Social Proof Architect

Execution Steps

Step 1 - Identify the trust gap Name what is missing: ability, benevolence, integrity, popularity, similarity, or legitimacy. Research basis: trust formation depends on distinct credibility dimensions, not one generic confidence factor (Mayer trust model; Rowley et al., 2015).

Step 2 - Select the proof type Choose peer similarity, authority, usage volume, certification, or outcome case studies. Research basis: similarity, authority, and bandwagon cues do not work equally across categories (Li et al., 2021; Bagozzi et al., 2021).

Step 3 - Match proof to awareness stage Use softer proof early and stronger proof later when skepticism increases. Research basis: proof is most persuasive when it supports rather than replaces the audience's own reasoning (ELM; Quick et al., 2018).

Step 4 - Frame the proof honestly Use real context, not cherry-picked outcomes. Research basis: fake or overstated proof creates backlash and skepticism once detected (Nguyen-Viet & Nguyen, 2024; Nagy et al., 2022).

Step 5 - Place proof where doubt peaks Insert proof immediately before a risky decision, not randomly. Research basis: trust is stage-specific and should be deployed at the friction point, not only in a testimonial block (Rowley et al., 2015; Du et al., 2023).

DECISION MATRIX

Variable: proof type

• If the audience is peer-led -> use similarity, examples, and real user stories.
• If the audience is expert-led -> use authority, credentials, and data.
• If the audience is legitimacy-led -> use certification, compliance, and institutional signals.
• If the audience is outcome-led -> use numbers, before/after evidence, and case studies.

Variable: trust stage

• If trust is low -> use low-friction proof with high transparency.
• If trust is moderate -> combine peer proof with outcome proof.
• If trust is high -> keep proof minimal and let the offer lead.

Variable: category risk

• If risk is high -> use more specific, verifiable proof.
• If risk is medium -> use a mix of testimonials and numbers.
• If risk is low -> use lighter social proof and avoid clutter.

FAILURE MODES - DO NOT DO THESE

Failure Mode 1

• Agents typically: use authority proof for a peer-driven audience.
• Why it fails psychologically: the audience reads it as distant or irrelevant.
• Instead: match proof source to the trust gap.

Failure Mode 2

• Agents typically: add fake-volume language or cherry-picked testimonials.
• Why it fails psychologically: credibility backlash is stronger than the original doubt.
• Instead: use verifiable, contextual proof.

Failure Mode 3

• Agents typically: place proof after the decision point.
• Why it fails psychologically: it arrives too late to reduce anxiety.
• Instead: insert proof at the hesitation point.

ETHICAL GUARDRAILS

This skill must:

• Use real proof only.
• Preserve context and nuance.
• Avoid manufactured consensus.

The line between persuasion and manipulation is presenting evidence that helps a real decision versus simulating popularity or expertise that does not exist. Never cross it.

SKILL CHAINING

Before invoking this skill, the agent should have completed:

• @customer-psychographic-profiler
• @trust-calibrator
• @awareness-stage-mapper

This skill's output feeds into:

• @copywriting-psychologist
• @pitch-psychologist
• @sequence-psychologist
• @landing-page-style outputs

OUTPUT QUALITY CHECK

Before finalizing output, the agent asks:

• Did I identify the actual trust gap?
• Did I match proof type to the audience?
• Did I place proof at the point of doubt?
• Is the proof real and contextual?
• Would this increase trust without feeling forced?

Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.