnel, Attractive Character, New Opportunity vs Improvement Offer, Big Domino, False Belief Patterns, Stack Slide, Hormozi Value Equation, Schwartz awareness levels, Soap Opera Sequence. Use when the user asks to write copy, draft a hero, rewrite the landing page, generate sales copy, write a CTA, write a lead magnet, write the about page, improve the homepage wording, fix the copy on X, draft an email sequence, OR asks a review/advise question about an existing artefact they present (a markdown doc, an i18n file, a pasted block of copy, a URL) such as "what would you change of X based on Y", "review this landing page", "is this hook strong", "which framework for...". Product-agnostic — loads project-specific context (services catalogue, brand voice, per-language native-voice rules) from the project's docs/ folder before responding. |
| argument-hint | ["lang (ca|es|en|all) | @path/to/file | https://url | \"pasted text or question\""] |
| allowed-tools | Read Grep Glob Edit Write AskUserQuestion WebFetch |
Sales Funnel Copywriting, Review, and Advice
Draft, review, or advise on high-converting sales copy for any marketing surface using Russell Brunson's frameworks. The skill is product-agnostic: framework theory lives in references/, and project-specific knowledge (what the project sells, how it talks, which languages it supports) lives in the project's docs/ folder and is read on demand.
The skill accepts any artefact the user presents — a file path, a pasted block of text, a URL, a doc referenced by @path — reads it first, then answers from framework knowledge.
Framework reference files
Pick the right file for the surface being drafted. Each file is self-contained, theory-only, and cross-links to the others where relevant.
references/dotcom-secrets.md — landing-page mechanics: Secret Formula, Hook-Story-Offer, Epiphany Bridge (5 beats), Value Ladder, Application Funnel, common failure modes. Load this for heroes, service detail pages, before/after sections, CTA blocks, and anywhere that needs the Hook-Story-Offer shape.references/expert-secrets.md — mass movement and offer construction: Attractive Character (4 elements, 4 archetypes, 6 storylines), Cause, New Opportunity vs Improvement Offer, Big Domino Statement, False Belief Patterns (Vehicle / Internal / External), Hero's Two Journeys, Stack Slide, Hormozi Value Equation, Perfect Webinar, Trial Closes. Load this when the surface is about who the narrator is or how the offer is constructed: about pages, manifesto pages, pricing pages, webinars, long-form sales letters.references/traffic-secrets.md — audience, temperature, and nurture sequences: 3 Markets, Traffic Temperature (Cold / Warm / Hot), Schwartz 5 Awareness Levels, 3 Traffic Types, Dream 100, Soap Opera Sequence, Seinfeld Sequence, Funnel Hacking. Load this for ads, lead magnets, welcome sequences, daily nurture emails, and any decision about what tone and awareness level to write for.
Modes
The skill operates in three modes. Pick one from the user's request before doing anything else.
| Mode | User signal | Output |
|---|
| Draft | "write the hero", "draft a CTA", "generate the about page", "create the lead magnet" | New copy in the Draft output block |
| Review | "what would you change of X", "review this landing page", "is this hook strong", "audit my copy" | Diagnosis + 2–3 framework-based revision options, educational framing |
| Advise | "should the hook be X or Y", "which framework for...", "how should I structure...", "what's wrong with..." | 2–3 options with trade-offs, framework citations, recommendation |
Reading whatever the user presents
Before responding in any mode, read the artefact the user is asking about. Never answer from the filename alone.
- File path or
@path reference → Read. For long files use offset/limit or Grep to extract the relevant sections.
- URL →
WebFetch. If the fetch fails or returns stripped content, ask the user to paste the relevant text.
- Pasted text block → use as-is, quote lines back when relevant.
- Multiple artefacts (e.g. "update X based on Y") → read all of them in parallel before drawing conclusions.
If the artefact is large, read enough to form a grounded answer; do not skim and guess. If the user references something ambiguously ("the landing page"), use Glob/Grep to locate the file, or ask once with AskUserQuestion.
Review / Advise workflow
When operating in Review or Advise mode:
- Read the artefact(s) the user presented (per rules above) and the project context docs (
docs/services.md, docs/brand-voice.md, and any project-specific doc the artefact references).
- Identify the surface, funnel stage, dream customer, and awareness level the artefact is (or should be) targeting — same as Step 3 of the Draft workflow.
- Diagnose against the validation checklist in Step 9. Note which checks pass and which fail, citing the exact line or phrase in the artefact.
