# One Pager Generator > Generate professional one-pagers and sell sheets for Talosix EDC with multiple template types including product overview, use case, competitive comparison, and ROI-focused layouts with clinical trial compliance highlights. - Skill: `nroze22/one-pager-generator` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add nroze22/one-pager-generator` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/nroze22/one-pager-generator/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: nroze22 (https://skillmd.com/u/nroze22) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/nroze22/one-pager-generator --- # One-Pager Generator for Talosix EDC ## Purpose Create polished, single-page documents that sales teams can share with prospects, marketing can distribute at conferences, and leadership can use in executive briefings. Each one-pager must communicate a complete, compelling message within the constraint of a single page while maintaining clinical trial industry credibility. ## Pre-Production Research Before generating the one-pager, gather context: 1. **Identify the topic category:** Product feature, use case, customer story, competitive positioning, or ROI argument 2. **Determine the audience:** Which buyer persona will read this? (Clinical Ops, Data Management, IT/Validation, CRO, Executive) 3. **Research context:** Use WebSearch to check how competitors position similar capabilities and identify messaging gaps 4. **Load brand-voice skill** as background context for all copy ## Template Selection Guide Choose the template based on the use case: | Situation | Template | Best For | |-----------|----------|----------| | Explaining a product capability | Product Overview | Mid-funnel prospects evaluating features | | Showing how Talosix solves a specific problem | Use Case | Prospects with an identified need | | Positioning against a competitor | Competitive Comparison | Prospects in active vendor evaluation | | Justifying the investment | ROI Focused | Economic buyers, procurement, finance | | Highlighting a customer success | Customer Story | Late-funnel proof points | | Conference or event handout | Quick Facts | Awareness-stage attendees | --- ## Template 1: Product Overview **Purpose:** Explain a single product feature or capability area in a way that connects to business outcomes. ### Layout Structure ``` +-------------------------------------------------------+ | [Talosix Logo] [Product Category] | | | | HERO HEADLINE (8-12 words, benefit-led) | | Subhead: One sentence expanding the headline | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | THE CHALLENGE (Left 40%) | THE SOLUTION (Right 60%)| | 2-3 sentences describing | 2-3 sentences on how | | the pain point this | Talosix addresses it | | feature solves | with specific capability | | | details | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | KEY BENEFITS | | [Icon] Benefit 1 [Icon] Benefit 2 | | Metric + explanation Metric + explanation | | | | [Icon] Benefit 3 [Icon] Benefit 4 | | Metric + explanation Metric + explanation | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | "Customer quote placeholder -- specific to this | | capability, attributed to role and org type" | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | [Compliance Badges] | CTA: Request a Demo | | 21 CFR Part 11 | [URL] | [Phone] | [Email] | | HIPAA | SOC 2 | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ ``` ### Copy Specifications **Hero headline:** - 8-12 words maximum - Lead with the outcome, not the feature name - Example: "Build Clinical Studies in Days, Not Months" - NOT: "Talosix Study Builder Module Overview" **Challenge section (60-80 words):** - Name the specific operational pain point - Quantify it if possible (time, cost, error rate) - Make the reader nod -- they should recognize their own situation - Reference a common clinical trial workflow bottleneck **Solution section (80-100 words):** - Describe the capability in terms of what the user experiences - Name 2-3 specific features or functions - Connect each to a measurable outcome - Avoid technical architecture details -- focus on workflow impact **Key benefits (4 items):** Each benefit follows this structure: - **Benefit headline** (3-5 words, starts with a verb or outcome) - **Metric** (specific number: "60% faster," "3x more studies," "zero manual re-entry") - **One-sentence explanation** of how the metric is achieved Example: > **Faster Study Builds** > 60% reduction in study build time > Library-driven eCRF design with reusable form components eliminates repetitive configuration from