Loop/loopContent & SEOlow riskintermediatesafety B · 75Forward Futurepre-dates current gate · under review

Interview five buyers, fix the copy

Interview recent buyers in batches, track recurring objections, and propose evidence-backed landing-page copy.

prompt
→ Claude
Improve [landing page or purchase page] using objections from recent buyers. Before contacting anyone, identify the approved buyer group, outreach channel, privacy rules, and message. Obtain explicit approval for the outreach. Interview buyers in batches of five, up to fifteen people total. Ask each person one question: What almost stopped you from buying? Record their exact words while protecting their identity and honoring any consent or communication requirements. After each batch, group repeated concerns and draft a proposed copy change for the point on the page where each concern is most likely to arise. Do not publish the copy without approval. Use the next batch to check whether the same concern still appears. Stop when the concern no longer repeats, fifteen interviews are complete, the outreach budget ends, or access is blocked. Finish with anonymized quotes, recurring concerns, proposed copy, evidence by batch, and the recommended page change.
claude-code · codex

Use this when

Use this when landing-page copy may be missing the real objection that nearly prevented recent customers from buying.

How it runs

  1. Define the approved buyer group, outreach channel, privacy rules, and one-question message before contacting anyone.
  2. Interview five buyers, preserve their exact words privately, and group recurring objections without exposing identities.
  3. Draft copy where each concern appears in the buying journey, then use another batch to test whether it still repeats.
  4. Stop when the concern disappears, fifteen interviews finish, the budget ends, or access is blocked; do not publish without approval.

Done when

The proposed copy reflects repeated buyer objections rather than internal assumptions. The final recommendation traces each proposed change to anonymized exact language from approved interviews and shows how the pattern changed across batches.

Why it works

Teams often write conversion copy from their own assumptions. Repeated buyer language provides a stronger signal about what nearly stopped a real purchase and where reassurance belongs.

Implementation note

External outreach and public copy changes require explicit approval. Protect identities, follow applicable consent and communication rules, and do not turn one memorable quote into a claimed pattern.

Source: Forward Future

More content loops

Turn product changes into a podcast

Each cycle, turn meaningful public product changes into a short, source-grounded podcast episode.

prompt
→ Claude
Each night, review publicly released product changes and select only those users need to know. Verify each against the product, docs, or release notes. Use the Jellypod MCP to turn the approved changes into a three-to-five-minute podcast explaining what changed, why it matters, and how to try it. Check the script and audio for accuracy, clarity, and pronunciation. If nothing meaningful shipped, make no episode. Ask before publishing. Finish with the draft episode, sources, and review result.
contenthigh riskclaude-codecodex

Ship one post a week, learn what works

Loop/scheduleForward Future

Six weeks, one variable changed per post; measure replies, saves, and questions, and end with a winner or an honest null.

prompt
→ Claude
Find a repeatable weekly post format for [approved account, audience, and topic] through a six-week experiment. If the account, audience, or topic is missing, ask for it before drafting. Obtain approval before publishing anything externally. Each week, draft one short post about a real problem [person, product, or company] solves. Record substantive replies, saves, and questions after the same measurement window. Treat likes as secondary evidence. Keep the audience, topic area, cadence, and measurement window comparable. Change only one meaningful element each week, such as the opening, format, example, or call to action, based on the strongest signal from the previous post. Stop when one format materially outperforms the alternatives, the six-week experiment ends without a winner, approval is withheld, required metrics are unavailable, or the budget is exhausted. Never fabricate engagement data. Finish with every post, its measurements, the variables tested, the winning format or no-winner result, and the next recommendation.
contentlow riskclaude-codecodex

Research until the deliverable's ready

Chase the most important evidence gaps until a memo, brief, spec, or page is genuinely ready to use.

prompt
→ Claude
Research [question or topic] and produce a decision-ready [memo, brief, specification, recommendation, page, or other artifact] for [audience or decision]. If the question, audience, or intended artifact is missing, ask one focused question before starting. State the decision the artifact should support, its acceptance criteria, the allowed source scope, and the research budget. If no budget is supplied, use no more than ten strong sources or ninety minutes. Prefer current primary sources where available. After each research pass, update the artifact and identify the largest remaining evidence gap, contradiction, or uncertainty. Continue only if resolving it could materially change the decision and the budget allows another pass. Never invent evidence or hide uncertainty. Stop when the artifact meets its acceptance criteria, important claims trace to sources, and remaining uncertainty is explicit. Otherwise stop as blocked or exhausted. Finish with the completed artifact, sources, findings, tensions, confidence level, open questions, and recommended next step.
contentlow riskclaude-codecodex