/loopcontentlow riskintermediatesafety C · 55Forward 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 Do not publish the copy without approval.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 Stop when the concern disappears, fifteen interviews finish, the budget ends, or access is blocked; do not publish without approval.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

Fact-check before you publish

/goalForward Futurenew

Inventory checkable claims, verify them against primary sources, repair high-risk mismatches, and log what stays unresolved.

prompt
→ Claude
Before publishing [draft], inventory every factual, statistical, quoted, or attributed claim a reader could verify. Find the best current primary source for each and label it supported, outdated, misattributed, unsupported, or unverifiable. Fix the riskiest mismatch, then recheck that claim and anything depending on it. Repeat until no high-risk unsupported claim remains or five rounds are exhausted. Never invent a source, cite evidence that does not support the claim, or alter a quotation. Ask before changing a named person’s quote or a legal, medical, or financial statement. Stop without changes if there are no checkable claims; stop as blocked when adequate evidence is unavailable. Finish with the claim-to-source table, corrections made, unresolved claims, and decisions requiring an editor.
contentlow risk

Turn product changes into a podcast

/loopForward Futurenew

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 risk

Draft a LaTeX preprint, claim by claim

/loopForward Futurenew

Build a seven-section LaTeX preprint with native figures, traceable claims, repeated compilation, and stated weaknesses.

prompt
→ Claude
Create a complete LaTeX preprint about [topic] using [supplied sources, assumptions, and data]. If the topic or required source material is missing, request it and stop. Do not invent claims, citations, or data. Use explicit placeholders for missing information. Include exactly these sections in order: Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, and References. Build every figure and table with native LaTeX tools such as TikZ, pgfplots, and booktabs. Do not use \includegraphics, \svg, or external image files. Every substantive claim must trace to a numbered equation, citation, supplied datum, or labeled assumption. Compile using the project's documented command or latexmk when no command is specified. Inspect compilation errors, warnings, typography, cross-references, and figure placement. Fix the most serious issue and compile again for at most five rounds. Stop when compilation has zero errors, all seven sections are present, every figure and table is referenced before it appears, and no banned command remains. Otherwise stop as blocked or exhausted. Finish with the .tex file, compilation command and log, structural checks, three substantive weaknesses, three typography issues, and unresolved placeholders.
contentlow risk