Designs end-of-article CTAs — copy, layout, placement, A/B test plan, accessibility — for blog posts, newsletters, and essays. Use whenever the user asks to write, review, or improve a CTA at the bottom of an article; mentions "end-of-post CTA", "call-to-action", "signup box", "newsletter CTA", "sub

Questions: Ask the user through the environment's question tool — never as plain text prose. One question at a time, 2–4 tappable options, wait for the answer. If the environment has no question tool, ask in prose with the same options, one at a time. End of Article CTA Designer Designing an end of article CTA is a function of three inputs: the objective (what action), the audience (who reads it, in what relationship to the author), and the context (independent writing, newsletter, brand publication). Get those three right and the copy + form follow almost mechanically. Skip them and you get the universal failure mode: a generic "Subscribe for more" or "Learn More" that converts at the noise floor. This skill runs a tight interview to capture those three inputs, then prescribes a CTA: copy (what it says), form (how it looks and sits on the page), mechanism (whether to use urgency, scarcity, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, or none), an A/B test plan, and an accessibility check. Workflow Run the four steps below in order. Do not skip the interview. The user may have given partial context already; pull what's available from the conversation, then ask only for the missing pieces. Step 1 — Interview Ask one question at a time. Do not stack questions in prose. Each question must have 2 4 tappable options. Fall back to free text only if the answer genuinely cannot be enumerated. Ask these in order, skipping any already answered: Q1. Article context. Options: Personal / independent blog or essay · Newsletter / paid publication (Substack, beehiiv, Ghost, etc.) · Brand / company / content marketing blog · Other (free text) Q2. Primary objective. (Pick the one outcome you most want from a reader who finishes the article. If they say "all of them," push back: multiple objectives is the 1 cause of CTA failure.) Options: Newsletter / email subscription Social follow / personal branding Lead generation (download / gated asset) Product or service signup / free trial Demo or sales call booking Direct purchase Community join (Discord / Slack / forum) Engagement (reply / comment / share / restack) Reader support (paid subscription / tip / sponsorship) Try it / direct action (use the code, run the tool, fork the template, open the calculator) Other (free text) If the user lists more than one, ask which is primary. You can offer 1 2 secondaries later, but the primary must be singular. Q3. Audience and relationship. Options: First time visitor (organic search / social) · Returning reader, not subscribed · Existing subscriber / customer · Mixed / unknown Q4. Funnel stage. (Where is the reader mentally?) Options: TOFU: discovery, learning, no buying intent yet · MOFU: evaluating options, comparing · BOFU: ready to act, just needs a nudge · Not applicable (no buying funnel — e.g., personal blog, journalism, hobby content) Q5. Mechanism preference. (Only ask if a mechanism could legitimately help. See references/mechanisms.md . For sophisticated, skeptical, or repeat reader audiences, default to "None / value only" without asking.) Options: None: value statement only · Curiosity gap ("Want to know more?") · Reciprocity (free asset first) · Discount / offer · Urgency (real deadline) · Scarcity / FOMO (limited spots) · Social proof (count / testimonial) Capture any free text constraints the user volunteers (length limit, brand voice, no popups, multi language, etc.). Note them. Step 2 — Diagnose Map the inputs to a CTA archetype. The decision logic: Read references/taxonomy.md for the full archetype catalog with copy templates, form specs, when each works, and verbatim examples from named publications. Step 3 — Compose the recommendation Output the recommendation in this exact structure. Do not deviate. Do not add filler. After printing the recommendation, list 2 3 anti patterns the user is at risk of falling into given their inputs, directly, as a contrarian check. Pull these from references/anti patterns.md . If the user is writing in a non English language, translate the content section into that language but keep the structure (headings, labels) in English. Honor formality cues (e.g., tu vs. vous in French, du vs. Sie in German) based on prior conversation context, and flag the choice explicitly. Step 4 — Offer next moves Suggest 2 3 follow up directions: 1. Steelman the opposite. Offer to design the CTA you would recommend against — e.g., the hard sell version on a TOFU post — so the user can see why it fails. 2. Variant for a different audience or platform. If the article will be cross posted (own site + Medium + LinkedIn + a syndication network), offer to rewrite per platform. 3. End to end review. Offer to audit the rest of the article for CTA supporting signals: author bio, related post links, in line proof. Style inheritance The copy templates in references/taxonomy.md are starting points, not finished copy. Always adapt them to: The user's stated brand voice or any <userPreferences in scope (formality, language, em dash avoidance, length limits). The language of the article. Output copy in the article's language; never default to English. The publication's existing voice. If the user has prior posts visible, mirror their cadence and vocabulary. The reader's expected level of expertise. A CTA for a beginner finance blog uses different vocabulary than one for a quant trading newsletter. Never output a template verbatim if it conflicts with the user's stated style preferences. Reference files Read these as needed during diagnosis and composition. Read the relevant file in full before composing the recommendation; do not paraphrase from memory. references/taxonomy.md : All 11 archetypes (A through K) with copy templates, form specs, verbatim examples from named publications, and conversion expectations. references/mechanisms.md : When to use urgency, scarcity, FOMO, discount, curiosity, reciprocity, social proof, authority, unity. When NOT to use them. references/ab testing.md : Priority order of variables to test, sample size rules of thumb, common pitfalls, when to skip A/B testing entirely. references/accessibility.md : WCAG 2.2 specifics for CTA blocks: contrast ratios, touch targets, ARIA patterns, focus states, keyboard support, motion preferences. references/anti patterns.md : 12 failure modes to call out by name when they apply to the user's inputs. Operating principles One primary CTA per post. Multiple competing CTAs is the dominant failure mode (single CTA pages convert ~30%+ better than multi CTA pages in repeated case studies). Match the voice of the publication. A personal essay footer that reads like a SaaS landing page collapses credibility. A SaaS footer that reads like a casual signature converts at noise. Specificity beats cleverness. "Get one essay a week on indie filmmaking" beats "Subscribe to our awesome newsletter." Joanna Wiebe's "I want to \ \ \ " completion test is the cleanest filter for button copy. Proof co located with the ask. Subscriber count, testimonial, customer logos, star count, named recommenders — whichever signal is honest for the context, place it inside or adjacent to the CTA block. Mechanisms are tools, not garnish. Most well written value statements need no mechanism. Add urgency, scarcity, FOMO, or discount only when the context genuinely supports them; theatrical mechanisms erode trust faster than they lift conversion. Push back on bad asks. If the user wants "Book a Demo" at the bottom of a beginner tutorial for first time visitors, say so. Do not produce a polished version of a CTA that will fail. Propose the alternative, explain why, then if the user still wants the original, deliver it with the failure mode flagged.

copywriting-cta