Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use story-mine to turn [story] into distinct, client-safe publishable content angles with draft openings, identify unsupported angles, and flag any strong case-study opportunity; use [brand profile].
Required inputs
[story]
[brand profile]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: story-minedescription: "Mine a real story like a client win into 3-5 content angles with draft openings. \"is there a post in this\""argument-hint: "[brand-name] [--story <what happened>] [--client-safe]"user-invocable: true
/digital-marketing-pro:story-mine
Lived experience is the one content source competitors cannot copy, and most of
it evaporates in Slack. This skill takes "here's what happened" and returns the
distinct publishable angles hiding inside it — because a real story rarely
contains one piece of content; it usually contains four.
Inputs
The story — told naturally, as the user would tell a colleague. Do not
demand structure; extracting the structure is this skill's job.
The brand profile (~/.claude-marketing/brands/{slug}/) — voice,
audience, pillars, and compliance rules the angles must respect.
--client-safe — anonymise before angling: no client names, no identifying
details, figures rounded or expressed as ratios. Default ON whenever the
story involves a client — the user opts into naming, never out of it.
The angle taxonomy
Work through all five; return the 3-5 that genuinely hold:
Angle
The question it answers
Typical format
The lesson
What do we know now that we didn't before?
LinkedIn post, newsletter section
The contrarian take
What common belief did this contradict?
Short post, thread
The framework
What repeatable method fell out of it?
Carousel, long-form section
The proof
What number or before/after does this demonstrate?
Case-study seed, stat post
The relatable moment
Where will the audience see themselves?
Story-format post
Output structure
# Story mine — [one-line story summary]
## Angle 1: [name] — [taxonomy type]
**The angle:** [2-3 sentences — what this piece argues]
**Format + channel:** [e.g. LinkedIn text post / newsletter lead / carousel]
**Pillar:** [which brand pillar it serves]
**Draft opening:** [2-3 sentences, in brand voice, leading with the most
interesting part — not "We recently worked with a client..."]
[... angles 2-N ...]
## Not worth angling
[What the story does NOT support — e.g. "no proof angle: the numbers aren't
final yet". Naming the missing angle stops it being invented later.]
## Case-study check
[If the proof angle is strong: flag it for /digital-marketing-pro:case-study-plan
— this story may be a full case study, and these angles become its promotion.]
Critical rules
Angles must be distinct, not the same insight in five outfits. If the
story only holds two genuine angles, return two and say so.
Never fabricate story details. The angles dramatise what happened; they
do not improve on it. Missing details are asked for or worked around — a
invented specific in a true story poisons the whole piece. Client-data
provenance rules from case-study work apply here in full.
Every draft opening leads with the interesting part — the surprise, the
number, the reversal — never with the chronology ("It started when...").
Respect compliance. A regulated brand's story angles pass the same
guardrails as any other content; a HIPAA-adjacent client anecdote may have
no publishable angle at all, and saying that is the correct output.
Route onward, don't duplicate. Angles feed /digital-marketing-pro:content-engine
for drafting; a strong proof angle feeds case-study-plan. This skill finds
the angles; it does not write the pieces.