New here, or not sure this is the right skill? Start right here — or run

/nmt-chat

, describe your situation, and it points you to the right one. Quick map: new idea →

nmt-market-research

· live product or a metric moved →

nmt-diagnose

· have customer interviews →

nmt-analyze-interviews

· ready to build →

nmt-product-requirements

· positioning / launch copy →

nmt-craft-value-proposition

→

nmt-craft-go-to-market

.

One breath. This skill turns the value you've already built into the copy that brings in customers — landing copy, ad/creative copy, and a launch + growth plan. It's the last step of the chain and builds on the steps before it; it never invents the segment, the value, or the build. Everything is said through the bigger outcome the customer is really after (their Big Job, where motivation lives), in concrete, measurable terms (success criteria, not adjectives), with features used as proof, not as the message. Copy can carry value, not manufacture it: if the value isn't proven yet, the skill says so up front — it can still write you demand-test copy, just don't scale on it.

Producer contract (binding) —

../nmt-chat/references/producer-contract.md

. Six cross-cutting behaviors shared by all producer skills, from user feedback: (1) print a helicopter-view before the first question; (2) ask Markdown or HTML output; (3) treat all user input as hypothesis and emit a "risks I see in what you gave me" block; (4) print validation debt and frame the pack as test this messaging, never this will work (GTM has no GO verdict — it inherits the debt of the value it sells); (5) accept a custom output path; (6) Deep mode runs an evidence floor + self-critic loop and offers a web-MCP fallback. The hooks below wire each into this skill; the contract is the source of truth for the wording.

{product-slug}-craft-go-to-market-result.md

1. Layer 1 — The GTM in one breath (~1 page, zero methodology words, forwardable): the one-liner · the single core message everything routes through · who it's for · the top channel to try first · the one thing to test before scaling — each doubtable line drilling down to its reasoning.
2. Layer 2 — The Plan & why it's shaped this way (1–2 pages, plain English, terms glossed once): why this is the message (what the buyer must come to believe), the landing logic in plain terms, the ad angles to test, the channel plan summary, what to test first — each linking down to the full pack.
3. Layer 3 — The Full Pack (the deliverable in substance — and only the assets you asked for: if you picked just landing + a couple of ads, that's all it writes; it doesn't dump the whole growth pack on you):
   • Part 1 — Landing copy. The full landing-page sequence, ready-to-publish copy, no placeholders.
   • Part 2 — Ad / creative copy. Seven ad angles (each a Job-language formula) with test-variant sets; a visuals brief that shows the after, the result they want (State B); the one-liner used everywhere.
   • Part 3 — GTM / growth plan. Channel ideas to try (each loaded with the few things a buyer must learn or believe to switch — the Consideration Activators); lead magnets that catch them one step earlier (the Previous Job), content and referral loops; cross-sell into the next thing they do (the Next Job), upsell toward the bigger outcome (the Big Job), and retention messaging (a stream of Aha moments, frequency, reusing habits they already have).
   • Appendix — what each asset is doing: which of the five switch-me-over pieces (the Consideration Activators) each asset carries, and which forces of behavior change it works.

• Quick (default, ~10–15 min): one Claude, no internet. Writes all copy from the loaded artifacts + reasoning.
• Deep (opt-in, longer): subagents mine real customer-review language (so the copy uses the words already in the customer's head) and ground the competitor-firing (Consideration-Activators component 5) in real Problems. See "Deep mode" at the end.

references/

8-Tools/sync/PUBLIC_MANIFEST.yml

communication.md

communication.md

customers-attention-management.md

barrier-removal.md

job-types-and-properties.md

critical-chain.md

consideration-activators.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/communication.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/consideration-activators.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/behaviour-change.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/customers-attention-management.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/consideration-activators.md

…/barrier-removal.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/job-types-and-properties.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/critical-chain.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/b2b.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/value-creation.md

../nmt-chat/references/Next-Move-Theory-Canon/Advanced-Jobs-To-Be-Done/job-structure.md

Path note. If a file is not found at the path above, retry with a

1-

prefix on the canon folder (

1-Next-Move-Theory-Canon/...

) — the source repo orders folders with a numeric prefix that the public repo strips.

