--- name: copywriting-cta description: Designs end-of-article CTAs — copy, layout, placement, A/B test plan, accessibility — for blog posts, newsletters, and essays. Use whenever the user asks to write, review, or improve a CTA at the bottom of an article; mentions "end-of-post CTA", "call-to-action", "signup box", "newsletter CTA", "subscribe block", or "what should I put at the bottom"; or asks how to turn readers into subscribers, leads, customers, or paying supporters. Covers personal blogs, paid newsletters (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost), and brand content-marketing blogs. Do NOT use for opening hooks, ledes, or post titles — use samber/cc-skills@copywriting-hooks instead. Not for landing-page, ad, or email copy. user-invocable: true license: MIT compatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents. metadata: author: samber version: "1.1.2" openclaw: emoji: "🎯" homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Agent AskUserQuestion ---

**Questions:** Ask the user through the environment's question tool — never as plain-text prose. One question at a time, 2–4 tappable options, wait for the answer. If the environment has no question tool, ask in prose with the same options, one at a time.

# End-of-Article CTA Designer

Designing an end-of-article CTA is a function of three inputs: the **objective** (what action), the **audience** (who reads it, in what relationship to the author), and the **context** (independent writing, newsletter, brand publication). Get those three right and the copy + form follow almost mechanically. Skip them and you get the universal failure mode: a generic "Subscribe for more" or "Learn More" that converts at the noise floor.

This skill runs a tight interview to capture those three inputs, then prescribes a CTA: copy (what it says), form (how it looks and sits on the page), mechanism (whether to use urgency, scarcity, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, or none), an A/B test plan, and an accessibility check.

---

## Workflow

Run the four steps below in order. Do not skip the interview. The user may have given partial context already; pull what's available from the conversation, then ask only for the missing pieces.

### Step 1 — Interview

Ask one question at a time. Do not stack questions in prose. Each question must have 2-4 tappable options. Fall back to free text only if the answer genuinely cannot be enumerated.

Ask these in order, skipping any already answered:

**Q1. Article context.** Options: `Personal / independent blog or essay` · `Newsletter / paid publication (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, etc.)` · `Brand / company / content-marketing blog` · `Other (free text)`

**Q2. Primary objective.** (Pick the one outcome you most want from a reader who finishes the article. If they say "all of them," push back: multiple objectives is the #1 cause of CTA failure.)

Options:

- `Newsletter / email subscription` - `Social follow / personal branding` - `Lead generation (download / gated asset)` - `Product or service signup / free trial` - `Demo or sales call booking` - `Direct purchase` - `Community join (Discord / Slack / forum)` - `Engagement (reply / comment / share / restack)` - `Reader support (paid subscription / tip / sponsorship)` - `Try-it / direct action (use the code, run the tool, fork the template, open the calculator)` - `Other (free text)`

If the user lists more than one, ask which is primary. You can offer 1-2 secondaries later, but the primary must be singular.

**Q3. Audience and relationship.** Options: `First-time visitor (organic search / social)` · `Returning reader, not subscribed` · `Existing subscriber / customer` · `Mixed / unknown`

**Q4. Funnel stage.** (Where is the reader mentally?) Options: `TOFU: discovery, learning, no buying intent yet` · `MOFU: evaluating options, comparing` · `BOFU: ready to act, just needs a nudge` · `Not applicable (no buying funnel — e.g., personal blog, journalism, hobby content)`

**Q5. Mechanism preference.** (Only ask if a mechanism could legitimately help. See `references/mechanisms.md`. For sophisticated, skeptical, or repeat-reader audiences, default to "None / value-only" without asking.) Options: `None: value statement only` · `Curiosity gap ("Want to know more?")` · `Reciprocity (free asset first)` · `Discount / offer` · `Urgency (real deadline)` · `Scarcity / FOMO (limited spots)` · `Social proof (count / testimonial)`

Capture any free-text constraints the user volunteers (length limit, brand voice, no popups, multi-language, etc.). Note them.

### Step 2 — Diagnose

Map the inputs to a CTA archetype. The decision logic:

``` context = INDEPENDENT / PERSONAL ├── objective = newsletter / email → Archetype A: Author-signature subscribe ├── objective = try-it / direct action → Archetype B: Inline action + source link ├── objective = reader support / tip → Archetype C: Reader-supported funding link ├── objective = community → Archetype D: Proof-counted community invite ├── objective = social follow → Archetype A (variant: lead with social links) ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt └── objective = product / demo → ⚠️ FLAG. Only valid on personal/professional blog where the author IS the product (consultants, coaches, solo founders, indie devs). Frame as "if you hit this, here's how I help" — never "Book a Demo" verbatim.

context = NEWSLETTER PUBLICATION ├── objective = growth / subs → Archetype F: Share/restack + native widget ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt ├── objective = paid conversion → Archetype G: Value-gap tease ├── objective = monetization / sponsor → Archetype H: Inline sponsor block (not bottom) ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = direct purchase → Archetype K (rare on newsletters; use BOFU only)

context = BRAND / CONTENT MARKETING ├── stage = TOFU → Archetype I: Transitional asset (lead magnet) ├── stage = MOFU → Archetype J: Direct + Transitional pair ├── stage = BOFU → Archetype K: Direct CTA + risk reversal ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = engagement → Archetype E (rarely the right call here) ```

Read `references/taxonomy.md` for the full archetype catalog with copy templates, form specs, when each works, and verbatim examples from named publications.

### Step 3 — Compose the recommendation

Output the recommendation in this exact structure. Do not deviate. Do not add filler.

