Orchestrate a full marketing engagement through the 12-Part methodology — Stone vs Opinion intake, external research, Four Core Documents, client validation, Decision Matrix v2 re-runs, growth planning, channel fan-out, and the continuous-improvement loop — with checkpointed, resumable state at every part. Triggers on "/digital-marketing-pro:engagement-workflow", "start a new engagement", "what part of the engagement are we on", "apply the decision matrix", "advance to the next part". Reads and writes engagement state via engagement-state.py only, and dispatches to /digital-marketing-pro:four-core-documents, growth-plan, yearly-planner, and continuous-improvement-loop.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Um comando direto ignora o prompt de revisão. Verifique a origem antes de executá-lo.
Instruções da origem · Visualização somente leitura
name
engagement-workflow
description
Orchestrate a full marketing engagement through the 12-Part methodology — Stone vs Opinion intake, external research, Four Core Documents, client validation, Decision Matrix v2 re-runs, growth planning, channel fan-out, and the continuous-improvement loop — with checkpointed, resumable state at every part. Triggers on "/digital-marketing-pro:engagement-workflow", "start a new engagement", "what part of the engagement are we on", "apply the decision matrix", "advance to the next part". Reads and writes engagement state via engagement-state.py only, and dispatches to /digital-marketing-pro:four-core-documents, growth-plan, yearly-planner, and continuous-improvement-loop.
user-invocable
true
triggers
["start a new engagement","run the 12-part methodology","advance engagement to next part","show engagement status","apply the decision matrix","re-run v2 documents","mark engagement part complete","what part of the engagement are we on"]
This skill orchestrates the full marketing engagement using the 12-Part sequential methodology. Every brand engagement runs through the same 12 parts in sequence, producing a canonical set of files at each stage.
Context efficiency
Heavy skill. Grep before Read any referenced file, then Read only matched ranges with offset + limit. List the brand's workspace at ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/ (or $CLAUDE_PLUGIN_DATA/digital-marketing-pro/brands/{slug}/ when that env var is set) before opening files. On re-invocation mid-session, skip files already in context.
This skill is invoked via the /digital-marketing-pro:engagement command family. The command is a thin router — this skill is the single source of truth for the engagement lifecycle, the checkpoint protocol, and the per-part production contract. Each subcommand maps to a specific lifecycle action. The skill calls engagement-state.py for persistence via:
You should never hand-edit _engagement.json — always go through engagement-state.py.
Checkpointing & Resume (single source of truth)
Every long engagement run is resumable. The checkpoint protocol is: init a run → save each part as it completes → finalize → publish to the visible output folder. This lets an interrupted run (context exhaustion, user cancel, machine sleep) resume from the next un-checkpointed part instead of restarting from Part 1.
1. On start, after the brand pre-condition passes, open a checkpoint run and link it to engagement state:
python "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/checkpoint-manager.py" init \
--brand "{brand_slug}" --workflow engagement --topic "{engagement_id}"# Record the returned run_id into _engagement.json so resume can find it:
python "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/engagement-state.py" set-checkpoint-run \
--brand "{brand_slug}" --id"{engagement_id}" --run-id "{run_id}"
set-checkpoint-run stores the run_id in _engagement.json, making the resume linkage real (previously the run_id was never persisted).
2. After each part completes and passes its quality gate, the orchestrator saves that part's output:
Pass the actual deliverable path for that part (e.g. Part 3 saves the Four Core Documents path; Part 8 saves the Growth Plan path) — never a placeholder for a different part.
3. Before saving Part 5 (Client Validation) and Part 8 (Growth Plan) deliverables, run the full quality gate:
# BLOCKING gate — Part 5 and Part 8 deliverables cannot be checkpointed until this passes
/digital-marketing-pro:check "{path_to_deliverable}" --full --brand {brand}
If /digital-marketing-pro:check --full returns BLOCKED, fix the CRITICAL issues before checkpointing the part.
4. After the final part, publish every artifact to the user-visible folder and finalize:
--repair completes the canonical directory tree and state file on a dir that holds only partial state.
v2 re-run cap: a maximum of 2 v2 re-run rounds per part is allowed without explicit user override. The round count is stored in _engagement.json. If a part would exceed 2 rounds, stop and ask the user to explicitly approve further re-runs (records the override in state). This prevents unbounded re-run loops.