CLAUDE.md

I want to + verb

• Communicate through the Big Job — motivation lives one level above the Core Job (

  behaviour-change.md §4

  ,

  communication.md §3

  ). Exception (Class 1,

  behaviour-change.md §10

  ): when our Core Job is already familiar to the segment, lead on the Core Job + criteria with the Big Job as reinforcement; when unfamiliar (Class 2), lead on the Big Job and back-fill the Core Job.
• Value in concrete success criteria, never adjectives — "fast / reliable / high-quality" are bullshit-words; ask "as in?" → "car arrives in under 4 minutes," "insured for $30M," "e-filed with error checks." (

  communication.md §3

  .)
• Features are proof, not the message — a feature is communicable only after it's attached to a Job and a criterion (

  communication.md §4

  ). Lead with the Job + value + fear reduction; use features as evidence.
• Never promise a Big Job the product only partially performs — overpromise inflates the prediction and manufactures a Problem; the promise must match what the Critical Chain of Jobs actually delivers (

  communication.md §9

  ,

  value-creation.md §6–§7

  ).
• Load all five Consideration-Activators components — new Job Graph; value delta by criteria; named product + entry path; specific fears reduced; competing Job Graph fired (

  consideration-activators.md §1

  ).
• Communication transmits validated value — if value isn't proven (no sales / no Aha Moment yet), flag it; don't scale copy on a hypothesis (

  communication.md §1

  ).
• Specific stories beat abstractions (

  consideration-activators.md §6

  ); visuals show State B, not the process (

  communication.md §6

  ).

CLAUDE.md

• ❌ "This banner uses the Trigger → Core Job formula and fires the competing Job Graph…"
• ✅ "This banner is the right-moment angle — it catches them right when they feel the problem, then shows why the usual option falls short (a Trigger → Core Job Job-language formula that also fires the alternative)."

references/glossary.md

• Three layers, escalating depth — state each conclusion once per layer, never twice at the same depth. Layer 1 = the GTM in one breath (headline only). Layer 2 = the plan + why it's shaped this way, in plain English. Layer 3 = the full pack (all the copy, the seven-formula tables, the channel plan, the deal room, the CA map). A point made in Layer 1 is a headline; in Layer 2 a plain sentence; in Layer 3 the full asset — three depths, not three copies.
• Drill-down links are mandatory. Every Layer-1 line a reader could doubt carries a

  ▸

  link to its Layer-2 anchor; every Layer-2 claim links to the Layer-3 part that delivers it. Use Markdown anchors: write

  [why this message ▸](#l2-message)

  and put

  <a id="l2-message"></a>

  above the target; the Layer-3 copy parts carry

  <a id="l3-landing"></a>

  ,

  <a id="l3-ads"></a>

  ,

  <a id="l3-channels"></a>

  ,

  <a id="l3-dealroom"></a>

  above them.
• Layer 1 = minimal jargon, plain words lead. Lead every line in plain product English a junior PM gets at a glance. A methodology term may appear in parentheses as a short plain gloss when it helps — but never open a line with a raw term, and keep jargon to a minimum.
• Layer 2 = plain language first, term glossed. On first use, gloss a methodology term in 3–5 words in parentheses — e.g., "the Big Job (the outcome the customer is really after)". Nested or repeated parenthetical glosses are fine — clarity beats purity. The glossary is linked once at the top of the pack. Glossable terms include the sneaky ones — State A/B, Previous/Next/Orientation/Viral Job — gloss each once or don't use it.
• The landing and ad copy in Layer 3 is already plain by definition — keep it clean and shippable. Do not abstract it, do not gloss it, do not wrap it in methodology. The copy is the deliverable. But every claim/number in shippable copy keeps its

  [VERIFY — source]

  guardrail until it is proven — a reader copies the copy straight to production, and the top-of-file disclaimer won't stop them from shipping an unproven number.
• Citation fencing — the big fix for this skill. Strip every inline canon citation —

  (communication.md §8)

  ,

  (b2b.md §1)

  ,

  (consideration-activators.md §1)

  ,

  (behaviour-change.md §…)