```markdown ## Recommended CTA

**Archetype:** [letter + name from decision tree] **Why this fits:** [1-2 sentences naming the input combination]

### Content (copy)

**Headline / value line:**

> [exact text]

**Body / proof line (1-2 lines):**

> [exact text]

**Button copy:**

> [exact text]

**Risk reversal / subtext (if applicable):**

> [exact text, or "Omit: would feel forced for this audience"]

### Form (structure)

- **Placement:** [end-only / end + sticky / end + mid-article repeat] - **Visual weight:** [low / medium / high, with justification] - **Layout:** [single button / button + text link / native widget cluster / one-line signature] - **Proof to co-locate:** [subscriber count / star count / testimonial / named recommenders / logo wall / none]

### Mechanism

[Named mechanism + 1 sentence on why it is appropriate, OR "None: value statement carries it. Mechanisms would erode trust for this audience."]

### A/B test plan

- **First test:** [single variable, e.g., button copy A vs. B] - **Why this one first:** [1 sentence] - **Sample size needed:** [rough estimate based on baseline traffic, or "skip A/B for now — traffic too low" with the alternative recommendation] - **Next 2 tests to queue:** [in priority order]

### Accessibility check

- **Color contrast:** [target ratio + concrete pairing if colors known] - **Touch target:** [size requirement] - **Semantic markup:** [<button> vs. <a> vs. form] - **ARIA:** [only if non-obvious] - **Keyboard / focus:** [requirement] - **Color-independence:** [non-color affordance] ```

After printing the recommendation, list 2-3 anti-patterns the user is at risk of falling into given their inputs, directly, as a contrarian check. Pull these from `references/anti-patterns.md`.

If the user is writing in a non-English language, translate the content section into that language but keep the structure (headings, labels) in English. Honor formality cues (e.g., `tu` vs. `vous` in French, `du` vs. `Sie` in German) based on prior conversation context, and flag the choice explicitly.

### Step 4 — Offer next moves

Suggest 2-3 follow-up directions:

1. **Steelman the opposite.** Offer to design the CTA you would recommend against — e.g., the hard-sell version on a TOFU post — so the user can see why it fails. 2. **Variant for a different audience or platform.** If the article will be cross-posted (own site + Medium + LinkedIn + a syndication network), offer to rewrite per platform. 3. **End-to-end review.** Offer to audit the rest of the article for CTA-supporting signals: author bio, related-post links, in-line proof.

---

## Style inheritance

The copy templates in `references/taxonomy.md` are starting points, not finished copy. Always adapt them to:

- The user's stated brand voice or any `<userPreferences>` in scope (formality, language, em-dash avoidance, length limits). - The language of the article. Output copy in the article's language; never default to English. - The publication's existing voice. If the user has prior posts visible, mirror their cadence and vocabulary. - The reader's expected level of expertise. A CTA for a beginner-finance blog uses different vocabulary than one for a quant-trading newsletter.

Never output a template verbatim if it conflicts with the user's stated style preferences.

---

## Reference files

Read these as needed during diagnosis and composition. Read the relevant file in full before composing the recommendation; do not paraphrase from memory.

- **`references/taxonomy.md`**: All 11 archetypes (A through K) with copy templates, form specs, verbatim examples from named publications, and conversion expectations. - **`references/mechanisms.md`**: When to use urgency, scarcity, FOMO, discount, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, authority, unity. When NOT to use them. - **`references/ab-testing.md`**: Priority order of variables to test, sample-size rules of thumb, common pitfalls, when to skip A/B testing entirely. - **`references/accessibility.md`**: WCAG 2.2 specifics for CTA blocks: contrast ratios, touch targets, ARIA patterns, focus states, keyboard support, motion preferences. - **`references/anti-patterns.md`**: 12 failure modes to call out by name when they apply to the user's inputs.

---

## Operating principles

- **One primary CTA per post.** Multiple competing CTAs is the dominant failure mode (single-CTA pages convert ~30%+ better than multi-CTA pages in repeated case studies). - **Match the voice of the publication.** A personal-essay footer that reads like a SaaS landing page collapses credibility. A SaaS footer that reads like a casual signature converts at noise. - **Specificity beats cleverness.** "Get one essay a week on indie filmmaking" beats "Subscribe to our awesome newsletter." Joanna Wiebe's "I want to \_\_\_" completion test is the cleanest filter for button copy. - **Proof co-located with the ask.** Subscriber count, testimonial, customer logos, star count, named recommenders — whichever signal is honest for the context, place it inside or adjacent to the CTA block. - **Mechanisms are tools, not garnish.** Most well-written value statements need no mechanism.

