mcpField
M
mechanism-ideation

mechanism-ideation

github.com/coleschafferMarketing & growth4055 installsUpdated 32w ago
Repository

About mechanism-ideation

mechanism-ideation is a marketing skill that develops and ranks product-specific explanations for why a product delivers its core claim. It is intended for copywriters and strategists, grounding proposed mechanisms in product details and research context.

Key features

  1. 01Generate 5–7 mechanism ideas
  2. 02Branch ideation by product category
  3. 03Name and explain each mechanism
  4. 04Assess novelty and specificity
  5. 05Check believability and proof needs
  6. 06Rank and recommend candidates

Use cases

  1. 01Developing a supplement's differentiating explanation
  2. 02Finding an angle for an ecommerce product
  3. 03Framing an info product's methodology
  4. 04Preparing a mechanism for sales copy

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/coleschaffer/copywritingskills-rmbc --skill mechanism-ideation

After installing, type/mechanism-ideationin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

mechanism-ideation

Purpose

Generate 5-7 novel mechanism angles for a product's core claim. A mechanism is the unique, specific explanation of WHY a product delivers its result — not "it works" but "because of [specific thing no competitor can claim]." This is Stefan Georgi's "Copy Thinking" — strategic ideation before a single word of copy is written. The mechanism is what separates winning copy from generic copy.

A strong mechanism is:

  • Novel — the reader thinks "I've never heard of that before"
  • Specific — names a compound, process, framework, or system
  • Believable — grounded in real product attributes or research
  • Ownable — passes the "only we" test (no competitor can claim it)

Inputs

InputRequiredDescription
product_descriptionYesWhat the product is, what it does, key ingredients/features/components
product_categoryYesOne of: supplement, ecommerce, info_product
target_claimNoThe specific result or transformation the mechanism must explain
research_contextNoPrior research output (ingredient data, competitor analysis, ICP insights)

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/SKILL.md for framework overview and quality dimensions. The mechanism phase requires a novel explanation that passes the "only we" test.

Step 2 — Extract Raw Material

From product_description and research_context, identify:

  • Differentiators — What does this product have that competitors don't?
  • Process uniqueness — How is it made, formulated, delivered, or structured differently?
  • Proof anchors — What clinical data, patents, case studies, or results exist?
  • Naming opportunities — What can be branded, coined, or reframed?
Step 3 — Branch by Category
Supplements

Focus on ingredient-based mechanisms:

  • Unique compounds or proprietary blends
  • Delivery systems (liposomal, time-release, nano-emulsion)
  • Synergistic combinations ("X amplifies Y by Z%")
  • Bioavailability advantages (absorption rates, clinical comparisons)
  • Dosage differentiation (therapeutic dose vs competitor underdosing)
  • Origin/sourcing story (high-altitude, wild-harvested, patented extraction)
E-commerce

Focus on product design and manufacturing mechanisms:

  • Material innovation (proprietary fabric, alloy, compound)
  • Manufacturing process (hand-finished, 47-step quality check, zero-waste)
  • Structural engineering (patented hinge, load distribution, airflow system)
  • Sourcing story (single-origin, direct-from-artisan, traceable supply chain)
  • Design methodology (tested with 500 users, 3 years R&D, biomechanics lab)
  • Performance metric (lasts 3x longer, 40% lighter, withstands 10,000 cycles)
Info Products

Focus on methodology and framework mechanisms:

  • Proprietary framework (named system, unique sequencing, contrarian model)
  • Elimination angle ("removes the one thing that blocks X")
  • Speed/compression mechanism ("condenses 10 years into 90 days because...")
  • Counter-intuitive principle ("works by doing the opposite of conventional advice")
  • Stacking/layering system ("3 phases that compound — each unlocks the next")
  • Credential transfer ("developed from [specific experience] that no course covers")
Step 4 — Generate Mechanism Ideas

For each of the 5-7 mechanisms, develop:

  1. Mechanism name — A coined or branded term (e.g., "Tri-Phase Absorption Complex," "The Reverse Funnel Method")
  2. One-line explanation — What it is in plain language
  3. Why it works — The causal logic (2-3 sentences)
  4. Proof anchor — What evidence supports this mechanism
  5. Novelty score — 1-5 (1 = commonly claimed, 5 = never seen before)
  6. Specificity rating — 1-5 (1 = vague, 5 = precise and concrete)
  7. Believability check — HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW with one-line rationale
Step 5 — Rank and Recommend

Rank mechanisms by combined score (novelty + specificity). Flag any with LOW believability — these need additional research before use. Recommend the top 2-3 for copy development.

Output Format

## Mechanism Ideation: [Product Name]

**Category:** [supplement | ecommerce | info_product]
**Target claim:** [what the mechanism must explain]

---

### 1. [Mechanism Name]

**What it is:** [one-line explanation]

**Why it works:** [2-3 sentence causal logic]

**Proof anchor:** [supporting evidence]

| Novelty | Specificity | Believability |
|---------|-------------|---------------|
| X/5     | X/5         | HIGH/MED/LOW  |

[Repeat for each mechanism]

---

## Recommendation

**Top picks:** [ranked top 2-3 with brief rationale]

**Research gaps:** [any mechanisms that need deeper research before use]

**Next steps:** [which downstream skills to run]

Quality Criteria

  • Every mechanism must name something specific — no "powerful formula" or "unique blend"

  • At least 3 of 7 mechanisms should score 4+ on novelty

  • Any mechanism scoring LOW on believability must include a research gap callout

  • Mechanisms must be grounded in actual product attributes, not fabricated claims

  • Output should give a copywriter enough material to write a mechanism reveal section

  • Specificity gate: Every mechanism angle must include a number, name, or timeframe — no "unique approach" or "effective process"

  • Mechanism quantification: When referencing the mechanism, include at least one specific data point (number, timeframe, study reference)

  • Audience journey: Each mechanism must reference where the reader IS (what they've tried, what's failing) — not just who they are demographically

  • Proof diversity: Use at least 2 different proof types (testimonial, statistical, authority, case study) — do not rely on a single proof mode

  • Objection handling: Each mechanism must survive skepticism — address "sounds too good to be true" with a grounding proof point and "how is this different?" with an explicit contrast to the conventional approach

Related Skills

  • If research is thin, run /ingredient-research or /unified-research-synthesizer first
  • After mechanism selected, use in /hook-battery for mechanism-driven hooks
  • Feed chosen mechanism into /rmbc-copy-audit to validate mechanism scores

Attribution

Generated using RMBC framework by Stefan Georgi. Learn more: copyaccelerator.com/join

Comments

Markdown supported