  , etc. — out of the copy and out of all surrounding prose. The landing blocks and ad lines must read as clean, shippable copy with no methodology citations inside them. Where the canon reference still matters to the marketer reading the pack, move it into a fenced methodology trace line at the end of a part, styled out of the reading flow, e.g.:

  <sub>▸ methodology trace. The landing block sequence is a short Critical Chain of Jobs whose State B is enough belief to take the first step (

  communication.md §8

  ); the fear-reduction and competitor-firing blocks load Consideration-Activators components 4–5 (

  consideration-activators.md §1

  ,

  barrier-removal.md §3

  ).</sub> Never break a line of copy or a sentence of pack prose with

  (communication.md §8)

  . Project-internal rule numbers (

  CLAUDE.md Rule N

  ) never appear in any layer — they are for your reasoning, not the reader.

• Disclaimers once, and the answer comes first. The two-part disclaimer appears once at the top of the file. The validation flag sits below the Layer-1 answer, capped at 2 lines — a wall of "this isn't proven yet" before the answer makes a reader think the product is broken and bail; let them read the answer first, the caveat second. A one-line pointer in Layer 1 is enough; do not repeat the block inside Layer 3. (Search the file before shipping — disclaimer wording should hit at most twice.)
• Keep source links for external facts and proof (Rule 2).

../nmt-chat/references/readability-contract.md

• Unique, resolving anchors. Every

  ▸

  drill-down link points to its own unique

  <a id="…">

  that exists exactly once; no two links share a target. Before shipping, list every

  ▸

  target and confirm each resolves.

• [VERIFY]

  survives into the copy. Every number/claim in landing and ad copy carries its inline

  [VERIFY — source]

  tag until proven — do not strip it because the copy "reads cleaner" without it. The earlier run dropped these and a reader would ship unproven numbers.
• Validation flag below the answer, ≤2 lines (see Disclaimers rule above).

PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §5

TMP/

.claude/

Skills-Results/{product-slug}/craft-go-to-market/{YYYY-MM-DD_HH-MM}_{product-slug}-craft-go-to-market-result.{md|html}

• Extension follows the chosen output format (

  PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §2

  ):

  .md

  (default) or a single self-contained

  .html

  (inline CSS, working in-page anchors for the How-to-read jumps + every

  ▸

  drill-down link,

  <details>

  for Layer 3 and methodology traces, source links opening in a new tab). HTML carries the identical content — same attribution, disclaimers, three layers, all copy, tables, links — just in a more readable shell; the landing/ad copy stays plain and shippable, with its

  [VERIFY — source]

  tags intact. Never write both; one file per run.
• If the user gave a custom path, write the one file there with the same filename pattern.
• Everything internal — the normalized input (source artifacts, segment, Big/Core Jobs + criteria, Aha, competitors, proof, fears), dropped variants, review-mining notes, and the self-critic verdicts — stays in-context; none of it is written to a separate file. The timestamp makes each run's file unique, so reruns never overwrite. Disclaimers (Rule 3) go at the top of this one file.

utm_source=nmt-craft-go-to-market&utm_medium=skill-artifact

What you'll get: one pack — ready-to-publish landing-page copy, ad/creative copy, and a GTM/growth plan (channels, lead magnets, viral loops, cross-sell / upsell / retention messaging). The steps: (1) a few questions + I read your upstream artifact → (2) I write the landing copy → (3) I write the ad/creative copy → (4) I build the channel & growth plan → (5) you get one pack in three reading depths. Where I work vs. where you decide: I write the copy and the channel hypotheses. You pick what to ship and run the field validation — A/B tests, real spend, real conversions. I can't prove a channel or a message works; I can only tell you what to test first. Two modes: Quick (default — no internet, ~10–15 min, reasoning only; good for a first draft) · Deep (opt-in — subagents mine real customer-review language + ground the competitor-firing in real Problems, longer; best on a top model with a web-research MCP). Honest caveat: this packages value into copy — it doesn't prove the value, the message, or the channel. Better copy on an unvalidated value claim only accelerates disappointment. Everything here is a hypothesis until you test it.

First — how deep should I go? Pick one:

• Just the essentials — I ask the 3–4 questions that matter most, then deliver. Best for a fast first pass or when you're still exploring.
• The full interview — I walk you through everything so we cover the most blind spots and you get the highest-confidence result. Best when the decision is expensive.