--- name: copywriting-cta description: Designs end-of-article CTAs — copy, layout, placement, A/B test plan, accessibility — for blog posts, newsletters, and essays. Use whenever the user asks to write, review, or improve a CTA at the bottom of an article; mentions "end-of-post CTA", "call-to-action", "signup box", "newsletter CTA", "subscribe block", or "what should I put at the bottom"; or asks how to turn readers into subscribers, leads, customers, or paying supporters. Covers personal blogs, paid newsletters (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost), and brand content-marketing blogs. Do NOT use for opening hooks, ledes, or post titles — use samber/cc-skills@copywriting-hooks instead. Not for landing-page, ad, or email copy. user-invocable: true license: MIT compatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents. metadata: author: samber version: "1.1.2" openclaw: emoji: "🎯" homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Agent AskUserQuestion ---

**Questions:** Ask the user through the environment's question tool — never as plain-text prose. One question at a time, 2–4 tappable options, wait for the answer. If the environment has no question tool, ask in prose with the same options, one at a time.

# End-of-Article CTA Designer

Designing an end-of-article CTA is a function of three inputs: the **objective** (what action), the **audience** (who reads it, in what relationship to the author), and the **context** (independent writing, newsletter, brand publication). Get those three right and the copy + form follow almost mechanically. Skip them and you get the universal failure mode: a generic "Subscribe for more" or "Learn More" that converts at the noise floor.

This skill runs a tight interview to capture those three inputs, then prescribes a CTA: copy (what it says), form (how it looks and sits on the page), mechanism (whether to use urgency, scarcity, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, or none), an A/B test plan, and an accessibility check.

---

## Workflow

Run the four steps below in order. Do not skip the interview. The user may have given partial context already; pull what's available from the conversation, then ask only for the missing pieces.

### Step 1 — Interview

Ask one question at a time. Do not stack questions in prose. Each question must have 2-4 tappable options. Fall back to free text only if the answer genuinely cannot be enumerated.

Ask these in order, skipping any already answered:

**Q1. Article context.** Options: `Personal / independent blog or essay` · `Newsletter / paid publication (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, etc.)` · `Brand / company / content-marketing blog` · `Other (free text)`

**Q2. Primary objective.** (Pick the one outcome you most want from a reader who finishes the article. If they say "all of them," push back: multiple objectives is the #1 cause of CTA failure.)

Options:

- `Newsletter / email subscription` - `Social follow / personal branding` - `Lead generation (download / gated asset)` - `Product or service signup / free trial` - `Demo or sales call booking` - `Direct purchase` - `Community join (Discord / Slack / forum)` - `Engagement (reply / comment / share / restack)` - `Reader support (paid subscription / tip / sponsorship)` - `Try-it / direct action (use the code, run the tool, fork the template, open the calculator)` - `Other (free text)`

If the user lists more than one, ask which is primary. You can offer 1-2 secondaries later, but the primary must be singular.

**Q3. Audience and relationship.** Options: `First-time visitor (organic search / social)` · `Returning reader, not subscribed` · `Existing subscriber / customer` · `Mixed / unknown`

**Q4. Funnel stage.** (Where is the reader mentally?) Options: `TOFU: discovery, learning, no buying intent yet` · `MOFU: evaluating options, comparing` · `BOFU: ready to act, just needs a nudge` · `Not applicable (no buying funnel — e.g., personal blog, journalism, hobby content)`

**Q5. Mechanism preference.** (Only ask if a mechanism could legitimately help. See `references/mechanisms.md`. For sophisticated, skeptical, or repeat-reader audiences, default to "None / value-only" without asking.) Options: `None: value statement only` · `Curiosity gap ("Want to know more?")` · `Reciprocity (free asset first)` · `Discount / offer` · `Urgency (real deadline)` · `Scarcity / FOMO (limited spots)` · `Social proof (count / testimonial)`

Capture any free-text constraints the user volunteers (length limit, brand voice, no popups, multi-language, etc.). Note them.

### Step 2 — Diagnose

Map the inputs to a CTA archetype. The decision logic:

``` context = INDEPENDENT / PERSONAL ├── objective = newsletter / email → Archetype A: Author-signature subscribe ├── objective = try-it / direct action → Archetype B: Inline action + source link ├── objective = reader support / tip → Archetype C: Reader-supported funding link ├── objective = community → Archetype D: Proof-counted community invite ├── objective = social follow → Archetype A (variant: lead with social links) ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt └── objective = product / demo → ⚠️ FLAG. Only valid on personal/professional blog where the author IS the product (consultants, coaches, solo founders, indie devs). Frame as "if you hit this, here's how I help" — never "Book a Demo" verbatim.

context = NEWSLETTER PUBLICATION ├── objective = growth / subs → Archetype F: Share/restack + native widget ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt ├── objective = paid conversion → Archetype G: Value-gap tease ├── objective = monetization / sponsor → Archetype H: Inline sponsor block (not bottom) ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = direct purchase → Archetype K (rare on newsletters; use BOFU only)

context = BRAND / CONTENT MARKETING ├── stage = TOFU → Archetype I: Transitional asset (lead magnet) ├── stage = MOFU → Archetype J: Direct + Transitional pair ├── stage = BOFU → Archetype K: Direct CTA + risk reversal ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = engagement → Archetype E (rarely the right call here) ```

Read `references/taxonomy.md` for the full archetype catalog with copy templates, form specs, when each works, and verbatim examples from named publications.

### Step 3 — Compose the recommendation

Output the recommendation in this exact structure. Do not deviate. Do not add filler.

