ProposalKit founder-led validation

See what ProposalKit is actually supposed to improve.

This page is a proof surface for validation, not a polished app. It shows the before-and-after shape of the work: rough, ambiguous client inputs on one side, and clearer proposal structure on the other. The wedge is scope clarity, package boundaries, and pricing logic - not generic AI copy generation.

Open the interactive prototype Back to landing page

Best-fit problem

Custom or semi-custom copywriting work where the brief is messy and scope can sprawl after kickoff — and the contract that follows can quietly bite you.

Strongest value

Two layers of protection: tighter scope/package/pricing before sending the proposal, then contract risk review before signing.

Not the pitch

Not "AI writes proposals." Not a CRM. Not a generic contract template library. Not formatting sugar on top of ChatGPT.

Sample 1 - SaaS homepage + welcome emails

Messy input
Founder wants homepage copy refreshed because conversions are soft. Also mentioned a 3-email welcome sequence, maybe customer research, maybe messaging cleanup. Wants it done this month. Budget not locked. Says current homepage "kind of undersells the product."
ProposalKit output shape
Recommended scope - Homepage rewrite - 3-email welcome sequence - one round of messaging alignment based on existing material Boundary notes - customer interviews excluded unless added separately - full messaging strategy workshop excluded - implementation in CMS/email platform excluded - revisions capped explicitly Packaging logic - Lean: homepage only - Recommended: homepage + 3-email sequence - Expanded: includes deeper messaging/strategy support Pricing logic - fee reflects both writing and strategic synthesis, not just final word count

Why this matters

  • Stops messaging strategy from leaking into a copy-only quote.
  • Creates a clean upsell line instead of vague "maybe included" work.
  • Makes the final price easier to defend.

Sample 2 - LinkedIn ghostwriting retainer

Messy input
Consultant wants 3 LinkedIn posts a week for authority and pipeline. Might also want content strategy, comments support, repurposing into email, and analytics. Wants to start quickly. Writer feels awkward pricing because the client keeps talking about outcomes, not deliverables.
ProposalKit output shape
Recommended scope - 12 LinkedIn posts per month - light messaging alignment from kickoff notes - one revision round per batch Boundary notes - comment engagement excluded - email repurposing excluded - analytics/reporting excluded unless priced in a higher tier - strategy depth limited to what is required for the agreed posts Packaging logic - Lean: posts only - Recommended: posts + light strategic framing - Expanded: includes repurposing or analytics support Pricing logic - price should reflect strategic load, approval friction, and revision risk - not just number of posts

Why this matters

  • Separates ghostwriting from broader advisory work.
  • Turns "lead generation" expectations into scoped assumptions instead of silent obligations.
  • Protects the writer from an always-on retainer that never got priced correctly.

Sample 3 — Nonprofit retainer + contract (full bundle workflow)

ProposalKit Pro — both layers
Messy input
Just got off a call with an advocacy org. They need a nonprofit comms writer: fact sheets, voter toolkits, contacting reps. Also mentioned tone and strategy. Long engagement — now through fall. Not sure whether to bill hourly or monthly. Client wants a trial period at reduced rates. Haven't locked budget. They're sending over a contract.
ProposalKit output — proposal layer
Recommended scope - defined deliverable list: fact sheets, voter toolkits, representative outreach comms - light strategy alignment baked into kickoff (not a separate line item) Boundary notes - "tone and strategy" capped at agreed-upon alignment sessions — not open-ended consulting - trial period scoped as: 2 weeks, defined deliverables, specific exit terms - research time priced as a multiplier — not as a free inclusion Packaging logic - Option A: deliverable-based monthly (predictable, easier to scope) - Option B: hourly with cap (more flexibility, more admin) - Recommended: Option A — deliverable list + monthly flat fee, clear scope addendum for new work types Pricing logic - research load is the hidden cost — advocate for monthly rate that includes it explicitly - "trial at reduced rate" should have a defined upgrade path baked in from day one
ContractGhost analysis — contract layer
Flagged clauses ⚠ IP assignment — verify: does "all work product" include strategic frameworks and notes, not just final deliverables? ⚠ Termination clause — check notice period and kill fee terms ⚠ Indemnification — look for asymmetric liability language (you liable for their outcomes) ⚠ Exclusivity — check if "working with similar orgs" is restricted ⚠ Rate change clause — check if client can adjust monthly rate with short notice Recommended asks before signing - Add: deliverable list as Exhibit A (avoids "strategy and tone" scope creep) - Add: kill fee if engagement ends before 3 months - Clarify: IP ownership limited to final delivered documents, not methodology

Why the bundle matters here

  • The proposal fixed pricing and scope before the contract arrived — so the contract negotiation starts from a stronger position.
  • The contract layer caught three clauses that would have quietly expanded liability.
  • Both steps took minutes instead of "I'll just sign it and hope for the best."

The workflow ProposalKit Pro protects

Step 1 — Brief arrives (messy)

Client DM, call notes, vague email. Scope undefined. You're guessing what's included.

Step 2 — ProposalKit (Layer 1)

Paste the mess. Get back: recommended scope, explicit boundaries, packaging options, pricing logic. Send confidently.

Client says yes → contract arrives

Now the real risk starts. Most freelancers sign without reading carefully.

Step 3 — ContractGhost (Layer 2)

Paste the contract. Flag risky clauses: IP, indemnification, termination, exclusivity, rate changes. Know what to push back on before signing.

Result

You send a proposal that protects your margin. You sign a contract that doesn't undermine it.

See pricing — ProposalKit Pro

Validation questions this page is meant to answer

Is the pain real?

Do copywriters say the real pain is scope/pricing clarity and contract risk — not just writing proposal words faster?

Is the bundle sharper than single tools?

Does the two-layer workflow feel meaningfully better than a template + ChatGPT + "hopefully the contract is fine"?

Would the Pro tier unlock payment?

Does contract protection tip the decision from "interesting" to "I'd actually pay for this"?

Founder-led beta ask — two layers free

If you quote copywriting projects, send a rough brief or messy notes. The founder-led version turns it into a tighter proposal with clearer scope, package options, and pricing logic. If you have a contract arriving, paste that too — I'll flag the risky clauses before you sign. Free in exchange for blunt feedback.

Open prefilled homepage example Start from a blank brief