Client Brief Generator
Produces the full client brief and a one-page at-a-glance card from a questionnaire that doubles as a fillable client form and a discovery-call guide. Apply the east-african-english skill for tone throughout.
Use When
- A new client has signed and we need to know their business, audience, competitors, goals, tone and budget before any strategy work.
- The consultant needs a ten-question kickstart intake to send as a form or use as a discovery-call guide.
- Discovery answers are in but patchy, so the brief must mark [TO CONFIRM] gaps and list targeted follow-up questions.
- The account team wants a one-page at-a-glance card that sums up the client for everyone working on the account.
Do Not Use When
13-campaign-brief for the execution brief of a single approved campaign.02-platform-audit once intake is approved and the next job is reviewing profiles and competitors.04-brand-voice-intake for the full voice guide and visual direction.- Stop before drafting strategy or content while core intake answers are missing; return the questionnaire and the gap list instead.
Required Inputs
| Artefact |
Source/provider |
Required? |
If absent |
| Completed intake answers (ten-question bank or Part A questionnaire) |
Client, or the consultant on the client's behalf |
Yes |
This skill generates the questionnaire itself; send it or run the two-phase kickstart, pre-fill what is known and flag the gaps. |
| Unresolved follow-up responses for [TO CONFIRM] gaps |
Client after the draft brief |
Before approval |
Keep the [TO CONFIRM] markers and list targeted follow-up questions in Consultant Notes. |
| Current platform handles, follower counts and last-post dates |
Client; public profiles |
Yes |
Record the platform row as unknown; do not estimate follower counts. |
| Approver name, role and turnaround time |
Client |
Yes |
Leave the approval field open and flag it; no content goes live without a named approver. |
| Paid-social budget band and intended use |
Client |
Yes |
Record "Not sure yet" and offer guidance on an appropriate band. |
| Validated user research, or a plan to acquire it |
Client |
For execution pricing |
Mark the brief "speculative" and scope a discovery engagement first. |
Workflow
- Choose the intake route: the ten-question kickstart for a new or form-averse client, or the full Part A questionnaire (12 sections, questions 1–43 plus the positioning questions) sent as a form or used as a discovery-call guide; use the exact question wording.
- Pre-fill anything the consultant already knows and mark every remaining gap [TO CONFIRM]; stop before drafting strategy or content while core intake answers are missing, and return the questionnaire and gap list instead.
- Apply the three pre-brief filters before scoping or pricing: the brief-screening check, the Three Levels of UX Scope declaration and the Field-of-Dreams flag; record the result under "Brief filters applied".
- Write the full client brief in the twelve sections of Output 1, using full sentences where appropriate and tables for structured data; compare the client's posting expectation with the recommended starting frequencies.
- Generate the one-page at-a-glance card from the same answers, including the UX scope level and Consultant Notes.
- Cross-check brief and card for contradictions; correct any mismatch at source and rerun both outputs from the corrected answers.
- Run the anti-slop ship gate, then hand the approved brief to
02-platform-audit and the tone adjectives to 04-brand-voice-intake; positioning answers go to biz-dev-positioning.
Outputs
| Artefact |
Consumer |
Acceptance condition |
| Full client brief (twelve sections) |
Client lead; 02-platform-audit; strategy skills |
All twelve sections covered; an empty section carries a note explaining why; gaps marked [TO CONFIRM]. |
| Client at-a-glance card |
Everyone working on the account |
Fits one page; fields match the brief; Consultant Notes lists at least one follow-up item. |
| Positioning answers (USP, mission, vision, niche) |
biz-dev-positioning; client file |
Recorded verbatim at intake and stored in the client file. |
| "Brief filters applied" record |
Client lead; pricing |
Screening result, UX scope level and speculative or execution-ready status stated. |
Evidence Produced
| Evidence |
Format |
Acceptance condition |
| Intake source log |
Table: question, answer, source (form, call, consultant pre-fill), date |
Every pre-filled answer is attributed; unconfirmed answers stay [TO CONFIRM]. |
| Risk acceptance note |
Written record |
Present whenever the client refuses discovery on a speculative brief and the work proceeds. |
Capability and Permission Boundaries
Read and search only; analysis is read-only. Publishing, spend, live account changes, outreach and personal-data processing need explicit, action-specific client authority. Report recipients' names and email addresses are personal data; hold them in the client file only.
Degraded Mode
Without completed intake answers, return the narrowest qualified result and mark the affected checks not assessed. The questionnaire, a draft brief with [TO CONFIRM] markers and a targeted follow-up question list can still be delivered.
Decision Rules
| Condition |
Action |
Failure or risk avoided |
| The engagement is new and no intake answers exist yet, or the client will not complete the full questionnaire |
Run the two-phase kickstart in intake-question-bank: ten standard questions, an immediate draft brief with [TO CONFIRM] markers, then ready-frontier follow-up questions. |
A stalled engagement or a brief built on unconfirmed gaps. |
| The client's posting expectation is unrealistic |
Flag it professionally against Uganda/EA starting frequencies: Facebook 4–5 posts per week, Instagram 3–4, LinkedIn 2–3, TikTok 3–5 short videos, WhatsApp 1–2 broadcast messages per week (not daily). |
Promising a volume the team cannot sustain. |
| The request fails the brief-screening check ("killer Instagram strategy", "viral content", "posts that look like [trending brand]") |
Turn each "no" into an intake question before scoping: what result it must move and for whom, which persona should do what, what promise only this client can make. |
Scoping an idea that is not yet a strategy. |
| The brief has no validated user research and no plan to acquire it |
Mark it "speculative", not "execution-ready", and price it as a discovery engagement first. |
Delivery pricing on a speculative brief. |
| The client refuses discovery and demands execution-priced delivery on a speculative brief |
Decline the work or document the risk acceptance in writing. |
Unrecorded risk carried by the agency. |
The requested outcome belongs to 02-platform-audit or 04-brand-voice-intake |
Route there and hand over the verified intake answers already collected. |
Neighbour collision and duplicated work. |
Quality Standards
- Both outputs are generated from the same completed questionnaire; no information is contradicted between the two documents.
- The full brief covers all twelve sections; no section is skipped or left empty without a clear note explaining why.
- Posting frequency recommendations are grounded in Uganda/EA platform norms, not generic global benchmarks.
- Content restrictions are stated plainly and unambiguously so any team member can act on them without seeking clarification.
- Tone adjectives are carried forward accurately and will be usable by the
04-brand-voice-intake skill.
- The at-a-glance card fits a single page, declares the UX scope level, and no section contains more detail than quick reference needs.
- British English spelling is used throughout; tone follows the
east-african-english skill.
- The consultant notes field in the at-a-glance card identifies at least one follow-up item where information is missing or unclear.
Anti-Patterns
- Drafting strategy or content from a half-completed questionnaire. Fix: issue the draft brief with [TO CONFIRM] markers and the follow-up list, and wait for answers.
- Copying global posting benchmarks into the brief. Fix: use the Uganda/EA starting frequencies and flag unrealistic expectations.
- Pricing a speculative brief as delivery work. Fix: apply the Field-of-Dreams flag and scope discovery first.
- Writing vague content restrictions ("be careful with competitors"). Fix: state the competitor mention policy (Never / Only positively / Can reference if factual) and each banned topic in one line.
- Skipping the UX scope declaration. Fix: declare Single Interaction, Journey or Relationship in the brief and the card.
- Absorbing the platform audit or the brand voice guide into this workflow. Fix: route to
02-platform-audit or 04-brand-voice-intake with the verified inputs.
References