```markdown ## Recommended CTA

**Archetype:** [letter + name from decision tree] **Why this fits:** [1-2 sentences naming the input combination]

### Content (copy)

**Headline / value line:**

> [exact text]

**Body / proof line (1-2 lines):**

> [exact text]

**Button copy:**

> [exact text]

**Risk reversal / subtext (if applicable):**

> [exact text, or "Omit: would feel forced for this audience"]

### Form (structure)

- **Placement:** [end-only / end + sticky / end + mid-article repeat] - **Visual weight:** [low / medium / high, with justification] - **Layout:** [single button / button + text link / native widget cluster / one-line signature] - **Proof to co-locate:** [subscriber count / star count / testimonial / named recommenders / logo wall / none]

### Mechanism

[Named mechanism + 1 sentence on why it is appropriate, OR "None: value statement carries it. Mechanisms would erode trust for this audience."]

### A/B test plan

- **First test:** [single variable, e.g., button copy A vs. B] - **Why this one first:** [1 sentence] - **Sample size needed:** [rough estimate based on baseline traffic, or "skip A/B for now — traffic too low" with the alternative recommendation] - **Next 2 tests to queue:** [in priority order]

### Accessibility check

- **Color contrast:** [target ratio + concrete pairing if colors known] - **Touch target:** [size requirement] - **Semantic markup:** [<button> vs. <a> vs. form] - **ARIA:** [only if non-obvious] - **Keyboard / focus:** [requirement] - **Color-independence:** [non-color affordance] ```

After printing the recommendation, list 2-3 anti-patterns the user is at risk of falling into given their inputs, directly, as a contrarian check. Pull these from `references/anti-patterns.md`.

If the user is writing in a non-English language, translate the content section into that language but keep the structure (headings, labels) in English. Honor formality cues (e.g., `tu` vs. `vous` in French, `du` vs. `Sie` in German) based on prior conversation context, and flag the choice explicitly.

### Step 4 — Offer next moves

Suggest 2-3 follow-up directions:

1. **Steelman the opposite.** Offer to design the CTA you would recommend against — e.g., the hard-sell version on a TOFU post — so the user can see why it fails. 2. **Variant for a different audience or platform.** If the article will be cross-posted (own site + Medium + LinkedIn + a syndication network), offer to rewrite per platform. 3. **End-to-end review.** Offer to audit the rest of the article for CTA-supporting signals: author bio, related-post links, in-line proof.

---

## Style inheritance

The copy templates in `references/taxonomy.md` are starting points, not finished copy. Always adapt them to:

- The user's stated brand voice or any `<userPreferences>` in scope (formality, language, em-dash avoidance, length limits). - The language of the article. Output copy in the article's language; never default to English. - The publication's existing voice. If the user has prior posts visible, mirror their cadence and vocabulary. - The reader's expected level of expertise. A CTA for a beginner-finance blog uses different vocabulary than one for a quant-trading newsletter.

Never output a template verbatim if it conflicts with the user's stated style preferences.

---

## Reference files

Read these as needed during diagnosis and composition. Read the relevant file in full before composing the recommendation; do not paraphrase from memory.

- **`references/taxonomy.md`**: All 11 archetypes (A through K) with copy templates, form specs, verbatim examples from named publications, and conversion expectations. - **`references/mechanisms.md`**: When to use urgency, scarcity, FOMO, discount, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, authority, unity. When NOT to use them. - **`references/ab-testing.md`**: Priority order of variables to test, sample-size rules of thumb, common pitfalls, when to skip A/B testing entirely. - **`references/accessibility.md`**: WCAG 2.2 specifics for CTA blocks: contrast ratios, touch targets, ARIA patterns, focus states, keyboard support, motion preferences. - **`references/anti-patterns.md`**: 12 failure modes to call out by name when they apply to the user's inputs.

---

## Operating principles

- **One primary CTA per post.** Multiple competing CTAs is the dominant failure mode (single-CTA pages convert ~30%+ better than multi-CTA pages in repeated case studies). - **Match the voice of the publication.** A personal-essay footer that reads like a SaaS landing page collapses credibility. A SaaS footer that reads like a casual signature converts at noise. - **Specificity beats cleverness.** "Get one essay a week on indie filmmaking" beats "Subscribe to our awesome newsletter." Joanna Wiebe's "I want to \_\_\_" completion test is the cleanest filter for button copy. - **Proof co-located with the ask.** Subscriber count, testimonial, customer logos, star count, named recommenders — whichever signal is honest for the context, place it inside or adjacent to the CTA block. - **Mechanisms are tools, not garnish.** Most well-written value statements need no mechanism.