Validate that the brand profile exists at ~/.claude-marketing/brands/{brand-slug}/profile.json. If not, instruct the user to run /digital-marketing-pro:brand-setup first.
Run python ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/engagement-state.py init --brand {brand-slug} --id {engagement-id}.
Confirm the directory tree was created and report the next required action (Part 1 intake).
Walk the user through Part 1 Stone vs Opinion intake by asking the questions one batch at a time.
Part 1 intake questions (ask in this order):
Stone — what the client knows for certain:
Company basics: founded year, employee count, headquarters location, geographic operations
Business model: revenue streams, pricing tiers, primary product/service categories
Current marketing: channels currently active, monthly marketing spend, current measurable KPIs
Tech stack: CRM, email service provider, analytics setup, ad accounts
Customer base scale: customer count, biggest named customer, average order value if known
For each Stone fact, capture:
The fact itself
Source (how the user knows / what document confirmed it)
Highlight files that are missing per the canonical structure. Use engagement-state.py validate-part --part {N} to diff each completed part's actual files against the PART_DEFINITIONS manifest (e.g., if Part 3 is marked completed but 3.1-business-and-sbu-analysis.md is missing, validate-part flags it deterministically instead of eyeballing).
Invoke the client-validation-document skill — it produces the Part 5 deliverable: a structured document presenting each finding from v1 with ACCEPT/REJECT/EDIT/DEFER options
Run the full quality gate on the Part 5 deliverable before it goes to the client:/digital-marketing-pro:check "{part5_path}" --full --brand {brand}. If it returns BLOCKED, fix the CRITICAL issues first (this gate is mandatory before Part 5 and Part 8 deliverables).
After the user reviews and provides decisions, parse them into a triggers list per the Decision Matrix categories
Run engagement-state.py decision-matrix --triggers "{comma-separated}" to compute the v2 re-run plan
Present the re-run plan to the user
Mark Part 5 completed; on user approval of the re-run plan, advance to Part 6
Purpose: Apply the Update-Back Rule to bump a source document version after Part 7+.
Pre-condition: The user has already drafted the corrected document content.
Steps:
Read the current version of the doc
Confirm the correction with the user (validation step per the Update-Back Rule)
Bump the version via engagement-state.py bump-version --doc {id} --reason "{reason}"
Save the new version file with a header noting v(prev) → v(new) changes
Update the Living Project Instruction File via lif-log-change — it now appends the change to living-instruction-file.md and refreshes the header date, so the LIF reflects the correction immediately
Identify downstream documents that may need review and add to the engagement's review queue
Purpose: List all engagements (optionally filtered by brand).
Steps: Run engagement-state.py list-engagements --brand {slug} and format as a table.
Production shorthands
The command family also exposes four production shorthands that route straight to the part-producing skills (documented in Per-Part Production Targets below). These match the command surface one-to-one:
/digital-marketing-pro:engagement four-core <brand> <id> [--doc 3.X] [--view v2] [--combined] — Part 3, invokes the four-core-documents skill
/digital-marketing-pro:engagement growth-plan <brand> <id> — Part 8, invokes the growth-plan skill
/digital-marketing-pro:engagement yearly-planner <brand> <id> — Part 8 companion, invokes the yearly-planner skill
/digital-marketing-pro:engagement loop <brand> <id> — Part 12, invokes the continuous-improvement-loop skill
Per-Part Production Targets
Each part is produced by real, existing agents and skills. This orchestrator dispatches to the targets below — there are no wrapper skills named external-research / preparation-documents / channel-strategy-fanout / execution-artefacts / ai-creative-instructions; those never existed. Use the exact targets named here:
Part
Real target(s)
1
(this skill — intake walked here directly)
2
agents market-intelligence + competitive-intel; skill audience-intelligence (invoke as a skill); reference compliance-rules.md (load as context)
skills content-engine + ad-creative + video-script (creative briefs); asset rendering happens in your own creative tooling (design team, AI image/video tools, or a connected design platform), then finished assets are signed via c2pa-metadata
12
skill continuous-improvement-loop
Parallel Dispatch
Several parts of the engagement contain independent sub-tasks that should be dispatched in parallel via multiple Task tool calls in a single message — not sequentially. Dispatching independent sub-tasks concurrently is substantially faster than running them one after another; actual time varies by engagement depth, model, and rate limits. Keep concurrent subagents to a handful (roughly 3–8) — past that you queue against API rate limits and the win drops; under 3 there is nothing to parallelize.
