writing-stickiness

$npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/writing-stickiness

Boost message impact using the SUCCESs framework

  • Enhances pitches, presentations, and campaigns for better recall
  • Depends on no external tools or APIs
  • Scores messages 0-18 then targets weakest stickiness dimensions
  • Delivers revised text with clear explanations of applied principles

SKILL.md

.github/skills/writing-stickinessView on GitHub ↗
---
name: writing-stickiness
description: Applies the Heath brothers' SUCCESs model (Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, Stories) to make messages memorable and persuasive, with systematic analysis, targeted improvements, and scoring (0-18 stickiness scorecard). Use when making messages more memorable or compelling, preparing presentations, crafting pitches or campaigns, or when user mentions stickiness, making ideas stick, persuasion, SUCCESs framework, or Heath brothers.
---

# Writing Stickiness Enhancement

## Table of Contents

- [Core Principles](#core-principles)
- [Workflow](#workflow)
- [SUCCESs Framework Overview](#success-framework-overview)
- [Guardrails](#guardrails)
- [Quick Reference](#quick-reference)

**Related skills:** Use `writing-structure-planner` for planning structure, `writing-revision` for prose revision, `writing-pre-publish-checklist` for final quality checks.

## Core Principles

1. **Six dimensions of stickiness**: Simple, Unexpected, Concrete, Credible, Emotional, Stories
2. **Diagnose before treating**: Score current stickiness first, then improve weakest areas
3. **Not all principles are equal**: Some matter more for certain contexts - prioritize accordingly
4. **Concrete beats abstract**: Brains think in images, not abstractions
5. **Individuals beat statistics**: One person's story moves people more than millions in data

## Workflow

Copy this checklist and track your progress:

```
Stickiness Enhancement:
- [ ] Step 1: Analyze against SUCCESs framework
- [ ] Step 2: Improve weak principles
- [ ] Step 3: Score and refine
```

**Before starting:** Review [resources/success-model.md](resources/success-model.md) for the complete SUCCESs framework with all 6 principles, stickiness scorecard, and before/after examples.

Analyze the entire document first and output findings to an analysis file in the current directory, then read that file to make improvements. This ensures complete coverage.

**Step 1: Analyze against SUCCESs framework**

Step 1.1: Read entire draft. Create analysis file `writer-stickiness-analysis.md` assessing the document against all 6 SUCCESs principles:

- **Simple** (0-3): Identify core message in 12 words or fewer. List competing messages. Rate clarity and focus.
- **Unexpected** (0-3): Identify surprise elements or curiosity gaps. Note where expectations could be violated. Rate attention-getting power.
- **Concrete** (0-3): List visualizable details. Identify abstract sections needing examples. Rate sensory specificity.
- **Credible** (0-3): Identify credibility sources (statistics, testability, authority, vivid details). Note unsupported claims. Rate believability.
- **Emotional** (0-3): Identify emotional connections and personal benefits. Note where motivation could be strengthened. Rate "care factor."
- **Stories** (0-3): Identify story or human elements. Note opportunities to add narrative. Rate mental simulation potential.

Step 1.2: Calculate total current stickiness score out of 18. Present findings to user.

See each principle's section in [resources/success-model.md](resources/success-model.md) for detailed scoring guidance.

**Step 2: Improve weak principles**

Step 2.1: Read analysis file. Identify the 2-3 weakest principles (scored 0-1).

Step 2.2: Work through entire draft making targeted improvements for each weak principle:
- **Simple**: Refine core message to 12 words or fewer. Strip competing ideas.
- **Unexpected**: Add surprise or curiosity gaps. Violate reader expectations.
- **Concrete**: Add visualizable details and specific examples. Replace abstractions.
- **Credible**: Add statistics (human-scale), testability ("try it yourself"), authority, or vivid details.
- **Emotional**: Strengthen personal benefits and emotional connections. Focus on individuals, not masses.
- **Stories**: Add narrative or human elements. Use challenge, connection, or creativity plots.

Step 2.3: Present improved version to user with changes highlighted.

See [resources/success-model.md](resources/success-model.md) for specific techniques and examples for each principle.

**Step 3: Score and refine**

Step 3.1: Score the revised message using the [Stickiness Scorecard](resources/success-model.md#stickiness-scorecard).

Step 3.2: Aim for 12+/18 for good stickiness, 15+/18 for excellent. If score is below 12, identify the weakest 2 principles and do another improvement pass focusing on those.

Step 3.3: Present final scored version with before/after comparison.

See [resources/success-model.md - Complete Example](resources/success-model.md#complete-example) for transformation patterns.

Validate using [resources/evaluators/rubric_stickiness.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_stickiness.json). **Minimum standard**: Average score >= 3.5.

## SUCCESs Framework Overview

| Principle | Key Question | Technique |
|-----------|-------------|-----------|
| **S**imple | What's the ONE core idea? | Commander's intent in 12 words |
| **U**nexpected | What will surprise readers? | Schema violation + curiosity gaps |
| **C**oncrete | Can readers visualize it? | Sensory details, specific examples |
| **C**redible | Why should readers believe it? | Human-scale stats, testability |
| **E**motional | Why should readers care? | Individual focus, identity appeal |
| **S**tories | Can readers simulate the experience? | Challenge/connection/creativity plots |

**Scoring:** Each principle rated 0-3. Total out of 18. Target 12+ for good, 15+ for excellent.

## Guardrails

**Requirements:**

1. **Score before improving**: Always analyze and score the current state before making changes
2. **Target weakest first**: Focus improvements on the lowest-scoring principles
3. **Preserve accuracy**: Never sacrifice truthfulness for stickiness - credibility matters
4. **Context-appropriate**: Not every piece needs maximum stickiness - match to purpose
5. **Re-score after improving**: Always score the revised version to measure improvement

**Common pitfalls:**
- Improving already-strong principles while ignoring weak ones
- Adding surprise that's random rather than relevant to the core message
- Using statistics that are too large to grasp (billions, trillions)
- Focusing on masses instead of individuals for emotional appeal
- Telling instead of showing when adding stories

## Quick Reference

**Key resources:**
- **[resources/success-model.md](resources/success-model.md)**: Complete SUCCESs framework, all 6 principles, scorecard, examples
- **[resources/evaluators/rubric_stickiness.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_stickiness.json)**: Quality scoring criteria

**Inputs required:**
- Draft text or message to enhance
- Target audience (if known)
- Context (presentation, article, email, pitch, etc.)

**Outputs produced:**
- Stickiness analysis with per-principle scores
- Improved version targeting weak principles
- Before/after comparison with score improvement

More from lyndonkl/claude

SkillDescription
abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".