--- name: copywriting-cta description: Designs end-of-article CTAs — copy, layout, placement, A/B test plan, accessibility — for blog posts, newsletters, and essays. Use whenever the user asks to write, review, or improve a CTA at the bottom of an article; mentions "end-of-post CTA", "call-to-action", "signup box", "newsletter CTA", "subscribe block", or "what should I put at the bottom"; or asks how to turn readers into subscribers, leads, customers, or paying supporters. Covers personal blogs, paid newsletters (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost), and brand content-marketing blogs. Do NOT use for opening hooks, ledes, or post titles — use samber/cc-skills@copywriting-hooks instead. Not for landing-page, ad, or email copy. user-invocable: true license: MIT compatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents. metadata: author: samber version: "1.1.2" openclaw: emoji: "🎯" homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Agent AskUserQuestion ---

**Questions:** Ask the user through the environment's question tool — never as plain-text prose. One question at a time, 2–4 tappable options, wait for the answer. If the environment has no question tool, ask in prose with the same options, one at a time.

# End-of-Article CTA Designer

Designing an end-of-article CTA is a function of three inputs: the **objective** (what action), the **audience** (who reads it, in what relationship to the author), and the **context** (independent writing, newsletter, brand publication). Get those three right and the copy + form follow almost mechanically. Skip them and you get the universal failure mode: a generic "Subscribe for more" or "Learn More" that converts at the noise floor.

This skill runs a tight interview to capture those three inputs, then prescribes a CTA: copy (what it says), form (how it looks and sits on the page), mechanism (whether to use urgency, scarcity, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, or none), an A/B test plan, and an accessibility check.

---

## Workflow

Run the four steps below in order. Do not skip the interview. The user may have given partial context already; pull what's available from the conversation, then ask only for the missing pieces.

### Step 1 — Interview

Ask one question at a time. Do not stack questions in prose. Each question must have 2-4 tappable options. Fall back to free text only if the answer genuinely cannot be enumerated.

Ask these in order, skipping any already answered:

**Q1. Article context.** Options: `Personal / independent blog or essay` · `Newsletter / paid publication (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, etc.)` · `Brand / company / content-marketing blog` · `Other (free text)`

**Q2. Primary objective.** (Pick the one outcome you most want from a reader who finishes the article. If they say "all of them," push back: multiple objectives is the #1 cause of CTA failure.)

Options:

- `Newsletter / email subscription` - `Social follow / personal branding` - `Lead generation (download / gated asset)` - `Product or service signup / free trial` - `Demo or sales call booking` - `Direct purchase` - `Community join (Discord / Slack / forum)` - `Engagement (reply / comment / share / restack)` - `Reader support (paid subscription / tip / sponsorship)` - `Try-it / direct action (use the code, run the tool, fork the template, open the calculator)` - `Other (free text)`

If the user lists more than one, ask which is primary. You can offer 1-2 secondaries later, but the primary must be singular.

**Q3. Audience and relationship.** Options: `First-time visitor (organic search / social)` · `Returning reader, not subscribed` · `Existing subscriber / customer` · `Mixed / unknown`

**Q4. Funnel stage.** (Where is the reader mentally?) Options: `TOFU: discovery, learning, no buying intent yet` · `MOFU: evaluating options, comparing` · `BOFU: ready to act, just needs a nudge` · `Not applicable (no buying funnel — e.g., personal blog, journalism, hobby content)`

**Q5. Mechanism preference.** (Only ask if a mechanism could legitimately help. See `references/mechanisms.md`. For sophisticated, skeptical, or repeat-reader audiences, default to "None / value-only" without asking.) Options: `None: value statement only` · `Curiosity gap ("Want to know more?")` · `Reciprocity (free asset first)` · `Discount / offer` · `Urgency (real deadline)` · `Scarcity / FOMO (limited spots)` · `Social proof (count / testimonial)`

Capture any free-text constraints the user volunteers (length limit, brand voice, no popups, multi-language, etc.). Note them.

### Step 2 — Diagnose

Map the inputs to a CTA archetype. The decision logic:

``` context = INDEPENDENT / PERSONAL ├── objective = newsletter / email → Archetype A: Author-signature subscribe ├── objective = try-it / direct action → Archetype B: Inline action + source link ├── objective = reader support / tip → Archetype C: Reader-supported funding link ├── objective = community → Archetype D: Proof-counted community invite ├── objective = social follow → Archetype A (variant: lead with social links) ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt └── objective = product / demo → ⚠️ FLAG. Only valid on personal/professional blog where the author IS the product (consultants, coaches, solo founders, indie devs). Frame as "if you hit this, here's how I help" — never "Book a Demo" verbatim.

context = NEWSLETTER PUBLICATION ├── objective = growth / subs → Archetype F: Share/restack + native widget ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt ├── objective = paid conversion → Archetype G: Value-gap tease ├── objective = monetization / sponsor → Archetype H: Inline sponsor block (not bottom) ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = direct purchase → Archetype K (rare on newsletters; use BOFU only)

context = BRAND / CONTENT MARKETING ├── stage = TOFU → Archetype I: Transitional asset (lead magnet) ├── stage = MOFU → Archetype J: Direct + Transitional pair ├── stage = BOFU → Archetype K: Direct CTA + risk reversal ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = engagement → Archetype E (rarely the right call here) ```

Read `references/taxonomy.md` for the full archetype catalog with copy templates, form specs, when each works, and verbatim examples from named publications.

### Step 3 — Compose the recommendation

Output the recommendation in this exact structure. Do not deviate. Do not add filler.