- Generate 2–3 options for any change you recommend. Each option must name the framework it comes from and link to the reference file. Options should represent genuinely different bets (e.g. "lean harder on proof of mechanism" vs "lead with Attractive Character backstory"), not cosmetic variants.
- Explain, don't just prescribe. For each option, write a one-line "why this works" rooted in the framework. The developer should finish the answer understanding the framework better, not just the specific fix.
- Recommend one option at the end, with the trade-off that decided it. Being non-committal is worse than being wrong — the developer can push back.
Use the Review/Advise output shape instead of the Draft block.
Workflow
Step 1 — Load project context from docs/
Before drafting any line of copy, read the project's product and voice docs. The skill relies on a light convention: documents live in the repo's top-level docs/ folder with the following names.
| Doc | Purpose | Required? |
|---|
docs/services.md | What the project sells, dream-customer archetypes, proof inventory. | Required |
docs/brand-voice.md | Voice rules, forbidden words, mission framing, metaphor/tone budgets, per-language native-voice rules (register, idioms, traps). | Required |
Resolution order:
- Try each path with
Read. If a file is missing, fall back to Glob with patterns like docs/**/*services*.md, docs/**/*brand*voice*.md, docs/**/*voice*.md.
- Some projects split per-language rules into a separate
docs/language-voice.md or equivalent. If docs/brand-voice.md has no per-language section, look for a sibling language-voice doc before falling back to defaults.
- If still missing, ask the developer once with
AskUserQuestion where the equivalent document lives. Do not invent product details, brand voice, or language rules.
- Never draft copy without at least reading the services catalog and the brand voice rules. Writing copy without these produces consultant-voice slop.
Step 2 — Resolve the target language(s)
The skill argument is free-form. Parse it into one or more of the following, in this order:
- Language code (
ca, es, en, de, fr, …) or the literal all → target language for the output.
- Single code → produce that language only.
all → produce every language the project supports. Discover supported languages from the per-language section in docs/brand-voice.md (or a sibling docs/language-voice.md) or from the i18n files (apps/**/i18n/*.ts, locales/*.json, public/locales/*).
- Repo path or
@path reference (e.g. apps/marketing/src/routes/index.tsx, @docs/website.md) → the artefact to draft into or to review. Read it (with Grep/Glob if it's a directory or a glob).
- URL (
https://…) → external page to review. Use WebFetch; if it returns stripped content, ask the developer to paste the relevant text.
- Quoted text block (
"…") → treat as pasted copy to review, or as a free-form question to answer in Advise mode.
- Free-form phrase (e.g.
hero, pricing page, which framework for cold ads) → surface name or question. Resolve the surface with Glob/Grep; treat a question as Advise mode input.
Arguments can be combined. Examples:
/sales-funnel ca → Draft mode, Catalan only./sales-funnel all hero → Draft mode, all languages, homepage hero./sales-funnel @docs/website.md → Review mode on the presented doc./sales-funnel en apps/marketing/src/i18n/en.ts → Draft/Review on an i18n file in English./sales-funnel https://example.com/pricing → Review mode on a live page./sales-funnel "is this hook too clever?" → Advise mode.
If the argument is missing or ambiguous (e.g. only a language and no surface, or only a question and no artefact), ask exactly one targeted question with AskUserQuestion. Do not guess the surface or the language.
Each language is written natively from the same brief, not translated. Follow the project's per-language traps and register choices strictly.
Step 3 — Identify the surface and the speaker register
Before drafting, establish:
- File — find it with
Glob/Grep. Do not guess the path.
- Funnel stage — ToFu (cold traffic, lead magnet), MoFu (warm, value-prop page), BoFu (discovery-call / application).
- Product — which service, plan, or product the surface is about (or cross-product).
- Dream customer — pick one archetype from
docs/services.md. Do not write to "everyone".
- Traffic temperature and awareness level — cold vs warm vs hot, and which of the 5 Schwartz levels the reader is at. Rule of thumb: cold traffic is Problem-Aware; referred traffic is Solution-Aware. See
references/traffic-secrets.md → Schwartz Awareness Levels.
- Speaker register — first person singular or plural. Brand-voice docs that support both (solo workshop vs team, founder-led vs agency) usually do not hard-code which is current. Resolve it before drafting:
- Read the existing live copy — i18n files, hero/CTA strings, the About page. If everything says I build / construeixo / construyo, continue in singular. If everything says we build / construïm / construimos, continue in plural. Match what is already shipped.
- If there is no existing copy, or the files mix registers, ask the developer with
AskUserQuestion: "Should this copy speak as a solo workshop (I) or as a team (we)?"