Cost note: total token usage is broadly similar (you're doing the same work) but billed-per-turn input costs trend up slightly because each parallel subagent re-loads its context.
Parts that benefit from parallel dispatch:
Part
Parallel-eligible work
How to dispatch
Part 2 — External Research
Market sizing, competitor landscape, customer signals, regulatory landscape — none depend on each other
Dispatch the market-intelligence agent and the competitive-intel agent as parallel Task calls; invoke audience-intelligence as a skill; load compliance-rules.md (a reference file) as context — not as a subagent
Part 4 — Competitive + Customer + Market
Four documents (4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4) are independent — they reference Part 2 only
Dispatch all four in a single message with the four respective subagents
Part 9 — Channel Strategy Fan-out
Up to 17 channel docs in 7 families. Families 2 (Paid platforms), 3 (Organic & Influencer), 4 (Marketplace & CRM), 5 (Content/ATL/BTL/PR) are independent after Families 1 (Search & Campaign) and 6 (Web + Measurement) complete
Sequence: F1 → (F2 ∥ F3 ∥ F4 ∥ F5 in parallel) → F6 → F7. The middle batch is four parallel Task calls in one message.
Part 10 — Execution Artefacts
Ad copy, post copy, headlines, CTAs across channels — independent per channel
Dispatch one subagent per channel in parallel
Part 11 — AI Creative Instructions
Visual asset briefs — independent per asset
Dispatch in parallel per asset
Parts that MUST stay sequential (have hard data dependencies):
Part 1 → Part 2 (intake feeds research scope)
Part 3 → Part 4 (Four Core Documents feed competitive/customer/market analysis)
Part 5 → Part 6 (Client Validation drives which docs need v2 re-runs)
Part 7 → Part 8 (prep docs feed the Growth Plan)
Part 8 → Part 9 (Growth Plan drives channel fan-out)
Cross-cutting rules:
Never dispatch parallel agents that need to write to the same file simultaneously — chunk by output file.
Each parallel subagent gets the engagement slug and the LIF path so it can read shared context, but writes ONLY to its own numbered per-part subdirectory (01-… 12-…).
Subagents never mutate engagement state. A subagent must NOT call lif-log-change, mark-part-completed, bump-version, or any other engagement-state.py write, and must NOT touch _engagement.json or living-instruction-file.md. Those are unlocked read-modify-write files; concurrent writers lose updates. Each subagent returns its output as per-part files only. After a parallel batch completes, the orchestrator alone applies state mutations — one lif-log-change per batch, plus mark-part-completed / bump-version as needed — and then re-reads the LIF before the next step.
If a parallel batch fails partway, the failed subagent's outputs are NOT auto-rolled-back — re-dispatch only the failed ones; the successful peers stay valid.
For multi-dimensional commands outside the 12-part flow (e.g. /digital-marketing-pro:competitor-analysis, /digital-marketing-pro:seo-audit, /digital-marketing-pro:content-engine), the same pattern applies — dispatch independent dimensions in parallel via multiple Task calls in a single message.
Running an engagement in a single conversation
A large-context model can hold much of an engagement — intake, external research, the Four Core Documents (61 steps), competitive/customer/market analysis, Client Validation, selective v2 re-runs, preparation docs, Growth Plan + Yearly Planner, channel fan-out, execution artefacts, creative briefs, and the continuous-improvement loop — within one working session (a full engagement typically produces 50–60 canonical documents).
The checkpoint + persistence pattern is still the default — always. Even when everything fits in one conversation:
engagement-state.py + checkpoint-manager.py remain the system of record: audit trail, cross-conversation resume, and multi-user / multi-day continuity all depend on persisted state.
Do NOT skip LIF updates or state writes on the assumption that "it's all in context." An interruption still loses in-memory work, and a teammate resuming the engagement reads persisted state — not your conversation.
The only single-conversation convenience is that you re-read fewer files mid-session because they are already in context. It does not remove the need to persist, checkpoint, and update the LIF.
Quality Discipline
Never hand-edit _engagement.json. Always go through engagement-state.py.
Never delete v1. When v2 is produced, both stay.
