Hook and Human
The persuasion sibling of clear-and-human. That skill strips engagement patterns to protect credibility; this one deploys them on purpose to win attention and conversions — without crossing into slop. Marketing copy that reads like a person, hooks in the first line, and asks for exactly one thing.
Use this for social, ads, sales, and landing copy. Use clear-and-human for docs, runbooks, and anything where authority beats reach.
Modes
- Write — generate copy from a brief ("write a LinkedIn post about X"). Pick a framework, lead with a hook, close with one CTA.
- Punch-up — the user has flat copy that's accurate but doesn't land. Add a hook, tighten rhythm, sharpen the CTA. Don't change the claims.
- Review — score the copy for stopping power and conversion (see scoring). Offer a punch-up.
Default to Write for a brief, Punch-up for pasted flat copy, Review if they ask "is this any good?".
The floor (non-negotiable — this is what keeps it human)
These carry over from clear-and-human unchanged. Persuasion is not a license to break them:
- Never fabricate specifics — including the soft ones. No invented stats, testimonials, customer names, results, or credentials. Use only what's in the brief or
WRITING_CONTEXT.md. The trap in marketing copy is the soft fabrication, because it doesn't look like a lie: a derived number (rounding an approved "40→6 min" into "saves 30 minutes"), an aggregate-time claim ("get your afternoon back" — you don't know how often they deploy), or a soft outcome ("fixes ship the same hour they're reported") are all fabrications too. The reader can't tell invented color from a measured result, so each one spends trust you haven't earned. Stick to the approved fact and let it carry the weight; if you want another proof point, leave [ADD PROOF] and say so. A made-up implication damages credibility as fast as a made-up number.
- Cut generic AI filler. Hooks are fine; filler is not. Still banned: delve, leverage, synergy, robust, seamless, transformative, tapestry, "in today's landscape", "unlock your potential". These don't persuade — they signal a machine.
- No hollow vulnerability or fake humility. "Can I be real for a second?", "I'm no expert, but…" — these backfire; readers smell the performance. If a personal story is real, tell it plainly. If it isn't, don't.
- One CTA, specific. Not three asks, not "thoughts?". One clear next action.
- Vary rhythm and match voice. Short line, then a longer one. Pull voice from
WRITING_CONTEXT.md. Uniform cadence reads as generated even when the words are punchy.
Context
Read WRITING_CONTEXT.md (or FOUNDER_CONTEXT.md) from the project root first — same file clear-and-human uses. Pull brand voice, audience/ICP, the offer, approved proof points, and banned phrases. If it's missing and the brief is thin, ask up to 3 questions (offer, audience, the one action you want) before writing.
What to deploy (the part clear-and-human suppresses)
Full detail in references/frameworks.md. The essentials:
- Lead with a hook. First line earns the second. Specific > clever. Open a curiosity gap you actually close.
- Pick a framework to structure the body: AIDA, PAS, or BAB (see reference). Don't show the seams.
- One CTA, concrete and low-friction ("Reply 'guide' and I'll send it", not "Let me know if interested").
- Format for the channel — line breaks, length, hashtag/emoji norms in
references/channels-marketing.md.
The difference from slop: a hook backed by a real specific is persuasion; a hook backed by nothing is bait. Earn the emphasis with the actual number or story, never with ALL-CAPS or "Read that again."
Review scoring (1–10)
| Dimension |
Measures |
Target |
| Scroll-stop |
Does the first line stop the reader? |
8–10 |
| Offer clarity |
Is the value/offer unmistakable? |
8–10 |
| Conversion |
One clear, specific, low-friction CTA? |
8–10 |
| Authenticity |
Sounds like this person/brand, not generic AI? |
7–10 |
If Scroll-stop is high but Authenticity is low, flag it: attention-grabbing but hollow, won't build trust or repeat.
Self-audit (run before presenting Write or Punch-up output)
- Would the first line actually stop me mid-scroll, or is it a template hook with no payoff?
- Is there exactly one CTA, and is it specific?
- Did I invent any number, name, or result — including a derived number, an aggregate-time claim ("hours back", "your afternoon back"), or a soft outcome the approved facts don't actually support? If yes, cut it or replace with a placeholder.
- Does it sound like the brand in
WRITING_CONTEXT.md, or like generic marketing AI?
Fix what fails, then present.
Relationship to clear-and-human
Siblings, not a pipeline. Pick by intent: reach/conversion → here; credibility/clarity → clear-and-human. They share WRITING_CONTEXT.md and the no-fabrication floor, so a piece can move between them without contradiction. Don't run both on the same draft in sequence — they optimize for different things and will fight.
Provenance
Adapted (MIT / public domain): persuasion frameworks and hook/CTA patterns synthesized from common copywriting practice and ognjengt/founder-skills (MIT); the no-fabrication floor and voice/rhythm rules inherited from its sibling clear-and-human.