scratch. **Customer quote (1-2 sentences):** - Attributed to a role and organization type: "-- VP Clinical Data Management, Top-20 CRO" - Should reinforce the most compelling benefit - If no approved quote exists, provide a placeholder with guidance: "[Insert customer quote about study build speed improvement]" **Compliance badges:** Always include applicable compliance and security certifications: - 21 CFR Part 11 Compliant - HIPAA Compliant - SOC 2 Type II - GDPR Ready - ICH-GCP Aligned - ISO 27001 (if applicable) Display as small badge icons in the footer. Only include certifications that Talosix actually holds. --- ## Template 2: Use Case Specific **Purpose:** Show how Talosix solves a specific clinical trial scenario end-to-end. ### Layout Structure ``` +-------------------------------------------------------+ | USE CASE: [Use Case Name] [Talosix Logo] | | | | HERO HEADLINE (outcome for this use case) | | "When [situation], Talosix [enables outcome]" | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | THE SCENARIO | | 3-4 sentences painting a specific clinical trial | | situation the reader recognizes from their own work | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | HOW IT WORKS (3-step visual flow) | | Step 1 ---------> Step 2 ---------> Step 3 | | [Description] [Description] [Description] | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | RESULTS | | [Large metric 1] [Large metric 2] [Large metric 3] | | [Context] [Context] [Context] | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | [Quote] | [Compliance Badges] | [CTA] | +-------------------------------------------------------+ ``` ### Clinical Trial Use Cases to Cover Maintain a library of one-pagers for these use cases: - **Decentralized / Hybrid Trials** -- ePRO integration, remote data capture, eConsent - **Adaptive Trial Designs** -- Mid-study protocol amendments, dynamic randomization - **Oncology Studies** -- Complex dosing, RECIST criteria, adverse event workflows - **Rare Disease Trials** -- Small populations, natural history studies, global sites - **Phase I First-in-Human** -- Dose escalation, safety cohorts, real-time data review - **Large Phase III Global** -- Multi-regional, multi-language, high site count - **Post-Market / Registry** -- Long-term follow-up, patient-reported outcomes - **Medical Device Studies** -- UDI tracking, device malfunction reporting --- ## Template 3: Competitive Comparison **Purpose:** Factual side-by-side comparison for prospects evaluating multiple EDC vendors. ### Layout Structure ``` +-------------------------------------------------------+ | EDC COMPARISON: Talosix vs. [Competitor] | | [Talosix Logo] | | | | "Making an informed EDC decision for your next trial" | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | CAPABILITY COMPARISON TABLE | | Feature Area | Talosix | [Competitor] | Why It | | | | | Matters | | --------------------------------------------------------- | Study Build Speed | ... | ... | ... | | Edit Check Engine | ... | ... | ... | | CDISC Support | ... | ... | ... | | [6-8 rows] | | | | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | WHERE TALOSIX STANDS OUT (3 differentiators) | | [Differentiator 1 with proof point] | | [Differentiator 2 with proof point] | | [Differentiator 3 with proof point] | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | [Quote] | [CTA: See It In Action] | +-------------------------------------------------------+ ``` ### Competitive Comparison Rules - **Always factual** -- Never disparage competitors. Compare on verifiable capabilities. - **Fair representation** -- If a competitor has a genuine strength, acknowledge it - **Date the comparison** -- Competitor capabilities change; include "As of [Month Year]" - **Use neutral language** -- "Talosix includes X; [Competitor] requires additional configuration" - **Focus on 6-8 capability areas** most relevant to the buyer's evaluation criteria - **Source your claims** -- Reference public documentation, published reviews, or direct experience **Common comparison dimensions:** 1. Study build speed and approach (library-driven vs. from-scratch) 2. Edit check flexibility and deployment 3. CDISC compliance support (CDASH, SDTM, ODM) 4. Regulatory compliance (21 CFR Part 11, Annex 11) 5. Integration capabilities (CTMS, IRT, safety, labs, ePRO) 6. Pricing model transparency 7. Implementation and validation timeline 8. Customer support model 9. Decentralized trial capabilities 10. Reporting and analytics --- ## Template 4: ROI Focused **Purpose:** Quantify the financial return of choosing Talosix for economic