Hook And Human

---
name: hook-and-human
description: >-
  Write, punch up or review marketing copy that stops the scroll and converts while still sounding human: LinkedIn, X and Bluesky posts, cold or marketing emails, ads, landing pages, headlines, hooks, CTAs, YouTube titles and thumbnails. Uses persuasion patterns on purpose; never fabricates specifics. Neutral docs or explainers are clear-and-human; a LinkedIn profile (headline, About, bullets) is cv-and-human.
license: MIT
allowed-tools: Read, Write, Edit, Grep, Glob, AskUserQuestion
---

# 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:

1. **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.
2. **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.
3. **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.
4. **One CTA, specific.** Not three asks, not "thoughts?". One clear next action.
5. **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)

1. Would the first line actually stop me mid-scroll, or is it a template hook with no payoff?
2. Is there exactly one CTA, and is it specific?
3. 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.
4. 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`.