```markdown ## Recommended CTA

**Archetype:** [letter + name from decision tree] **Why this fits:** [1-2 sentences naming the input combination]

### Content (copy)

**Headline / value line:**

> [exact text]

**Body / proof line (1-2 lines):**

> [exact text]

**Button copy:**

> [exact text]

**Risk reversal / subtext (if applicable):**

> [exact text, or "Omit: would feel forced for this audience"]

### Form (structure)

- **Placement:** [end-only / end + sticky / end + mid-article repeat] - **Visual weight:** [low / medium / high, with justification] - **Layout:** [single button / button + text link / native widget cluster / one-line signature] - **Proof to co-locate:** [subscriber count / star count / testimonial / named recommenders / logo wall / none]

### Mechanism

[Named mechanism + 1 sentence on why it is appropriate, OR "None: value statement carries it. Mechanisms would erode trust for this audience."]

### A/B test plan

- **First test:** [single variable, e.g., button copy A vs. B] - **Why this one first:** [1 sentence] - **Sample size needed:** [rough estimate based on baseline traffic, or "skip A/B for now — traffic too low" with the alternative recommendation] - **Next 2 tests to queue:** [in priority order]

### Accessibility check

- **Color contrast:** [target ratio + concrete pairing if colors known] - **Touch target:** [size requirement] - **Semantic markup:** [<button> vs. <a> vs. form] - **ARIA:** [only if non-obvious] - **Keyboard / focus:** [requirement] - **Color-independence:** [non-color affordance] ```

After printing the recommendation, list 2-3 anti-patterns the user is at risk of falling into given their inputs, directly, as a contrarian check. Pull these from `references/anti-patterns.md`.

If the user is writing in a non-English language, translate the content section into that language but keep the structure (headings, labels) in English. Honor formality cues (e.g., `tu` vs. `vous` in French, `du` vs. `Sie` in German) based on prior conversation context, and flag the choice explicitly.

### Step 4 — Offer next moves

Suggest 2-3 follow-up directions:

1. **Steelman the opposite.** Offer to design the CTA you would recommend against — e.g., the hard-sell version on a TOFU post — so the user can see why it fails. 2. **Variant for a different audience or platform.** If the article will be cross-posted (own site + Medium + LinkedIn + a syndication network), offer to rewrite per platform. 3. **End-to-end review.** Offer to audit the rest of the article for CTA-supporting signals: author bio, related-post links, in-line proof.

---

## Style inheritance

The copy templates in `references/taxonomy.md` are starting points, not finished copy. Always adapt them to:

- The user's stated brand voice or any `<userPreferences>` in scope (formality, language, em-dash avoidance, length limits). - The language of the article. Output copy in the article's language; never default to English. - The publication's existing voice. If the user has prior posts visible, mirror their cadence and vocabulary. - The reader's expected level of expertise. A CTA for a beginner-finance blog uses different vocabulary than one for a quant-trading newsletter.

Never output a template verbatim if it conflicts with the user's stated style preferences.

---

## Reference files

Read these as needed during diagnosis and composition. Read the relevant file in full before composing the recommendation; do not paraphrase from memory.

- **`references/taxonomy.md`**: All 11 archetypes (A through K) with copy templates, form specs, verbatim examples from named publications, and conversion expectations. - **`references/mechanisms.md`**: When to use urgency, scarcity, FOMO, discount, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, authority, unity. When NOT to use them. - **`references/ab-testing.md`**: Priority order of variables to test, sample-size rules of thumb, common pitfalls, when to skip A/B testing entirely. - **`references/accessibility.md`**: WCAG 2.2 specifics for CTA blocks: contrast ratios, touch targets, ARIA patterns, focus states, keyboard support, motion preferences. - **`references/anti-patterns.md`**: 12 failure modes to call out by name when they apply to the user's inputs.

---

## Operating principles

- **One primary CTA per post.** Multiple competing CTAs is the dominant failure mode (single-CTA pages convert ~30%+ better than multi-CTA pages in repeated case studies). - **Match the voice of the publication.** A personal-essay footer that reads like a SaaS landing page collapses credibility. A SaaS footer that reads like a casual signature converts at noise. - **Specificity beats cleverness.** "Get one essay a week on indie filmmaking" beats "Subscribe to our awesome newsletter." Joanna Wiebe's "I want to \_\_\_" completion test is the cleanest filter for button copy. - **Proof co-located with the ask.** Subscriber count, testimonial, customer logos, star count, named recommenders — whichever signal is honest for the context, place it inside or adjacent to the CTA block. - **Mechanisms are tools, not garnish.** Most well-written value statements need no mechanism.