• Target segment + causal criteria (behaviour/characteristic, not demographics).
• Big Job(s) + their success criteria (the motivation surface — where communication lands). Personal Big Job for B2B.
• Core Jobs + dominant success criteria (direction + level). Class 1 or Class 2? (is the Core Job familiar to this segment? — sets whether copy leads on Big Job or Core Job,

  behaviour-change.md §10

  ).
• The Aha Moment (the moment the product clearly beats what the customer expected — for the "give a taste on the landing" block and the activation/retention angle).
• Competitive set — direct (Core Job), indirect (Big Job), turnkey — with what each closes poorly (the wedge, for firing).
• Current-Solution Problems & specific fears (for fear reduction + competitor firing).
• Proof — cases, guarantees, logos, comparable results (with source links — Rule 2).
• Validation status — is the value proven by sales/usage, or still a hypothesis? (Gates whether this is "scale the copy" or "demand-test the copy.")

• Materials. Ask once: "Any files or folders with material I should use — a Notion export (markdown), past research, interview notes, existing copy, your current site?" Read what's given; tag everything taken from it [user data] in-context. Existing copy is input to rewrite, not copy to preserve — confirm before reusing any of it verbatim.
• Input-as-hypothesis gate (

  PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §3

  ). Treat every input — the upstream value-prop / PRD / research artifact, the deck, the landing, the user's free-text claims, "our customers say X" — as a hypothesis, never as established fact. A landing page is the team's belief about value, not proof customers want it. Actively hunt the risks inside it (don't just record): for each load-bearing input ask — is this customer-validated, or the team's belief about the customer? Does the stated Job / segment look like the customer's real Job, or the team's projection of it (the most expensive error)? Any internal contradictions, or guesses dressed as data? Hold the findings in context — they become the "What you told me — and the risks I see in it" block in Layer 2 (see the Layer-2 template), with the single worst one surfaced in Layer 1. The GTM copy is the most public artifact in the chain: writing confident landing/ad copy on an unvalidated value claim manufactures a Problem at scale. No copy claim may rest on an unvalidated input without being flagged — connect each such claim to the existing

  [VERIFY — source]

  / validation-flag mechanism.
• User-claims ledger. Tag the strong factual claims in the user's input (competitor facts, "our customers say…", channel beliefs) as data / observation / hunch. Copy claims built on an unverified hunch are flagged: a concrete number or comparison in customer-facing copy must trace to data, or it ships as a to-verify placeholder — never as an invented fact.
• Hand-off debt — ask what's since been checked (

  PRODUCER-CONTRACT.md §4c

  ). When consuming an upstream artifact (Paths A/B/C), ask the user what from the prior artifact's validation debt has since been validated in the field — e.g., "the value prop you're handing me lists assumptions still to test; which of those have you checked since (sales, interviews, a fake door)?" Re-tag anything still unvalidated and carry it forward: if the value proposition was never validated, the landing copy inherits that debt — say so in the validation flag. Debt travels down the chain; it is not silently dropped.
• Direction confirmation. Before S1, play the understanding back in one short block — "Here's what I understood: {segment, the value we're communicating, validation status + what's still unvalidated from the hand-off, which assets you need}" — and confirm via one

  AskUserQuestion

  (Confirm / Correct).

Numerical disclaimer. All numerical estimates are LLM-generated hypotheses with verification paths. Validate before deciding. Hallucination disclaimer. Generated by an LLM; may contain hallucinations. For expensive decisions, run real research; do not act on this alone.

undefined

• Level 1 — The GTM in one breath (1 page, plain words): the one-liner, the single message, who it's for, the first channel to try, the one thing to test before scaling. Most readers stop here. jump ▸
• Level 2 — The Plan & why it's shaped this way (plain English): why this is the message, the landing logic, the ad angles, the channel plan, what to test first. jump ▸
• Level 3 — The Full Pack (ready-to-ship): all the landing & ad copy, the channel plan, the deal room, and the consideration map. jump ▸

undefined

Validation debt: this pack stands on {N} unvalidated assumptions — {M} of them fatal (would sink it if wrong): that the value is real, that this message lands, and that the top channel reaches them. The fatal ones are the first things to test. see them ▸ _{N = the assumptions the copy rests on (the value claim, the message, each channel + lead-magnet hypothesis, plus anything inherited unvalidated from the upstream artifact); M = those that kill it if wrong. A quick draft on an unproven value claim carries a lot of debt — and this says so honestly.}