- Never silently pick one. Picking the wrong register cascades through every sentence and is expensive to undo.
Ask exactly one targeted question with AskUserQuestion when the surface or the register is unclear. Do not guess.
Step 4 — Route to the right framework
Use the table below to pick the primary framework and load the matching reference file. Most surfaces load one file; a few load two.
Step 5 — Apply Hook-Story-Offer (the universal shape)
Every page is Hook → Story → Offer. Details in references/dotcom-secrets.md.
- Hook — one-line headline plus one-line subhead that stops the scroll. Match the hook pattern to the reader's Schwartz awareness level from
references/traffic-secrets.md.
- Story — Epiphany Bridge: Backstory → Wall → Epiphany → (Framework) → Transformation + proof. Each beat must break one of the three False Belief Patterns (Vehicle, Internal, External) from
references/expert-secrets.md.
- Offer — next rung of the Value Ladder. When no pricing is published, almost always a discovery call framed via the Application Funnel. When pricing is published, construct the offer with the Stack Slide and Hormozi Value Equation.
Critical check before drafting: write the page's Big Domino Statement (see references/expert-secrets.md → Big Domino) in one sentence. The Big Domino is the single belief the reader must accept for everything else on the page to matter. If you can't state it, the page has no spine — stop drafting and write the Big Domino first.
Also critical: check that the hook and story sell a new opportunity, not an improvement offer. An improvement offer is "do what you're already doing, but better/faster/cheaper" and converts poorly. A new opportunity is "a different kind of thing entirely". See references/expert-secrets.md → New Opportunity vs Improvement Offer.
Step 6 — Voice check against docs/brand-voice.md
Enforce the project's voice rules strictly:
- Forbidden-word list — strike on sight and replace with the project's approved alternatives.
- Metaphor budget — do not overspend the brand's signature metaphor. Most brands tolerate 1–2 metaphor moves per page; check the project doc.
- Mission framing — if the project specifies a fixed mission phrasing, never drift from it.
- Tech-stack words — if the project bans internal tool names, vendors, or engineering jargon in customer-facing copy, do not leak them. The full ban list lives in the project's
docs/brand-voice.md.
- Tone dials — adjust empathy / proof / specificity / metaphor / urgency per funnel stage as specified in the brand doc.
If the project has no brand voice doc yet, apply the defaults in references/dotcom-secrets.md → Common failure modes, and flag to the developer that voice rules should be captured in docs/brand-voice.md.
Step 7 — Write each language natively against per-language rules
Do not write in one language and translate. For each target language:
- Re-brief from scratch in that language's voice.
- Use local vocabulary, register (tu vs. usted vs. vous, etc.), and idiom traps from the per-language section in
docs/brand-voice.md.
- Keep cross-language consistency on digits, currency, time formats, and em-dash style.
If the project has no per-language rules documented, apply generic anti-consultant defaults and ask the developer to capture the specific rules in docs/brand-voice.md afterwards.
Step 8 — Format the output
For each piece of copy produced, return a block in this exact shape:
### <Surface name> — <lang>
**File:** <relative path>
**Funnel stage:** <ToFu | MoFu | BoFu>
**Traffic temperature:** <Cold | Warm | Hot>
**Awareness level:** <Unaware | Problem-Aware | Solution-Aware | Product-Aware | Most Aware>
**Frameworks applied:** <Hook-Story-Offer | Epiphany Bridge | Big Domino | Application Funnel | Stack Slide | Soap Opera | ...>
**Big Domino:** <one-sentence page thesis>
**Hook**
<headline>
<subheadline>
**Story**
<1–5 short paragraphs>
**Offer**
- <CTA headline>
- <bullet 1>
- <bullet 2>
- <bullet 3>
- <primary CTA button label>
**Notes**
<anything requiring developer input: missing numbers, real examples, keys to add, decisions to make>
When editing an existing file, show the preview block first, then propose the exact Edit diff. Never apply edits before the developer approves the preview.
Review / Advise output shape
In Review and Advise modes, skip the Draft block and return this shape instead. The point is to teach the framework, not just hand over a fix.