Always update the LIF when source docs change. Use lif-log-change — it appends to the change-log section of living-instruction-file.md and refreshes the header date, so the LIF never goes stale.
Always cite source per fact. Stone facts cite the validation source; Opinion hypotheses cite the client's evidence.
Never auto-advance parts. The user confirms part completion explicitly.
Always parallelize independent work. When a Part has 2+ independent sub-tasks (see Parallel Dispatch above), dispatch them in a single message with multiple Task calls. Sequential dispatch of independent work wastes wall-clock time and API turns.
Never auto-execute v2 re-runs without user approval. Show the plan, get approval, then run. Cap: 2 v2 re-run rounds per part without an explicit user override (stored in state).
Examples
Example: Starting a new engagement
User: I want to start a new engagement for Acme Corp this quarter.
Skill response:
1. Verify Acme has a brand profile (slug: acme-corp). Found.
2. Initialise engagement: engagement-state.py init --brand acme-corp --id 2026-q2
3. Engagement directory created at ~/.claude-marketing/brands/acme-corp/engagements/2026-q2/
4. Walk Part 1 intake. Begin with Stone questions:
"Let's start with what we know for certain. What year was Acme founded? Where is it headquartered? How many employees today?"
5. (User answers; each fact captured via add-stone-fact)
6. Move to Opinion questions:
"Now let's capture what you believe but haven't formally validated. How would you describe Acme's positioning in the market today?"
7. (User answers; each hypothesis captured via add-opinion)
8. Mark Part 1 completed. Advise: "Part 1 is complete. The unbiased External Research (Part 2) is next — recommend running it now or scheduling it for the next session."
Example: Mid-engagement status check
User: Where are we on the Beta Industries engagement?
Skill response:
- Reads engagement-state.py status --brand beta-industries --id 2026-h1
- Shows:
Engagement: beta-industries / 2026-h1
Started: 2026-04-01 (32 days in)
Current part: Part 9 — Channel Strategy Fan-out (in progress)
Completed parts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Pending parts: 9 (in progress), 10, 11, 12
Open re-run decisions: 1 (Part 6 v2 re-runs in progress)
Open items requiring resolution: 2 (LinkedIn Ads CPL forecast pending; Q3 budget envelope pending)
LIF last updated: 2 days ago
Next required action: complete remaining Part 9 channel docs (5 of 9 complete)
Example: Applying the Decision Matrix
User: We just finished Part 5 client validation. The client rejected our positioning recommendation and added two new competitors. What re-runs do we need?
Skill response:
1. Categorise the changes:
- Two new competitors → trigger "competitors_changed"
- Positioning rejected → trigger "positioning_changed"
2. Run engagement-state.py decision-matrix --triggers "competitors_changed,positioning_changed"
3. Output the triggered re-runs:
Triggered re-runs: 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 4.1, 4.2
(competitors_changed triggers all four Core Docs + 4.1 + 4.2; positioning_changed adds 3.3 which is already in scope)
4. Estimate token cost: ~85K tokens for the full re-run set
5. Ask: "Approve all? Modify? Skip any?"
6. On user approval, mark Part 6 started and invoke four-core-documents skill with view=v2 for each triggered doc
Example: Update-Back correction in flight
User: We've been live for two months. Q1 channel data shows our actual CAC for Segment X is INR 4,800 — but Core Doc 3.1 v2.0 had it estimated at INR 3,000. Need to update.
Skill response:
1. Validate the correction: 60+ days of data, statistically meaningful sample. ✓
2. Read current 3.1 v2.0
3. Bump version: engagement-state.py bump-version --doc 3.1 --reason "Segment X CAC corrected from INR 3,000 to INR 4,800 based on Q1 channel data"
4. Save 3.1 v2.1 with header note: "v2.0 → v2.1 changes: Section 4 (Unit Economics) — Segment X CAC corrected. LTV:CAC drops from 4.0 to 2.5; below 3.0 health threshold."
5. lif-log-change --section "Recent Corrections" --summary "Segment X CAC corrected to INR 4,800. Channel mix for Segment X under review."
6. Identify downstream review needed: Core Doc 3.4 (DMFlow) channel allocation for Segment X may need revision
7. Add to engagement review queue
Related skills
four-core-documents — produces Part 3 deliverables
client-validation-document — produces Part 5 deliverable
growth-plan + yearly-planner — produce Part 8 deliverables