--- name: copywriting-cta description: Designs end-of-article CTAs — copy, layout, placement, A/B test plan, accessibility — for blog posts, newsletters, and essays. Use whenever the user asks to write, review, or improve a CTA at the bottom of an article; mentions "end-of-post CTA", "call-to-action", "signup box", "newsletter CTA", "subscribe block", or "what should I put at the bottom"; or asks how to turn readers into subscribers, leads, customers, or paying supporters. Covers personal blogs, paid newsletters (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost), and brand content-marketing blogs. Do NOT use for opening hooks, ledes, or post titles — use samber/cc-skills@copywriting-hooks instead. Not for landing-page, ad, or email copy. user-invocable: true license: MIT compatibility: Designed for Claude or similar AI agents. metadata: author: samber version: "1.1.2" openclaw: emoji: "🎯" homepage: https://github.com/samber/cc-skills allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Glob Grep Agent AskUserQuestion ---

**Questions:** Ask the user through the environment's question tool — never as plain-text prose. One question at a time, 2–4 tappable options, wait for the answer. If the environment has no question tool, ask in prose with the same options, one at a time.

# End-of-Article CTA Designer

Designing an end-of-article CTA is a function of three inputs: the **objective** (what action), the **audience** (who reads it, in what relationship to the author), and the **context** (independent writing, newsletter, brand publication). Get those three right and the copy + form follow almost mechanically. Skip them and you get the universal failure mode: a generic "Subscribe for more" or "Learn More" that converts at the noise floor.

This skill runs a tight interview to capture those three inputs, then prescribes a CTA: copy (what it says), form (how it looks and sits on the page), mechanism (whether to use urgency, scarcity, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, or none), an A/B test plan, and an accessibility check.

---

## Workflow

Run the four steps below in order. Do not skip the interview. The user may have given partial context already; pull what's available from the conversation, then ask only for the missing pieces.

### Step 1 — Interview

Ask one question at a time. Do not stack questions in prose. Each question must have 2-4 tappable options. Fall back to free text only if the answer genuinely cannot be enumerated.

Ask these in order, skipping any already answered:

**Q1. Article context.** Options: `Personal / independent blog or essay` · `Newsletter / paid publication (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, etc.)` · `Brand / company / content-marketing blog` · `Other (free text)`

**Q2. Primary objective.** (Pick the one outcome you most want from a reader who finishes the article. If they say "all of them," push back: multiple objectives is the #1 cause of CTA failure.)

Options:

- `Newsletter / email subscription` - `Social follow / personal branding` - `Lead generation (download / gated asset)` - `Product or service signup / free trial` - `Demo or sales call booking` - `Direct purchase` - `Community join (Discord / Slack / forum)` - `Engagement (reply / comment / share / restack)` - `Reader support (paid subscription / tip / sponsorship)` - `Try-it / direct action (use the code, run the tool, fork the template, open the calculator)` - `Other (free text)`

If the user lists more than one, ask which is primary. You can offer 1-2 secondaries later, but the primary must be singular.

**Q3. Audience and relationship.** Options: `First-time visitor (organic search / social)` · `Returning reader, not subscribed` · `Existing subscriber / customer` · `Mixed / unknown`

**Q4. Funnel stage.** (Where is the reader mentally?) Options: `TOFU: discovery, learning, no buying intent yet` · `MOFU: evaluating options, comparing` · `BOFU: ready to act, just needs a nudge` · `Not applicable (no buying funnel — e.g., personal blog, journalism, hobby content)`

**Q5. Mechanism preference.** (Only ask if a mechanism could legitimately help. See `references/mechanisms.md`. For sophisticated, skeptical, or repeat-reader audiences, default to "None / value-only" without asking.) Options: `None: value statement only` · `Curiosity gap ("Want to know more?")` · `Reciprocity (free asset first)` · `Discount / offer` · `Urgency (real deadline)` · `Scarcity / FOMO (limited spots)` · `Social proof (count / testimonial)`

Capture any free-text constraints the user volunteers (length limit, brand voice, no popups, multi-language, etc.). Note them.

### Step 2 — Diagnose

Map the inputs to a CTA archetype. The decision logic:

``` context = INDEPENDENT / PERSONAL ├── objective = newsletter / email → Archetype A: Author-signature subscribe ├── objective = try-it / direct action → Archetype B: Inline action + source link ├── objective = reader support / tip → Archetype C: Reader-supported funding link ├── objective = community → Archetype D: Proof-counted community invite ├── objective = social follow → Archetype A (variant: lead with social links) ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt └── objective = product / demo → ⚠️ FLAG. Only valid on personal/professional blog where the author IS the product (consultants, coaches, solo founders, indie devs). Frame as "if you hit this, here's how I help" — never "Book a Demo" verbatim.

context = NEWSLETTER PUBLICATION ├── objective = growth / subs → Archetype F: Share/restack + native widget ├── objective = engagement → Archetype E: Specific reply prompt ├── objective = paid conversion → Archetype G: Value-gap tease ├── objective = monetization / sponsor → Archetype H: Inline sponsor block (not bottom) ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = direct purchase → Archetype K (rare on newsletters; use BOFU only)

context = BRAND / CONTENT MARKETING ├── stage = TOFU → Archetype I: Transitional asset (lead magnet) ├── stage = MOFU → Archetype J: Direct + Transitional pair ├── stage = BOFU → Archetype K: Direct CTA + risk reversal ├── objective = community → Archetype D └── objective = engagement → Archetype E (rarely the right call here) ```

Read `references/taxonomy.md` for the full archetype catalog with copy templates, form specs, when each works, and verbatim examples from named publications.

### Step 3 — Compose the recommendation

Output the recommendation in this exact structure. Do not deviate. Do not add filler.