⚠️ {validation flag — ≤2 lines, placed here below the answer, not above it. This pack has no GO/build verdict: it always reads as "test this messaging / channel," never "this will work." "value validated by sales/usage" → these are scale-ready creatives; "value is a hypothesis" (incl. inherited from an unvalidated upstream value prop) → these are demand-test creatives, not facts to scale. Path D → reduced-confidence flag; else name the source artifact and what of its debt is still open.}

undefined

<a id="l3-landing"></a>

1. Hero — the one-liner + a 1–2-sentence subtitle; the Big Job this page addresses, stated explicitly (and consistent with the PRD/value-prop); CTA copy + what the user gets on click.
2. Focus Jobs — the Core Jobs together with the Big Job they serve.
3. Context & trigger — the visitor recognizes "this is my situation" (the segment's real context + trigger).
4. Value by concrete criteria — how much more energy-efficiently the Jobs land; numbers/thresholds, never adjectives.
5. How it works — the steps as the proof layer (features attached to Jobs + criteria), not as the message.
6. A taste of it working — give a slice of real value right on the page where possible (the moment it clicks — the Aha moment — as early as possible).
7. What's wrong with the current way — why the way they do it today keeps failing them (this fires the competing option in their head).
8. Fear reduction — the specific things they're afraid will go wrong (the "what if…" block): named, then shown prevented / absorbed / reversible / insured / irrelevant. Separate real blockers from worries, and worries about the task from worries about your product.
9. The after — what the result looks and feels like once they get the bigger outcome (the after, the result they want — State B — and the feeling that comes with it).
10. The first step + CTA — name the product, give one concrete first step, keep it low-effort to start (these are the switch-me-over pieces — the Consideration Activators); CTA on every screen.

The sequence is a diagnostic, not decoration — if motivated traffic doesn't convert, name which transition failed (didn't recognize the context / value not concrete / proof didn't connect / a real blocker remained / a fear stayed active / competitor not fired / CTA cost too high before the first Aha).

<sub>▸ methodology trace. The landing block sequence is a short Critical Chain of Jobs whose State B is enough belief to take the first step (

communication.md §8

); value-in-criteria-not-adjectives is §3; features-as-proof is §4; the taste-of-Aha places the first Aha as far left as possible (

customers-attention-management.md §6

); the Problems and fear-reduction blocks fire the competing Job Graph and load Consideration-Activators components 4–5 (

consideration-activators.md §1

,

communication.md §2

,

barrier-removal.md §3

).</sub>

<a id="l3-ads"></a>

• Combine angles when it helps (right-moment + fix-what's-broken + the outcome; the outcome + fear reduction + CTA). Internal check (not shown to the user): every clause still maps to a real task at a named level + a measurable bar; split any line that bundles two tasks.
• Specificity rule — run every adjective through "as in?" before it ships ("fast" → "arrives in under 4 minutes").
• Visuals brief — show the after, the result they want (State B — the result the bigger outcome creates), not the production process; name the feeling that comes with it.
• Produce enough variants to test: generate a strong starter set per context and say what to A/B.

<sub>▸ methodology trace. The seven creative formulas and visuals-show-State-B are

communication.md §6

; every clause maps back to a named Job level + criterion (Rule 7, Rule 14).</sub>

<a id="l3-channels"></a>

• Reach them at the moment they're open to switching — when their current way just broke, a life event hit, or a competitor let them down — not during steady-state habit (the receptivity windows).
• Catch them one step earlier: a free tool or piece of content for the task they do right before yours (calculator, estimator, aggregator, guide) — it reaches them sooner and shapes the shortlist they weigh (their consideration set). This earlier task is the Previous Job.
• Content that helps them figure out their options: good content marketing does the customer's research-and-compare work for them and pulls them one step upstream (the Orientation Job). Build a loop where using the product itself creates content that helps the next customer compare — the Aha moment is the fuel.
• Lead magnet: trade a contact for outsized free value (checklist, template, calculator) — people over-value "free."
• Things people do for or with others: if your product gets used in front of other people (decks, docs, boards, Looms), make being seen using it feel good in itself; favor segments where this happens often (these are Viral Jobs).
• B2B (if the input is B2B): route through peer stories, customer-published case studies, conference talks by customers, analyst reports, and trusted-colleague recommendations — not consumer-marketing channels; arm your internal champion with a deal room, and speak to what the buyer personally gets out of it (their personal Jobs), not just the company's.

