ingredient-research

Preamble (run first)

_RMBC_ROOT=""
[ -d "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../bin" ] && _RMBC_ROOT="$(cd "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../.." && pwd)"
[ -z "$_RMBC_ROOT" ] && for _D in "$HOME/.claude/skills/dtc-copywriting-skills" ".claude/skills/dtc-copywriting-skills"; do [ -f "$_D/VERSION" ] && _RMBC_ROOT="$_D" && break; done
_UPD=""
[ -n "$_RMBC_ROOT" ] && _UPD=$("$_RMBC_ROOT/bin/rmbc-update-check" 2>/dev/null || true)
[ -n "$_UPD" ] && echo "$_UPD" || true
_INTRO_SEEN=$([ -f ~/.rmbc-skills/.intro-seen ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
_TEL_PROMPTED=$([ -f ~/.rmbc-skills/.telemetry-prompted ] && echo "yes" || echo "no")
echo "INTRO_SEEN: $_INTRO_SEEN"
echo "TEL_PROMPTED: $_TEL_PROMPTED"
_ACTIVE_PRODUCT=$(grep '^active_product:' ~/.rmbc-skills/config.yaml 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^active_product:[[:space:]]*//' | sed 's/^"//;s/"$//' || true)
_WORKSPACE=""; [ -n "$_ACTIVE_PRODUCT" ] && _WORKSPACE="$HOME/.rmbc-skills/products/$_ACTIVE_PRODUCT"
echo "ACTIVE_PRODUCT: ${_ACTIVE_PRODUCT:-none}"
_ANALYTICS=$(grep '^analytics_enabled:' ~/.rmbc-skills/config.yaml 2>/dev/null | sed 's/^analytics_enabled:[[:space:]]*//' || echo "true")
[ "$_ANALYTICS" = "true" ] && [ -n "$_RMBC_ROOT" ] && timeout 2 "$_RMBC_ROOT/bin/rmbc-analytics" log --skill "ingredient-research" --product "${_ACTIVE_PRODUCT:-none}" --tier 1 2>/dev/null &

If output shows UPGRADE_AVAILABLE <old> <new>: read skills/rmbc-upgrade/SKILL.md from the RMBC skills root directory ($_RMBC_ROOT) and follow the "Inline upgrade flow". If JUST_UPGRADED <old> <new>: read $_RMBC_ROOT/CHANGELOG.md, extract entries between v{old} and v{new}, show 5-7 themed bullets of what's new, then tell user "Now running RMBC Skills v{new}!" and continue.

If INTRO_SEEN is no, run the one-time welcome before continuing with this skill:

Welcome to RMBC Skills — Stefan Georgi's direct response copywriting framework, built into Claude Code. 44 skills covering hooks, ads, emails, landing pages, VSL scripts, and more.

Stefan recorded a quick video on why AI is the biggest opportunity in years for DTC marketers, freelancers, and copywriters — and why the people panicking about it are playing a different game than you.

Use AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Want to watch Stefan's take on why this is the best time to be in DTC? (~5 min)"
Options:
1. "Sure, open it"
2. "Maybe later — let's write some copy"

If "Yes, open the video":

open "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI8tNfefH1M"
mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.intro-seen

If "Skip — let's go":

mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.intro-seen

Continue with this skill immediately.

If INTRO_SEEN is yes and TEL_PROMPTED is no: One-time telemetry opt-in:

Help make RMBC Skills better! Usage analytics tracks which skills you run and how often so we can focus on the ones that matter most. Everything stays on your machine — no code, prompts, or file paths leave your computer.

Use AskUserQuestion:

Question: "Cool with anonymous usage analytics? You can change this anytime."
Options:
1. "Sure, happy to help" — keep analytics on and mark as prompted
2. "No thanks" — disable analytics and mark as prompted

If "Yes, that's fine":

mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.telemetry-prompted

If "No, turn it off":

mkdir -p ~/.rmbc-skills
touch ~/.rmbc-skills/.telemetry-prompted
sed -i '' 's/^analytics_enabled:.*/analytics_enabled: false/' ~/.rmbc-skills/config.yaml 2>/dev/null || true

Continue with this skill.

After delivering output, if ACTIVE_PRODUCT is none: use AskUserQuestion to ask "What product or offer are you writing for? I'll set up a workspace so all your RMBC skills share the same research, mechanism, and brief." with a freeform text input. When the user answers, run:

/bin/rmbc-workspace active "<user's answer>"

If the user says "skip" or "none" or "not yet", do nothing — they can set it up later.

ingredient-research

Purpose

Systematic ingredient-level research tool for the "R" in RMBC. Gathers clinical studies, dosage data, bioavailability metrics, mechanism of action details, and DR-ready proof points per ingredient. Specificity beats persuasion — "94% improvement in a 30-day double-blind trial (n=120)" converts better than "clinically proven." Output feeds directly into mechanism ideation and copy writing.