### <Artefact or question> — Review / Advise
**Artefact read:** <path, URL, or "pasted text">
**Surface inferred:** <homepage hero | landing page | pricing | about | email | ...>
**Funnel stage:** <ToFu | MoFu | BoFu>
**Awareness level:** <Unaware | Problem-Aware | Solution-Aware | Product-Aware | Most Aware>
**Project docs loaded:** <docs/services.md, docs/brand-voice.md, ...>
**Diagnosis (what the frameworks say about the current state)**
- ✅ <check that passes> — <one-line reason citing the framework>
- ⚠ <check that fails> — <one-line reason citing the framework + exact line/phrase>
- ⚠ <check that fails> — <...>
**Options**
**Option A — <one-line label, e.g. "Lean harder on proof of mechanism">**
- Framework: <Hook-Story-Offer | Epiphany Bridge | Stack Slide | ...> — see [`<ref>.md`](references/<ref>.md#<anchor>)
- Why this works: <one sentence grounded in the framework>
- What you'd change: <concrete edit or restructure>
- Trade-off: <what you give up by choosing this>
**Option B — <different bet, not a cosmetic variant>**
- Framework: ...
- Why this works: ...
- What you'd change: ...
- Trade-off: ...
**Option C — <optional third bet, only if genuinely distinct>**
- ...
**Recommendation**
<one option, with the trade-off that decided it. Be specific — "A because proof is the Vehicle-belief break the page is missing" beats "A seems best">
**Notes**
<anything the developer needs to verify or decide before you can draft the actual copy>
Rules for multi-option answers:
- Options must be genuinely different bets. "Rewrite the hook" and "Tighten the hook" are the same bet. "Lead with pain (Problem-Aware hook)" and "Lead with the new opportunity (Solution-Aware hook)" are different bets.
- Every option cites a framework and links to the reference file. No framework citation = not an option, it's an opinion.
- "Why this works" must be in framework terms, not taste terms. Say "breaks the Vehicle false belief by citing a measured mechanism", not "feels more credible".
- Always recommend one at the end. Indecision is worse than a wrong call the developer can push back on.
- Teach once, don't lecture. When you cite a framework for the first time in the answer, give a one-line gloss. Don't re-explain it for every option.
Step 9 — Run the validation checklist
In Draft mode: track each check before returning the copy. If any check fails, fix it before responding.
In Review mode: run the same checklist against the artefact the user presented and report pass/fail in the Diagnosis section. The checklist is the diagnosis instrument — don't skip it even if the user only asked one question about one part of the page.
In Advise mode: run the subset of checks that apply to the question asked (e.g. if the question is "which hook is stronger", run Hook + Awareness-level + New Opportunity; skip File-fit).
Validation progress:
- [ ] Hook test
- [ ] Story test
- [ ] Offer test
- [ ] New Opportunity test
- [ ] Big Domino test
- [ ] False Belief test
- [ ] Awareness-level test
- [ ] Voice test
- [ ] Language test
- [ ] Honesty test
- [ ] File-fit test
- Hook test — does it stop the scroll? Reject any opening that starts with "We are…" or "Our…". Hook pattern matches the reader's Schwartz awareness level.
- Story test — is a recognisable pain from
docs/services.md named in the first two sentences? Does the story follow the Epiphany Bridge beats?
- Offer test — does the CTA match the next rung of the Value Ladder? If no pricing, is it a discovery call? No invented prices? Risk reversed explicitly?
- New Opportunity test — does the offer read as a different kind of thing, not a better version of the same thing? If it reads as an improvement offer, rewrite it. See
expert-secrets.md.
- Big Domino test — can you state the page's thesis in one sentence using the Big Domino template? If not, the page has no spine. See
expert-secrets.md.
- False Belief test — does the story break all three belief patterns (Vehicle, Internal, External)? Can you point at which sentence breaks each one? See
expert-secrets.md.
- Awareness-level test — does the opening sentence match the reader's Schwartz awareness level for this funnel stage? See
traffic-secrets.md.
- Voice test — zero words from the forbidden list in
docs/brand-voice.md. Metaphor budget respected. Mission framing exact.
- Language test — does it read native in the target language? If it reads like a translation, throw it out and rewrite natively.
- Honesty test — no fake testimonials, fake urgency, fake numbers, or invented client logos. Only cite proof that exists in
docs/services.md → proof inventory.
- File-fit test — does the copy match the shape of the file being edited (i18n key structure, JSON schema, Markdown front-matter, etc.)?
Project-specific context (not bundled — lives in the project repo)
docs/services.md — the project's service catalog, dream customers, and proof inventory.docs/brand-voice.md — the project's voice rules, forbidden words, metaphor budget, mission framing, and per-language native-voice rules.
These docs are where all project-specific knowledge lives. Keep them up to date as the offering and the voice evolve; the skill reads them fresh on every invocation.
