content-trust

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Content Trust — Founder OS

Diagnoses content-to-pipeline gaps using the Trust Architecture framework. Most content problems aren't volume problems — they're trust stage problems.

---

## The Core Insight: Trust Gap = Revenue Gap

Most companies have a predictable imbalance:

| Trust Stage | Typical Content Mix | What It Creates |
|-------------|--------------------|--------------------|
| Recognition (brand awareness) | ~55% of content | Traffic, impressions |
| Credibility (proof you know what you're talking about) | ~10% | Authority signals |
| Risk Reduction (addressing fears) | ~5% | Conversion |
| Commitment (clear next steps) | ~30% | CTAs, demos, signups |

**The math**: 55% of effort on Recognition, 5% on Risk Reduction = traffic that never converts.

The fix isn't more content. It's **reallocation** — shift Recognition budget to Credibility, shift Commitment budget to Risk Reduction.

---

## The Trust Architecture (4 Stages)

### Stage 1: Recognition
Does the audience know this brand/founder exists?

**Content that builds it**: Consistent posting, volume, broad topic coverage, social presence
**When you have enough**: They recognize your name when it appears in their feed
**When you're over-invested here**: High impressions, low meaningful engagement, no DMs

### Stage 2: Credibility
Does the audience believe you know what you're talking about?

**Content that builds it**: Data-backed insights, original research, case studies with numbers, contrarian takes with evidence, frameworks others cite
**Signals you're gaining it**: Comments like "I've been thinking this for years", screenshots being shared, being cited by others
**When you're under-invested here**: Traffic but no MQL conversion (B2B SaaS), engagement but no inbound DMs

### Stage 3: Risk Reduction
Has content addressed the fears stopping people from acting?

**Content that builds it**: Customer success stories that address specific fears, objection-handling content, "what if it doesn't work" proof, transparent pricing/process, founder credibility signals
**Signals you need more**: Product page traffic but <2% conversion, deals that stall mid-funnel, "let me think about it" responses

**Common failure patterns by business type**:
- B2B SaaS: deals stall mid-funnel → low Risk Reduction
- Solopreneur/consultant: engagement but zero inbound DMs → low Risk Reduction
- Creator/info product: product page visits but <2% conversion → low Risk Reduction
- Agency: leads come in but proposals don't close → low Risk Reduction

### Stage 4: Commitment
Does content make the next step clear and easy?

**Content that builds it**: CTAs, demos, offers, lead magnets, clear value exchange
**When you're over-invested here**: Lots of CTAs, low conversion → people aren't ready (trust stages 2-3 are weak)
**The trap**: Most content teams over-invest here, then conclude "the CTAs aren't working" when the real problem is the audience hasn't reached Credibility or Risk Reduction yet

---

## The 4 Diagnostic Prompts

### Diagnostic 1: Content Landscape Map
Run this first. Understand what you're actually producing.

```
You are a content strategist auditing my content distribution.

MY CONTENT [list your last 10-20 posts/emails/articles]:
[paste titles, formats, topics]

Categorize each piece by:
1. Trust stage it primarily serves (Recognition / Credibility / Risk Reduction / Commitment)
2. Format (insight, data, story, CTA, educational, promotional, other)
3. Audience awareness level (unaware / problem-aware / solution-aware / product-aware)

Then calculate:
- % of content at each trust stage
- Gap vs ideal distribution for a [B2B SaaS / consultant / creator / agency] at [my stage]
- The single biggest imbalance

Output as a table plus 3-sentence diagnosis.
```

### Diagnostic 2: Differentiation Scoring
Score each piece 1–5 on how ownable it is.

```
Score this content piece 1-5 on differentiation:

1 = Generic: Could have been written by anyone in my space
2 = Slightly specific: References my niche but no unique angle
3 = Distinctive: My framing, but idea exists elsewhere
4 = Ownable: Specific data, story, or angle only I have
5 = Category-defining: Creates a new way of seeing the problem

CONTENT: [paste the piece]
MY CONTEXT: [company, stage, ICP]

Score it, then rewrite any section scoring below 3 to reach a 4 or 5.
What specific data, story, or angle would I need to add?
```

### Diagnostic 3: Trust Movement Audit
Map exactly which stage each piece moves the audience to.

```
For each of these content pieces, identify:
1. Which trust stage it targets
2. What belief it needs to change in the reader
3. Whether it succeeds at that belief change
4. What's missing that would make it more effective

PIECES: [paste 5-10 recent pieces]

Prioritize the 2 pieces with the biggest gap between intent and execution.
Rewrite one of them to fully achieve its trust stage goal.
```

From The13thNode/VibeCorp_PromptCEO, MIT.

More from The13thNode/VibeCorp_PromptCEO