buyers. ### Layout Structure ``` +-------------------------------------------------------+ | THE ROI OF TALOSIX EDC [Talosix Logo] | | | | HERO METRIC: "Average customer sees X% ROI in Y | | months" | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | COST OF THE STATUS QUO | | [Metric] Time lost to manual study builds | | [Metric] Queries consuming data management FTEs | | [Metric] Delayed database locks pushing timelines | | [Total: Annual cost of EDC inefficiency] | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | TALOSIX IMPACT (3 columns) | | Time Savings | Quality Gains | Cost Reduction | | [Metric] | [Metric] | [Metric] | | [Detail] | [Detail] | [Detail] | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | | | PAYBACK TIMELINE | | Month 1-3: Implementation and validation | | Month 4-6: First studies live, initial efficiency | | Month 7-12: Full ROI realization | | [Simple timeline visual] | | | +-------------------------------------------------------+ | [CTA: Calculate Your ROI -- link to ROI calculator] | | [Compliance Badges] | +-------------------------------------------------------+ ``` ### ROI Calculation Framework Provide calculations using these standard industry benchmarks (adjust with actual Talosix customer data when available): **Time savings:** - Study build: Industry average 8-12 weeks -> Talosix average 2-4 weeks - Data manager FTE per study: Industry average 0.5-1.0 FTE -> Talosix average 0.3-0.5 FTE - Database lock cycle: Industry average 4-8 weeks -> Talosix average 2-4 weeks **Quality impact:** - Query rate: Industry average 8-15 queries per 100 pages -> Target 3-6 with Talosix - Data entry error rate: Reduction of 40-60% with smart edit checks - Audit findings: Reduction in EDC-related findings **Cost translation:** - Clinical data manager loaded cost: $120,000-$180,000/year - Cost per query: $50-$150 (including site time, CRA follow-up, resolution) - Cost per day of database lock delay: $10,000-$50,000 (depending on study size) --- ## Template 5: Customer Story (Mini) **Purpose:** Condensed version of a case study for quick sharing. Use the same structure as Template 1 but replace Challenge/Solution with a narrative flow: - **Before:** 2 sentences on life before Talosix - **After:** 2 sentences on outcomes achieved - **Key metrics:** 3 large-format numbers with context - **Quote:** From the customer --- ## Template 6: Quick Facts **Purpose:** Conference handout or awareness-stage overview. - Company overview (2 sentences) - Platform highlights (5 bullet points) - Key differentiators (3 items) - Customer snapshot (logos or descriptors) - Compliance certifications (badge row) - Contact and CTA --- ## Universal Copy Rules for All One-Pagers 1. **No paragraph exceeds 3 sentences** -- This is a one-pager, not a white paper 2. **Every metric has context** -- "60% faster" means nothing without "compared to industry average" 3. **One primary CTA** -- Do not split attention between "request a demo" and "download a guide" 4. **White space is content** -- Design for scannability; cramming more text reduces impact 5. **Above the fold test** -- If someone only reads the top third, do they get the core message? 6. **Print test** -- Will this still work printed in black and white? Avoid color-only information encoding ## Clinical Trial EDC Compliance Elements Every one-pager should include where relevant: **Regulatory compliance badges (footer):** - 21 CFR Part 11 (FDA electronic records rule) - EU Annex 11 (EMA computerized systems) - ICH E6(R2) GCP (Good Clinical Practice) - HIPAA (health data privacy) - GDPR (EU data protection) - SOC 2 Type II (security controls) **Data security highlights (when relevant):** - Data encryption at rest and in transit - Role-based access controls - Complete audit trail - Validated cloud infrastructure - Data residency options (US, EU, APAC) **Integration ecosystem (when relevant):** - CTMS integration - IRT/IWRS connectivity - Safety database (pharmacovigilance) links - Central and local lab interfaces - ePRO/eCOA platforms - CDISC ODM data exchange ## Output Deliverables For each one-pager request, provide: 1. **Template recommendation** with justification 2. **Complete copy** for every section of the chosen template 3. **Layout guidance** with visual treatment suggestions 4. **Print-ready text** formatted for easy handoff to a designer 5. **Digital version notes** -- Any changes needed for email or web delivery (hyperlinks, responsive layout) 6. **Two headline variants** for A/B testing 7. **Audience customization notes** -- How to adjust for different buyer personas