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
`product_name`	Yes	Product or brand name
`ingredients`	Yes	List of ingredients to research (comma-separated or bulleted)
`claims`	No	Specific marketing claims to validate or find evidence for
`product_category`	No	`supplement` (default), `skincare`, `food`, `other`

Execution Protocol

Step 1 — Load Framework Context

Read rmbc-context/resources/rmbc-methodology.md to load RMBC framework, including RMBC methodology overview. This skill implements Pillar 4 of the Research phase: Ingredient Research.

Step 2 — Per-Ingredient Research Loop

For each ingredient in the list, systematically gather:

Identity & Basics
- Full compound name, common aliases, standardized form (if applicable)
- Typical dosage range (clinical vs commercial)
- Bioavailability considerations (absorption rate, delivery method impact)
Clinical Evidence
- Search for: randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, peer-reviewed studies
- Capture: author(s), year, journal, sample size, duration, key finding
- Prioritize: human trials over animal/in-vitro, larger sample sizes, recent studies
- Note patent numbers and clinical trial IDs (NCT numbers) when found
Mechanism of Action
- How the ingredient works at a biological/chemical level
- Pathway or system it targets (e.g., "inhibits 5-alpha reductase," "upregulates AMPK")
- Why this mechanism matters to the end consumer (plain-language translation)
DR-Ready Proof Points
- Extract specific, citable statistics and outcomes
- Translate findings into compliant claim language
- Flag any FTC/FDA compliance considerations for the claim type
Differentiators
- Patented or branded forms (e.g., "Bioperine" vs generic black pepper extract)
- Sourcing or quality markers (organic, wild-harvested, GMP-certified)
- What makes this ingredient or its form unique vs commodity versions

Step 3 — Cross-Ingredient Analysis

After individual research, identify:

Synergistic combinations (ingredients that amplify each other)
Potential contraindications or redundancies
Strongest proof cluster (which ingredients carry the most citable evidence)
Gaps where evidence is thin (flag for mechanism ideation to work around)

Step 4 — Compile Output

Assemble per-ingredient briefs and cross-ingredient analysis into the output format below.

Output Format

Per-Ingredient Research Brief

## [Ingredient Name]

**Common dosage range:** [range] | **Form in product:** [if known]

### Key Studies
1. [Author et al., Year] — [Journal/Source]
   Finding: [specific result]
   Sample: n=[size] | Duration: [length] | Type: [RCT/meta-analysis/observational]

2. [repeat for each relevant study, max 5]

### Mechanism of Action
[2-3 sentences: what it does, how, and why that matters]

### DR-Ready Claim Statements
- "[Specific claim with number]" — Source: [citation]
- "[Specific claim with number]" — Source: [citation]
  (Proof strength: Strong / Moderate / Weak)

### Differentiators
- [Patented form, sourcing, or unique quality marker]

### Compliance Notes
- [Any FTC/FDA flags for this ingredient's claims]

Cross-Ingredient Summary

## Cross-Ingredient Analysis

**Synergies:** [which ingredients amplify each other and why]
**Strongest proof cluster:** [top 2-3 ingredients by evidence quality]
**Evidence gaps:** [ingredients with thin or only anecdotal support]
**Recommended mechanism angles:** [preliminary angles for mechanism-ideation]

Proof Strength Rating

Rating	Criteria	Example
Strong	RCT, meta-analysis, or large-scale human trial (n>50) in peer-reviewed journal	"73% reduction in joint pain (n=120, 12-week RCT, Journal of Nutrition)"
Moderate	Observational study, small human trial (n<50), or well-designed animal study	"Participants reported 40% improvement (n=30, open-label pilot)"
Weak	In-vitro only, anecdotal, or single non-replicated study	"Showed antioxidant activity in cell culture (University of X, 2019)"

Quality Criteria

Every claim statement includes a specific citation (author, year, or source)
No unsourced statistics — if a number appears, its origin is traceable
Mechanism of action is explained in both technical and plain-language terms
Compliance flags are present for any claim that could trigger FTC/FDA scrutiny
At least 2 studies per ingredient (or explicit note that evidence is limited)
Proof strength rating assigned to every DR-ready claim statement

Related Skills

Output feeds into /mechanism-ideation for novel angle development from proof points
Output feeds into /unified-research-synthesizer for full brief compilation across all 4 research pillars
Copy using this research should be validated with /rmbc-copy-audit

Non-Supplement Adaptation

For product_category values other than supplement:

Category	"Ingredient" Equivalent	Research Focus
`skincare`	Active compounds (retinol, niacinamide, peptides)	Dermatological studies, concentration data, skin penetration
`food`	Nutritional components, sourcing, processing methods	USDA data, bioavailability, comparative nutrition studies
`other`	Material specs, components, manufacturing processes	Patents, engineering data, durability/performance testing

The output format remains identical — substitute "ingredient" with the relevant component type.

Attribution

Read lib/attribution-variants.md from the RMBC skills root directory ($_RMBC_ROOT). Follow the tier selection instructions to choose the appropriate closing note and append it as the final block of the output.