• Cross-sell — the very next thing the customer does after your product's job is done (the Next Job); message it as the natural continuation.
• Upsell — connect to the bigger outcome they're after (their Big Job), move up-market, or bundle.

• Keep delivering fresh moments where it clearly beats expectations (a stream of Aha moments), since the bar keeps rising; make the first one happen as early as possible.
• Reuse habits they already have, don't ask them to build new ones; ride rituals they already run.
• Frequency + that next thing they do (the Next Job) — getting customers to do more jobs with you over time is what pushes net revenue above 100%; add ecosystem lock-in where it applies.

<sub>▸ methodology trace. Receptivity windows + the forces are

behaviour-change.md §8–§9

; Previous-Job channels and upstream attention capture are

critical-chain.md §9.1

and

customers-attention-management.md §9

; Viral / Orientation Jobs are

job-types-and-properties.md

; the B2B channels, personal-Job messaging, and deal room are

b2b.md §3–§6

; cross-sell as the Next Job is

critical-chain.md §9.2

; upsell as move-up-a-level and the Aha-stream / Red Queen value-gap are

value-creation.md §14

, §6.</sub>

<a id="l3-camap"></a>

• A table: each landing block / ad / channel asset → which of the five things the customer must learn or believe to switch it carries (a better way exists / it's better on what they care about / here's the product + a first step / this fear is handled / the current way's problems are real) — these five are the Consideration Activators.
• The forces of behavior change worked for this segment: which pull each asset uses and which blocker it removes; confirm you're reusing or stepping around an existing habit, never fighting one head-on.

<sub>▸ methodology trace. The five Consideration-Activators components are

consideration-activators.md §1

; the forces of behavior change are

behaviour-change.md §9

.</sub>

1. Routes through the Big Job (or correctly leads on the Core Job for a Class-1 familiar segment) — not Core-Job steps in isolation.
2. Every value claim is a concrete criterion (direction + level) — no adjectives survive the "as in?" test.
3. Features appear only as proof, attached to a Job + criterion — never as the headline message.
4. No Big Job promised that the product only partially performs — promise matches the Critical Chain of Jobs.
5. All five CA components present across the pack; the competitor is fired on a real Problem, fears are specific.
6. The Aha Moment is a real event (not signup/login) and is given a taste on the landing + used as the retention/WoM engine.
7. Validation status is honest — hypothesis-stage value is flagged as demand-test creative, not scaled fact.
8. Specific stories used; visuals = State B; recognition test passed (Tier A/B brands, or bridged); US-context analogs; no PPE/NPE; disclaimers + clickable source links (

   CLAUDE.md

   Rules 2, 3, 6, 19, 22).
9. Step ledger ran — S0 → Layer 3 (Part 1 → Part 2 → Part 3 → Appendix) → Layer 2 → Layer 1 checked off by name (skipping parts the user didn't order is fine — say so); no silent skips.
10. User claims stayed hypotheses — every number or comparison in customer-facing copy traces to tagged data or ships as a to-verify placeholder; no copy fact invented from a user hunch.

• Plain-language-led — the GTM plan and all annotations lead in the reader's own words; methodology terms only in parentheses (never jargon-first); any methodology appendix / debug may stay in full terms.
• Three layers present and correctly leveled — Layer 1 (minimal jargon, plain words lead, terms only in parentheses, forwardable), Layer 2 (plain plan + why, terms glossed, no big copy blocks), Layer 3 (the full pack with all copy intact). No conclusion repeated at the same depth across layers.
• Drill-down links resolve and are unique — every Layer-1 line links to a real Layer-2 anchor; every Layer-2 claim links to a real Layer-3 anchor; every

  #l2-…

  /

  #l3-…

  target exists exactly once and no two links share a target.

