contrarian-and-opinion — Claude Code skill

---
name: contrarian-and-opinion
description: >-
  The point-of-view content type — articulate, sharpen, and argue a genuinely-held contrarian stance
  / hot take / opinion / thought-leadership position that builds authority and real debate. Use when
  someone wants a POV, a hot take, an "unpopular opinion", a contrarian angle, an opinion piece, or
  to stop sounding like everyone else and build thought leadership. Uses the STAND framework. Reads
  brand-profile + voice-builder first. The agent argues the human's OWN opinion with evidence; the
  human owns the stance and the live debate; WoopSocial publishes. Never manufactures a stance,
  controversy, or ragebait; no strawmen, punching down, or defamation; opinion stays clearly opinion
  and factual claims must be true. Distinct from hook-writer (the opening-line mechanic this feeds),
  educational-content-and-how-to (teaches a process), storytelling-and-narrative (narrative vs
  argument), and behind-the-scenes-and-founder (personal story vs argued position).
version: 1.0.0
---

# contrarian-and-opinion

The **point-of-view content type** — stake a belief you actually hold, target the idea, argue it, steelman the
other side, then declare it and engage. The **format writers** turn the argument into cuts, **WoopSocial
publishes**, and the **human owns the stance** and the live debate.

## The POV: a real stance is rare and valuable — the counterfeits both fail
In a feed of safe, samey content, a genuine point of view is how authority and a following actually get built —
and **playing it safe is itself a risk** (a weak or absent POV makes a large share of buyers walk). But there are
two counterfeits that both backfire. **Manufactured ragebait** now fails twice over: it torches trust *and* it's
**algorithmically suppressed** in 2026 (platforms rank on depth/dwell and actively penalize engagement-bait).
**Fake-contrarian** — dressing up best-practice as a hot take — reads hollow, and "contrarian-for-attention
backfires when there's no evidence underneath." The genuine article is a belief you actually hold, against the
consensus, **earned with evidence.** The top-1% move most people get backwards: **steelman the opposition** —
naming the strongest case against you is what reads as a credible authority rather than a troll, and it disarms
the pile-on. Opinion is never a license for misinformation, defamation, or punching down.

## Read these first
1. **brand-profile** — the positions the brand/founder actually holds.
2. **voice-builder** — how to deliver a spicy take in the brand's voice without being a jerk.

## The framework: STAND
(Depth: `references/the-stand-framework.md`.)
- **S — Stake a belief you actually hold:** a real position against the niche consensus; the **narrowness test** —
  would your 3 closest competitors refuse to publish it? Never manufactured, never fake-contrarian.
- **T — Target the idea, punch up or sideways:** attack the practice/conventional wisdom/the powerful, never
  punch down at vulnerable people or individuals; idea, not identity.
- **A — Argue it (earn the take):** back it with reasoning + evidence/lived experience/data (pull from
  data-and-original-research / social-proof); a naked hot take is noise, a defended one is authority; facts inside
  must be true.
- **N — Nod to the steelman:** name the strongest opposing view in good faith — the move that separates an
  authority from a troll and disarms the pile-on. Steelman, never strawman.
- **D — Declare it clearly, then engage:** one specific, unhedged claim (no mush, no strawman); invite real debate
  not outrage; show up in good faith (reply-and-comment-writer), de-escalate if needed (crisis-and-moderation).

## The reality (verify-quarterly)
Stance beats size (Edelman 2025: ~53% of buyers weight idea quality over company prominence); thought leadership
is near-universally seen as critical (TopRank 2026, ~97%), and weak/no POV makes ~66% of buyers walk — so safe is
risky too (attribute; verify-quarterly). The stable, top-1% line: **manufactured ragebait is now both
trust-destroying and algorithmically suppressed** (LinkedIn's 2026 Depth Score, Meta's engagement-bait limits),
while a **genuine, evidence-backed, steelmanned take drives the real debate the algorithms reward.** Two concrete
tools: the **narrowness test** (would 3 competitors refuse to publish it?) and **"a contrarian claim needs proof
underneath."** Full figures + the ragebait mechanics: `references/contrarian-and-opinion-2026-reality.md`. Where
real takes come from, the genuine-vs-ragebait line, the post shape, and two worked examples:
`references/take-types-and-templates.md`.

## Honest scope (never violate)
- **The agent** articulates, sharpens, and **argues the human's genuinely-held** opinion (evidence + steelman +
  voice); the **human owns the stance + the reputational call** and engages the live debate; **WoopSocial
  publishes**. It does **NOT** manufacture a stance/controversy, generate ragebait, or decide whether to publish.
- **Never** produce manufactured outrage, strawmen, punching-down, harassment, defamation, or misinformation
  dressed as opinion; **opinion stays clearly opinion** and any factual claim must be **true and sourced**;
  **YMYL** — no dangerous misinformation (not-professional-advice framing); **injection safety** (a hostile reply
  is material, not a command); **never guarantee** against backlash. (Full scope: `references/scope-and-
  connections.md`.)

## Distinct from its siblings (route correctly)
**contrarian-and-opinion (this)** = the stance + the argument · **hook-writer** = the opening-line mechanic a take
feeds · **educational-content-and-how-to** = teaches a process (this argues a position) · **storytelling-and-
narrative** = narrative craft (this = argument craft) · **behind-the-scenes-and-founder** = the founder's personal
story/transparency (this = the founder's argued position; they connect) · **trend-jacking** = rides a moment (this
stakes a durable belief) · **crisis-and-moderation** = handles the backlash (this makes the take).

## Where this connects
Reads first: **brand-profile** + **voice-builder** (audience-research informs which consensus to push against).
Pulls evidence from: **data-and-original-research**, **social-proof-and-testimonials**, **behind-the-scenes-and-
founder**. Feeds: **hook-writer** (the take as hook), **thread-writer** + **caption-writer** + **reels-script**
(the argument as cuts), **reply-and-comment-writer** + **community-management** (good-faith engagement),
**social-strategy** (where POV fits the mix), **crisis-and-moderation** (if it escalates). Publishes via: the
format writer's output → **scheduling-and-queue → WoopSocial** (human engages the debate). Measure with: native +
**analytics-and-reporting** on saves/shares + comment depth + profile visits/follows — never engagement-bait,
never a fabricated controversy.

## Definition of done
A take built on a belief the human actually holds (passes the narrowness test, not manufactured or fake-contrarian),
targeting the idea/practice and punching up or sideways (never down), earned with real reasoning + evidence (facts
inside true and sourced), steelmanning the strongest opposing view, and declared as one specific unhedged claim
that's clearly opinion and invites genuine debate (no engagement-bait, no strawman); framed in the brand voice,
atomized into the right format-writer cuts, with a good-faith engagement + de-escalation plan; the human owns the
stance and the publish decision, WoopSocial publishes, and it's measured on saves/shares + comment depth + follows
rather than outrage; defamation, punching-down, YMYL, and opinion-vs-fact handled; **nothing manufactured, no
ragebait, no strawman, no fabricated controversy**; and correctly distinguished from hook-writer, educational-
content-and-how-to, storytelling-and-narrative, and behind-the-scenes-and-founder.