From rmbc-skills
Ideate novel mechanism angles for a product claim or result — the "M" in RMBC. Use when you need unique, specific explanations of WHY a product delivers its promised outcome. Branches for supplements, e-commerce, and info products.
npx claudepluginhub coleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbcThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Generate 5-7 novel mechanism angles for a product's core claim. A mechanism is the unique, specific explanation of WHY a product delivers its result — not "it works" but "because of [specific thing no competitor can claim]." This is Stefan Georgi's "Copy Thinking" — strategic ideation before a single word of copy is written. The mechanism is what separates winning copy from generic copy.
Extracts structured product briefs from URLs or descriptions with core insights, enemies, transformations, proof, mechanisms, and emotional hooks for videos, presentations, or ads.
Guides users to find unique marketing angles via 4-step framework: match market stage, discover mechanisms, select angles, test positioning. For differentiation, standing out, low sales.
Generate 5-7 unique ad angles for paid media campaigns — each a full strategic positioning direction with headline, body, visual, and platform fit.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Generate 5-7 novel mechanism angles for a product's core claim. A mechanism is the unique, specific explanation of WHY a product delivers its result — not "it works" but "because of [specific thing no competitor can claim]." This is Stefan Georgi's "Copy Thinking" — strategic ideation before a single word of copy is written. The mechanism is what separates winning copy from generic copy.
A strong mechanism is:
| Input | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
product_description | Yes | What the product is, what it does, key ingredients/features/components |
product_category | Yes | One of: supplement, ecommerce, info_product |
target_claim | No | The specific result or transformation the mechanism must explain |
research_context | No | Prior research output (ingredient data, competitor analysis, ICP insights) |
Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for framework overview and quality dimensions. The mechanism phase requires a novel explanation that passes the "only we" test.
From product_description and research_context, identify:
Focus on ingredient-based mechanisms:
Focus on product design and manufacturing mechanisms:
Focus on methodology and framework mechanisms:
For each of the 5-7 mechanisms, develop:
Rank mechanisms by combined score (novelty + specificity). Flag any with LOW believability — these need additional research before use. Recommend the top 2-3 for copy development.
## Mechanism Ideation: [Product Name]
**Category:** [supplement | ecommerce | info_product]
**Target claim:** [what the mechanism must explain]
---
### 1. [Mechanism Name]
**What it is:** [one-line explanation]
**Why it works:** [2-3 sentence causal logic]
**Proof anchor:** [supporting evidence]
| Novelty | Specificity | Believability |
|---------|-------------|---------------|
| X/5 | X/5 | HIGH/MED/LOW |
[Repeat for each mechanism]
---
## Recommendation
**Top picks:** [ranked top 2-3 with brief rationale]
**Research gaps:** [any mechanisms that need deeper research before use]
**Next steps:** [which downstream skills to run]
Every mechanism must name something specific — no "powerful formula" or "unique blend"
At least 3 of 7 mechanisms should score 4+ on novelty
Any mechanism scoring LOW on believability must include a research gap callout
Mechanisms must be grounded in actual product attributes, not fabricated claims
Output should give a copywriter enough material to write a mechanism reveal section
Specificity gate: Every mechanism angle must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "unique approach" or "effective process"
Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)
Audience journey: Each mechanism must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically
Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode
Objection handling: Each mechanism must survive skepticism — address "sounds too good to be true" with a grounding proof point and "how is this different?" with an explicit contrast to the conventional approach
/ingredient-research or /unified-research-synthesizer first/hook-battery for mechanism-driven hooks/rmbc-copy-audit to validate mechanism scoresGenerated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join