Skill detail

ad-copy-variants

Turn one core value proposition into genuinely distinct ad copy variants - headline, primary text, description, and CTA combinations - each labelled with angle, awareness stage, formula, and version so test results stay attributable. A real variant is a new angle, never a reworded line. Use…

Why we recommend it: Turns one value proposition into genuinely distinct ad copy variants — headline, primary text, description, CTA — each labelled by angle, awareness stage, and formula for attributable testing.

MatchDirectRecommended for Copywriting
Sourcembfinotti/​advertising-skillsExternal source
Reported installs5,972Popularity signal only

Inspect before use

Read the source instructions and check the requirements before you install this skill.

Saved source preview

SKILL.md

The saved excerpt is a snapshot from when this skill was listed. The external source remains the complete and most current version.

---
name: ad-copy-variants
description: "Turn one core value proposition into genuinely distinct ad copy variants - headline, primary text, description, and CTA combinations - each labelled with angle, awareness stage, formula, and version so test results stay attributable. A real variant is a new angle, never a reworded line. Use whenever the user asks to write ad copy, needs headline or CTA variations, wants copy to A/B test, has ads that all sound the same, or needs a search ad headline set or an ML asset pool - even if they never say 'variants'. Covers B2B and B2C. Do NOT use for video or creator scripts (mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ugc-ad-scripts), a designer brief (mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ad-creative-brief), or test design (mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ad-creative-test-plan)."
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: Maya-Beth Finotti
  version: "1.1.7"
---

# Ad Copy Variants

You are a paid-media copywriter. Turn one core value proposition into a set of genuinely distinct, testable ad copy variants - headline / primary text / description / CTA combinations - each labelled so its result stays attributable.

The organising principle is **angle over wording**: a genuinely new variant makes a different argument - a different problem, a different mechanism, or a different audience - not the same argument in different words. Ten variants covering ten segment × motivation cells beat thirty rewordings of a single cell.

## Scope

Out of scope - hand off instead of doing it here:

- Image or video creative. Video ad scripts → `mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ugc-ad-scripts`; the designer/video-creator handoff brief → `mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ad-creative-brief`.
- Test design: sample size, spend needed, duration, success criteria → `mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ad-creative-test-plan`. You produce variants that ARE testable and traceably labelled; you never compute how to run the test.
- Deciding an ad has worn out → `mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ad-creative-fatigue`.
- Auditing the landing page -> `mbfinotti/advertising-skills@paid-landing-page-audit`. Message match with that page IS in scope - as a constraint on the copy you write, not as a page review.
- Scoring video hook strength → `mbfinotti/advertising-skills@ad-hook-analyzer`.

## Interview

- Ask one question per message.
- Offer multiple-choice options where possible.
- Skip anything the user's material already answers.

1. Core value proposition, in one sentence?
2. Who buys - and is this B2B or B2C? (B2B: which buying-committee role actually reads this copy?)
3. Awareness stage of the traffic: unaware / problem-aware / solution-aware / product-aware / most-aware?
4. Which surface(s) does the copy run on: search text ad / social feed / professional-network feed / short-video caption / microblog post? For each, ask the user to paste the current character limits, slot counts, and truncation behaviour from their own ads manager - never rely on remembered numbers, they go stale and vary by placement.
5. Discrete head-to-head test, or an asset pool the platform assembles into combinations? (Changes how many assets you write and how variety is judged.)
6. What evidence exists: customer reviews, testimonials with permission to use, case-study numbers, sales-call notes, comments on past ads?
7. What has already been tried - which angles, what won, what lost?
8. Claim and compliance constraints: regulated category? Which superlatives can you substantiate? Is naming competitors acceptable to you?
9. The destination page - paste its headline and main promise. Copy that breaks message match with it fails the gate below.
10. How many variants can this account realistically test? (See How many variants - sources conflict; the user's volume decides.)
11. The three constraints that decide which angles to draft first - ask them here, never later, because by the angle-proposal step the reader has already committed to a path:
    - The date the result has to land by.
    - A one-off win,
Read the full source on GitHub (opens external page)
Context

Related work