1---2name: hook-and-human3description: Hook and Human4---56# Hook and Human78The persuasion sibling of `clear-and-human`. That skill strips engagement patterns to protect credibility; this one **deploys them on purpose** to win attention and conversions — without crossing into slop. Marketing copy that reads like a person, hooks in the first line, and asks for exactly one thing.910Use this for social, ads, sales, and landing copy. Use `clear-and-human` for docs, runbooks, and anything where authority beats reach.1112## Modes1314- **Write** — generate copy from a brief ("write a LinkedIn post about X"). Pick a framework, lead with a hook, close with one CTA.15- **Punch-up** — the user has flat copy that's accurate but doesn't land. Add a hook, tighten rhythm, sharpen the CTA. Don't change the claims.16- **Review** — score the copy for stopping power and conversion (see scoring). Offer a punch-up.1718Default to **Write** for a brief, **Punch-up** for pasted flat copy, **Review** if they ask "is this any good?".1920## The floor (non-negotiable — this is what keeps it human)2122These carry over from `clear-and-human` unchanged. Persuasion is not a license to break them:23241. **Never fabricate specifics — including the soft ones.** No invented stats, testimonials, customer names, results, or credentials. Use only what's in the brief or `WRITING_CONTEXT.md`. The trap in marketing copy is the *soft* fabrication, because it doesn't look like a lie: a **derived** number (rounding an approved "40→6 min" into "saves 30 minutes"), an **aggregate-time** claim ("get your afternoon back" — you don't know how often they deploy), or a **soft outcome** ("fixes ship the same hour they're reported") are all fabrications too. The reader can't tell invented color from a measured result, so each one spends trust you haven't earned. Stick to the approved fact and let it carry the weight; if you want another proof point, leave `[ADD PROOF]` and say so. A made-up *implication* damages credibility as fast as a made-up number.252. **Cut generic AI filler.** Hooks are fine; *filler* is not. Still banned: delve, leverage, synergy, robust, seamless, transformative, tapestry, "in today's landscape", "unlock your potential". These don't persuade — they signal a machine.263. **No hollow vulnerability or fake humility.** "Can I be real for a second?", "I'm no expert, but…" — these backfire; readers smell the performance. If a personal story is real, tell it plainly. If it isn't, don't.274. **One CTA, specific.** Not three asks, not "thoughts?". One clear next action.285. **Vary rhythm and match voice.** Short line, then a longer one. Pull voice from `WRITING_CONTEXT.md`. Uniform cadence reads as generated even when the words are punchy.2930## Context3132Read `WRITING_CONTEXT.md` (or `FOUNDER_CONTEXT.md`) from the project root first — same file `clear-and-human` uses. Pull brand voice, audience/ICP, the offer, approved proof points, and banned phrases. If it's missing and the brief is thin, ask up to 3 questions (offer, audience, the one action you want) before writing.3334## What to deploy (the part clear-and-human suppresses)3536Full detail in `references/frameworks.md`. The essentials:3738- **Lead with a hook.** First line earns the second. Specific > clever. Open a curiosity gap you actually close.39- **Pick a framework** to structure the body: AIDA, PAS, or BAB (see reference). Don't show the seams.40- **One CTA**, concrete and low-friction ("Reply 'guide' and I'll send it", not "Let me know if interested").41- **Format for the channel** — line breaks, length, hashtag/emoji norms in `references/channels-marketing.md`.4243The difference from slop: a hook backed by a real specific is persuasion; a hook backed by nothing is bait. Earn the emphasis with the actual number or story, never with ALL-CAPS or "Read that again."4445## Review scoring (1–10)4647| Dimension | Measures | Target |48|---|---|---|49| Scroll-stop | Does the first line stop the reader? | 8–10 |50| Offer clarity | Is the value/offer unmistakable? | 8–10 |51| Conversion | One clear, specific, low-friction CTA? | 8–10 |52| Authenticity | Sounds like this person/brand, not generic AI? | 7–10 |5354If Scroll-stop is high but Authenticity is low, flag it: attention-grabbing but hollow, won't build trust or repeat.5556## Self-audit (run before presenting Write or Punch-up output)57581. Would the first line actually stop me mid-scroll, or is it a template hook with no payoff?592. Is there exactly one CTA, and is it specific?603. Did I invent any number, name, or result — including a *derived* number, an *aggregate-time* claim ("hours back", "your afternoon back"), or a *soft outcome* the approved facts don't actually support? If yes, cut it or replace with a placeholder.614. Does it sound like the brand in `WRITING_CONTEXT.md`, or like generic marketing AI?6263Fix what fails, then present.6465## Relationship to clear-and-human6667Siblings, not a pipeline. Pick by intent: reach/conversion → here; credibility/clarity → `clear-and-human`. They share `WRITING_CONTEXT.md` and the no-fabrication floor, so a piece can move between them without contradiction. Don't run both on the same draft in sequence — they optimize for different things and will fight.6869## Provenance7071Adapted (MIT / public domain): persuasion frameworks and hook/CTA patterns synthesized from common copywriting practice and `ognjengt/founder-skills` (MIT); the no-fabrication floor and voice/rhythm rules inherited from its sibling `clear-and-human`.
kevin-burns