```markdown ## Recommended CTA

**Archetype:** [letter + name from decision tree] **Why this fits:** [1-2 sentences naming the input combination]

### Content (copy)

**Headline / value line:**

> [exact text]

**Body / proof line (1-2 lines):**

> [exact text]

**Button copy:**

> [exact text]

**Risk reversal / subtext (if applicable):**

> [exact text, or "Omit: would feel forced for this audience"]

### Form (structure)

- **Placement:** [end-only / end + sticky / end + mid-article repeat] - **Visual weight:** [low / medium / high, with justification] - **Layout:** [single button / button + text link / native widget cluster / one-line signature] - **Proof to co-locate:** [subscriber count / star count / testimonial / named recommenders / logo wall / none]

### Mechanism

[Named mechanism + 1 sentence on why it is appropriate, OR "None: value statement carries it. Mechanisms would erode trust for this audience."]

### A/B test plan

- **First test:** [single variable, e.g., button copy A vs. B] - **Why this one first:** [1 sentence] - **Sample size needed:** [rough estimate based on baseline traffic, or "skip A/B for now — traffic too low" with the alternative recommendation] - **Next 2 tests to queue:** [in priority order]

### Accessibility check

- **Color contrast:** [target ratio + concrete pairing if colors known] - **Touch target:** [size requirement] - **Semantic markup:** [<button> vs. <a> vs. form] - **ARIA:** [only if non-obvious] - **Keyboard / focus:** [requirement] - **Color-independence:** [non-color affordance] ```

After printing the recommendation, list 2-3 anti-patterns the user is at risk of falling into given their inputs, directly, as a contrarian check. Pull these from `references/anti-patterns.md`.

If the user is writing in a non-English language, translate the content section into that language but keep the structure (headings, labels) in English. Honor formality cues (e.g., `tu` vs. `vous` in French, `du` vs. `Sie` in German) based on prior conversation context, and flag the choice explicitly.

### Step 4 — Offer next moves

Suggest 2-3 follow-up directions:

1. **Steelman the opposite.** Offer to design the CTA you would recommend against — e.g., the hard-sell version on a TOFU post — so the user can see why it fails. 2. **Variant for a different audience or platform.** If the article will be cross-posted (own site + Medium + LinkedIn + a syndication network), offer to rewrite per platform. 3. **End-to-end review.** Offer to audit the rest of the article for CTA-supporting signals: author bio, related-post links, in-line proof.

---

## Style inheritance

The copy templates in `references/taxonomy.md` are starting points, not finished copy. Always adapt them to:

- The user's stated brand voice or any `<userPreferences>` in scope (formality, language, em-dash avoidance, length limits). - The language of the article. Output copy in the article's language; never default to English. - The publication's existing voice. If the user has prior posts visible, mirror their cadence and vocabulary. - The reader's expected level of expertise. A CTA for a beginner-finance blog uses different vocabulary than one for a quant-trading newsletter.

Never output a template verbatim if it conflicts with the user's stated style preferences.

---

## Reference files

Read these as needed during diagnosis and composition. Read the relevant file in full before composing the recommendation; do not paraphrase from memory.

- **`references/taxonomy.md`**: All 11 archetypes (A through K) with copy templates, form specs, verbatim examples from named publications, and conversion expectations. - **`references/mechanisms.md`**: When to use urgency, scarcity, FOMO, discount, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, authority, unity. When NOT to use them. - **`references/ab-testing.md`**: Priority order of variables to test, sample-size rules of thumb, common pitfalls, when to skip A/B testing entirely. - **`references/accessibility.md`**: WCAG 2.2 specifics for CTA blocks: contrast ratios, touch targets, ARIA patterns, focus states, keyboard support, motion preferences. - **`references/anti-patterns.md`**: 12 failure modes to call out by name when they apply to the user's inputs.

---

## Operating principles

- **One primary CTA per post.** Multiple competing CTAs is the dominant failure mode (single-CTA pages convert ~30%+ better than multi-CTA pages in repeated case studies). - **Match the voice of the publication.** A personal-essay footer that reads like a SaaS landing page collapses credibility. A SaaS footer that reads like a casual signature converts at noise. - **Specificity beats cleverness.** "Get one essay a week on indie filmmaking" beats "Subscribe to our awesome newsletter." Joanna Wiebe's "I want to \_\_\_" completion test is the cleanest filter for button copy. - **Proof co-located with the ask.** Subscriber count, testimonial, customer logos, star count, named recommenders — whichever signal is honest for the context, place it inside or adjacent to the CTA block. - **Mechanisms are tools, not garnish.** Most well-written value statements need no mechanism.