• [VERIFY]

  survives into the copy — every number/claim in landing & ad copy keeps its inline

  [VERIFY — source]

  tag until proven; opaque table headers carry an inline plain gloss.
• Disclaimers once; answer first — the two-part disclaimer at the top only; the validation flag sits below the Layer-1 answer (≤2 lines), not above it; Layer 1 has the one-line pointer; Layer 3 does not repeat the block.
• Citations fenced — landing and ad copy must be citation-free. No canon path or

  Rule N

  inline in any copy, in Layers 1–2, or in Layer-3 prose; every canon reference sits in a

  ▸ methodology trace

  line at the end of a part. Read the landing blocks and ad lines straight through: they must read as clean, shippable copy.
• Producer contract satisfied (

  ../nmt-chat/references/producer-contract.md

  ). Helicopter-view printed before the first question (§1); intake asked output-format (§2) and output-path (§5); HTML run wrote one self-contained

  .html

  with working anchors +

  <details>

  ; the "What you told me — and the risks I see in it" block is present and the input-as-hypothesis gate held (§3); the validation-debt line is in Layer 1 and the pack reads as "test this messaging/channel," never "this will work" (§4); on hand-off, the run asked what of the upstream artifact's debt is now validated and carried the rest forward (§4c); Deep mode met the evidence floor + self-critic loop and offered the web-MCP fallback (§6).

• Evidence floor (not just a ceiling). The cap is a ceiling; treat the lower bound as a floor. The review-mining leg may not return "done" until it has either pulled a real minimum of distinct sources (a spread across competitors/alternatives, with quotable lines + source URLs) or explicitly reported why fewer were possible (blocked, none exist). "Did two queries and stopped" is a failure state, not a completion — the customer's actual words are the whole point of Deep mode, and thin mining produces generic copy.
• Self-critic loop per leg. After a research/writer leg returns, run a short critic pass asking: enough distinct review sources? is each customer-language claim actually traceable to a fetched source (not invented)? any methodology error (Big-Job-as-segment, features-before-criteria, adjectives that fail "as in?", a Big Job promised the product only partially performs)? gaps left? If it fails, re-run the leg with the gap named — up to 2 extra rounds. Don't ship a leg that failed its own critic.
• Web-MCP fallback. When the built-in fetch is blocked or thin on a needed review source (G2, Capterra, Trustpilot, App Store), tell the user once and use a web-research MCP if available:

  Some review sources (e.g., G2, Capterra) block the built-in fetch. For fuller Deep mining, enable a web-research MCP — Firecrawl or Exa (both ship MCP servers) — and I'll use it. Without it, I'll note where review coverage was thin and the copy leans more on reasoning than on real customer language.

  If such an MCP is connected (discoverable via tool search), prefer it for blocked sources; otherwise proceed and flag thin coverage in the self-critic / verification notes.

• Does not pick the segment or size the market →

  /nmt-market-research

  .
• Does not invent the value proposition →

  /nmt-craft-value-proposition

  .
• Does not write product requirements / the build spec →

  /nmt-product-requirements

  .
• Does not validate value — it transmits already-validated value; if value is unproven it produces demand-test creatives and says so.
• Does not run the ad accounts, build the funnel, or buy media — it produces the copy and the channel hypotheses to test.
• Quick mode: no internet, no subagents.

---

> **Update check — do this at the very end (best-effort, ≤2s, never blocks).** After you've finished this skill's work and delivered the result — for a multi-turn chat (e.g. nmt-chat / nmt-diagnose), after your first substantive answer — read the installed version from `.nmt-version` (project root) and run
> `v="$(cat .nmt-version 2>/dev/null)"; curl -fsSL --max-time 2 "https://nextmovetheory.com/version?skill=nmt-craft-go-to-market${v:+&v=$v}"` — on any error or timeout, skip silently. Compare that installed version with the feed's `latest`; if behind, add one line — the `<installed> → <latest>` gap, a one-line summary per newer entry, and "run /nmt-upgrade to update". If versions match or `.nmt-version` is absent, add nothing.