Skip to content

feat(persona): the demand side — sourced reader model + challenge gate (v0.5.0) - #16

Open
GabrielAmz wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/persona-skill
Open

feat(persona): the demand side — sourced reader model + challenge gate (v0.5.0)#16
GabrielAmz wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feat/persona-skill

Conversation

@GabrielAmz

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

What kind of contribution?

  • New skill
  • Update to existing skill
  • Docs / README

If new skill, the 5-step checklist

  • Workflow-skill naming (persona, noun-style like moodboard; the wa- prefix predates the v0.2 rename)
  • Directory name exactly matches the name: field in SKILL.md front matter
  • description: is trigger-phrase dense, ends with cross-references to related skills
  • Body is under 500 lines — research + challenge protocol detail pushed into references/persona-method.md
  • Loads .agents/webanatomy-context.md at Step 1 (offers webanatomy-setup, never blocks)
  • Reference patterns included (benchmark FAQ gallery as objection inventories; G2/Capterra/Trustpilot as review-mining sources)

What does this skill do?

Adds the demand side to a pack that only modeled the supply side. Build mode ("build a persona", "what are my customers' objections") researches a sourced reader model into .agents/webanatomy-persona.md: ranked objections with source tags (user-stated > review-mined > inferred, never invented), the reader's vocabulary, proof preferences, optional buying committee, and a competitor claims map. Challenge mode ("cold read this as my customer", "would my customer buy this") reads any live page, write-page draft, or build-page wireframe as that reader — five-second read, scroll narrative, objection ledger, credibility flags, click decision — and writes challenge.json, a pass/fail handoff write-page consumes to rewrite only what failed (max two loops).

Wiring into the existing pipeline (no parallel pipeline):

  • audit-page 0.4.0 — Step 4.5 objection coverage when the persona file exists; optional objectionCoverage block in audit.json (schema stays v2).
  • write-page 0.6.0 — copy angles labeled with the objection they answer, persona vocabulary feeds the customer-language rule, claims-parity check, FAIL challenge as highest-precedence brief in Step 1.5.
  • webanatomy-setup 0.4.1 — suggests persona as a next move.
  • Pack bumped to 0.5.0 via ./bump-version.sh; VERSIONS.md entry added, roadmap renumbered; orchestration doc gains Part 3 recording why this is one sourced persona and not a five-judge copy tournament (the information test).

After merge: git tag v0.5.0 && git push --tags && gh release create v0.5.0 --target main.

Test plan

  • Ran ./validate-skills.sh — 8/8 pass
  • Manually invoked from Claude Code on a real project — pending a live run (build mode on Web Anatomy itself is the natural first test)
  • Cross-references to related skills are valid (persona ↔ setup/audit-page/write-page/build-page/find-examples all exist)

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

…v0.5.0)

New Foundation skill `persona` with two modes: build researches a sourced
reader model into .agents/webanatomy-persona.md (ranked source-tagged
objections, vocabulary, proof preferences, competitor claims map); challenge
cold-reads any page or draft as that reader and writes challenge.json, the
pack's third machine handoff.

Wiring: audit-page 0.4.0 gains Step 4.5 objection coverage (optional
objectionCoverage block in audit.json); write-page 0.6.0 labels copy angles
with the objection they answer, applies claims parity, and consumes a FAIL
challenge.json as its highest-precedence brief (max two loops);
webanatomy-setup 0.4.1 suggests persona post-setup.

Reasoning recorded in docs/skill-orchestration.md Part 3: one sourced persona
instead of a five-judge copy tournament (the information test).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant