hook-writer

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Hook Writer

钩子撰写工具

The hook is the highest-leverage line in any piece of content. On a feed, attention is the scarce resource and the hook is the only thing competing for it — if the opening fails, nothing else you made gets seen. A great hook can carry mediocre content; a weak hook buries great content.

Two ideas run through everything here:

A hook works by opening a gap. Curiosity, tension, stakes, dissonance, self-relevance — the hook creates something the reader needs to resolve, and the only way to resolve it is to keep going. Hooks are about the mechanism, not the template. "The secret to X nobody tells you" is a dead template because it names a mechanism (curiosity) without earning it.
A hook is a promise, and the content must pay it off. A hook that overpromises wins the tap and loses the trust — and platforms punish the bounce that follows. The strongest hooks are extracted from the truth of the content, not bolted on top of it.

钩子是任何内容中影响力最大的部分。在信息流中，注意力是稀缺资源，而钩子是唯一能争夺注意力的元素——如果开篇失败，你创作的其他内容都无人问津。一个出色的钩子能撑起平庸的内容；而糟糕的钩子会埋没优质内容。

贯穿始终的两个核心理念：

钩子的作用是制造缺口。好奇心、紧张感、利害关系、认知失调、自我相关性——钩子会创造出读者迫切想要解决的需求，而唯一的解决方式就是继续浏览。钩子的关键在于底层逻辑，而非模板。“没人告诉你的X秘诀”就是一个过时的模板，因为它只套用了“好奇心”这个逻辑，却没有真正建立起合理的缺口。
钩子是一种承诺，后续内容必须兑现。夸大承诺的钩子可能会吸引点击，但会失去用户信任——平台也会对随之而来的高跳出率进行惩罚。最有力的钩子是从内容本身的核心事实中提炼出来的，而非生硬地附加在内容之上。

Step 0 — Read the foundation first

步骤0 — 先读取基础资料

Load

brand-profile.md

and

voice.md

. A hook in the wrong voice still fails; the fingerprint and "never" list apply to the opening line as much as the body. If neither exists, run

brand-profile

(and

voice-builder

if samples exist) first.

加载

brand-profile.md

和

voice.md

文件。不符合品牌调性的钩子依然会失败；品牌特征和“禁忌清单”对开篇语句的要求与正文一致。如果这两个文件都不存在，请先运行

brand-profile

（若有品牌内容样本，还需运行

voice-builder

）。

Step 1 — Pin the format and its cutoff

步骤1 — 明确格式与限制条件

A hook for a caption first line is not a hook for a video's first three seconds. Identify the format and the constraint it imposes (see

references/formats.md

Caption — one line before the "…more" cutoff (~125 chars on Instagram).
Video — the first 1–3 seconds, across three channels at once: what's on screen, the first spoken words, and on-screen text. Must work muted.
Carousel cover — slide 1 is the hook; it must promise the swipe.
Thread opener — the first post must promise the thread's payoff.
YouTube — title + thumbnail together.
Email — subject + preview text, mobile-truncated.

文案第一行的钩子和视频前三秒的钩子截然不同。确定内容格式及其约束条件（详见

references/formats.md

）：

文案 — “查看更多”截断前的单行内容（Instagram上约125字符）。
视频 — 前1-3秒内容，需同时覆盖三个维度：画面呈现、开篇台词、屏幕文字。必须支持静音播放场景。
轮播图封面 — 第一张幻灯片即为钩子，必须能引导用户滑动查看后续内容。
推文线程开头 — 第一条推文必须能体现整个线程的价值点。
YouTube — 标题与缩略图需配合生效。
邮件 — 主题+预览文本，需适配移动端截断规则。

Step 2 — Find the hook in the content

步骤2 — 从内容中挖掘钩子

Don't invent a hook and hope the content matches. Mine the actual material for its strongest raw element:

the most surprising fact or result,
the highest stakes or cost,
the most specific number or detail,
the sharpest point of view,
the most relatable moment.

That element is the hook's raw material. This is what keeps hooks truthful and makes them feel earned rather than baited.

不要凭空创造钩子再试图让内容匹配。从现有素材中挖掘最核心的原始元素：

最具惊喜感的事实或结果，
最高的利害关系或成本，
最具体的数字或细节，
最鲜明的观点，
最有共鸣的瞬间。

这个元素就是钩子的原始素材。这能确保钩子真实可信，而非刻意博眼球。

Step 3 — Generate many, across different mechanisms

步骤3 — 基于不同逻辑生成多个候选钩子

Write 5–10 candidate hooks, deliberately using different mechanisms from

references/mechanisms.md

(curiosity gap, contrarian, stakes, specificity, identity, story, mistake, transformation, question, timeliness, authority). Variety is the point — the goal is to find the strongest angle, not to reword one idea ten times.

撰写5-10个候选钩子，刻意使用

references/mechanisms.md

中的不同逻辑（好奇心缺口、反向观点、利害关系、具体细节、身份认同、故事引入、错误警示、转变呈现、提问引导、时效性、权威性）。多样性是关键——目标是找到最有力的切入点，而非对同一个想法进行十次改写。

Step 4 — Score and select

步骤4 — 评分筛选

Run the candidates through the rubric in

references/scoring.md

and keep the best 1–2. The rubric checks: does it open a real gap? is it specific? is it true to the content? does it fit the format's cutoff? does it sound like them? would a stranger need the next beat? Discard the rest without sentiment — most hooks you write should die.

将候选钩子放入

references/scoring.md

的评分标准中评估，保留最佳的1-2个。评分标准会检查：是否制造了真实的缺口？是否具体？是否与内容相符？是否符合格式限制？是否贴合品牌风格？陌生人是否会想要继续浏览？不带情绪地淘汰其余钩子——你撰写的大多数钩子都应该被舍弃。

Step 5 — Tune to format and voice; confirm the payoff

步骤5 — 适配格式与调性，确认承诺可兑现

Polish the winner for the format (cut to the caption cutoff; add the visual + on-screen text for video; make the carousel cover legible at a glance). Re-check it sounds like the brand. And confirm the content actually delivers what the hook promises — if it doesn't, change the hook, not the truth.

针对格式优化最终选中的钩子（截断至文案限制字符数；为视频添加画面+屏幕文字；确保轮播图封面一目了然）。再次检查是否贴合品牌风格。并确认内容确实能兑现钩子的承诺——如果不能，修改钩子，而非篡改事实。

Deliver options, recommend one

提供选项并给出推荐

Give the user 2–3 distinct hooks built on different mechanisms, then recommend one with a one-line reason tied to the goal/format. Real alternatives beat a single take, and seeing different mechanisms helps the user feel why one lands hardest.

为用户提供2-3个基于不同逻辑的差异化钩子，然后结合目标/格式给出一个推荐选项，并附上一句理由。真实的替代方案比单一方案更好，展示不同逻辑也能帮助用户理解为何某个钩子效果最佳。

Quality bar — self-check

质量标准——自我检查

Does the hook open a gap a stranger needs to close?
Is it specific (a real number, detail, or claim), not vague?
Is it true — does the content pay it off without a bait-and-switch?
Does it land inside the format's cutoff (chars, or the first 3 seconds)?
Does it sound like them (fingerprint hit, "never" list respected)?
Did you generate several mechanisms and pick the strongest, not settle for the first?

If it doesn't pass "would a stranger need the next beat?", it isn't a hook yet.

钩子是否制造了陌生人迫切想要填补的缺口？
是否具体（包含真实数字、细节或主张），而非模糊笼统？
是否真实——内容能兑现承诺，不存在诱饵式营销？
是否符合格式限制（字符数或前三秒时长）？
是否贴合品牌风格（符合品牌特征，遵守“禁忌清单”）？
是否生成了多种逻辑的钩子并选出最佳，而非满足于第一个想法？

如果无法通过“陌生人是否会想要继续浏览？”这一测试，那么它还不能算是合格的钩子。

Edge cases

边缘情况处理

Thin or vague content: ask what the single most surprising / highest-stakes element is. Don't fabricate a hook the content can't support.
Nothing surprising in the content: that's a content problem, not a hook problem — say so, and either find the relatable angle or suggest sharpening the post itself.
Sensitive/regulated topics: no fear-mongering, no overstated claims; respect the brand's compliance guardrails even in the opening line.
Video, muted-first: the on-screen text and the visual must hook on their own; assume sound off.
Tempted to overpromise for reach: don't. A truthful, slightly less sensational hook that the content delivers beats a viral-bait line that burns trust and bounces.

**内容单薄或模糊：**询问用户内容中最具惊喜感/最高利害关系的元素是什么。切勿编造内容无法支撑的钩子。
**内容无惊喜点：**这是内容本身的问题，而非钩子的问题——如实告知用户，要么找到共鸣点，要么建议优化帖子内容。
**敏感/受监管话题：**不得使用恐慌营销，不得夸大主张；即使是开篇语句，也要遵守品牌合规准则。
**视频优先静音场景：**屏幕文字和画面必须能独立起到钩子作用；默认假设用户关闭声音。
**为了流量想要夸大承诺：**切勿这样做。一个真实、稍显平淡但内容能兑现的钩子，远比博眼球却消耗信任、导致高跳出率的钩子更好。

Related skills

References

参考资料

```
references/mechanisms.md
```
— the hook mechanism taxonomy (why each one works).
```
references/formats.md
```
— hook craft by format and the cutoffs that govern each.
```
references/scoring.md
```
— the scoring rubric, the generate-and-select method, anti-patterns.
```
references/examples.md
```
— content → many hooks → scored → chosen, worked end to end.

```
references/mechanisms.md
```
— 钩子逻辑分类（每种逻辑的生效原理）。
```
references/formats.md
```
— 不同格式的钩子创作技巧及对应的限制条件。
```
references/scoring.md
```
— 评分标准、生成筛选方法、反模式示例。
```
references/examples.md
```
— 从内容到多个钩子，再到评分筛选的完整案例。