purple-cow-audit

# Purple Cow Audit

Quality gate for affiliate marketers: score a product's remarkability 1-10 before promoting it. Based on Seth Godin's Purple Cow — if the product isn't remarkable, no amount of marketing skill will make it convert sustainably. The key question: "Would I recommend this to a friend WITHOUT earning a commission?"

## Stage

S1: Research — Evaluating a program's worthiness IS part of research and discovery. This is a quality gate before you invest time creating content, landing pages, and email sequences.

## When to Use

- User is considering promoting a specific product
- User asks "is this product worth promoting?"
- User wants to evaluate product quality before investing time
- User says "purple cow", "remarkable", "audit", "evaluate", "quality check"
- Before investing time in S2-S5 skills for a specific product
- User has a list of programs from `affiliate-program-search` and needs to pick the best

## Input Schema

```yaml
product:                    # REQUIRED
  name: string              # Product name
  url: string               # Product website
  description: string       # OPTIONAL — what it does
  reward_value: string      # OPTIONAL — commission rate
  tags: string[]            # OPTIONAL — categories

comparison_products: string[] # OPTIONAL — competitors to compare against
                              # Default: auto-discovered
```

**Chaining from S1 affiliate-program-search**: If run, evaluate the `recommended_program`.

## Workflow

### Step 1: Research the Product

1. `web_search`: `"[product] review 2024 2025"` — find recent reviews
2. `web_search`: `"[product] vs" OR "[product] alternative"` — find competitors
3. `web_search`: `"[product] complaints" OR "[product] problems"` — find issues
4. Check product website for: pricing transparency, unique features, social proof

### Step 2: Score Remarkability

Rate each dimension 1-10:

| Dimension | Question | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| **Uniqueness** | Does it do something no competitor does? | 20% |
| **Quality** | Is it genuinely excellent at its core job? | 20% |
| **Story** | Does using it make you feel/look different? | 15% |
| **Word of mouth** | Would users tell friends unprompted? | 15% |
| **Design** | Is the experience delightful, not just functional? | 10% |
| **Problem fit** | Does it solve a real, painful problem? | 10% |
| **Trust** | Transparent pricing, good support, real social proof? | 10% |

**Composite score** = weighted average (1-10)

### Step 3: Make Recommendation

Based on composite score:
- **8-10: PROMOTE** — This is a Purple Cow. Go all in.
- **6-7: PROMOTE WITH ANGLE** — Good product, needs strong positioning. Identify your unique angle.
- **4-5: CAUTION** — Mediocre product. Only promote if commission is exceptional AND you can add significant value through bonuses.
- **1-3: SKIP** — Not remarkable. Promoting this will damage your reputation. Find an alternative.

### Step 4: Identify Remarkable Angles

For products scoring 6+, identify:
1. The 1-2 features that ARE remarkable (Purple Cow elements)
2. The angles that make it share-worthy
3. The audience segment for whom this IS a Purple Cow (even if not for everyone)

### Step 5: Self-Validation

- [ ] Score is evidence-based (cited reviews, features, data)
- [ ] Recommendation is honest (not inflated by high commission)
- [ ] Remarkable angles are specific (not generic praise)
- [ ] Comparison with competitors is fair
- [ ] The "would I recommend without commission" test was honestly applied

## Output Schema

```yaml
output_schema_version: "1.0.0"
purple_cow_audit:
  product_name: string
  composite_score: number       # 1-10 weighted
  recommendation: string        # "promote" | "promote_with_angle" | "caution" | "skip"
  scores:
    uniqueness: number
    quality: number
    story: number
    word_of_mouth: number
    design: number
    problem_fit: number
    trust: number

  remarkable_angles: string[]   # What makes it a Purple Cow (for 6+)
  red_flags: string[]           # Concerns identified
  alternative_products: string[] # Better options if score < 6

remarkability_score: number     # Alias for composite_score (for chaining)

chain_metadata:
  skill_slug: "purple-cow-audit"
  stage: "research"
  timestamp: string
  suggested_next:
    - "affiliate-program-search"
    - "grand-slam-offer"
    - "viral-post-writer"
    - "monopoly-niche-finder"
```

## Output Format

```
## Purple Cow Audit: [Product Name]

### The Question
Would I recommend [product] to a friend WITHOUT earning a commission?
**Answer:** [Yes/No/With caveats]

### Remarkability Scorecard

| Dimension | Score | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Uniqueness | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Quality | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Story | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Word of Mouth | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Design | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Problem Fit | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| Trust | X/10 | [specific evidence] |
| **Composite** | **X/10** | |

### Recommendation: [PROMOTE / PROMOTE WITH ANGLE / CAUTION / SKIP]

[Reasoning — 2-3 sentences]

### Remarkable Angles (what to emphasize)
1. [Specific remarkable feature/aspect]
2. [Specific remarkable feature/aspect]

### Red Flags (what to be honest about)
1. [Concern]
2. [Concern]

### If Score < 6: Better Alternatives
- [Alternative 1] — [why it's more remarkable]
- [Alternative 2] — [why it's more remarkable]
```

## Error Handling

- **No product provided**: "Tell me the product name and I'll audit its remarkability. Or run `affiliate-program-search` first."
- **Product is too new/no reviews**: Score based on available data, flag low confidence. "Limited data — revisit this audit in 3 months."
- **User disagrees with score**: "The score is a starting framework. If you have personal experience that changes the picture, tell me and I'll adjust."
- **No alternatives found**: Suggest running `affiliate-program-search` in the same category.

## Examples

**Example 1:** "Is HeyGen worth promoting?