Your agent writes the copy.
99takes tells you who won't buy it.
A plugin for Claude Code. It puts your ad and landing page copy in front of real B2B decision-makers before budget runs on it — and hands you back not a score, but the objections that stop the click.
The agent can write anything. It just can't know whether it lands.
It doesn't know your buyers
It knows language, patterns and a thousand landing pages. What makes your buyers hesitate on this specific decision was in no training set.
It has no memory of your account
Which message already worked for you disappeared with the last session. Every conversation starts from zero.
Asking it means being agreed with
"Is this copy good?" gets answered by every model — pleasantly, plausibly, and about a text it wrote itself a moment ago.
Two commands, then it's part of how you work.
No extra window anyone has to log into. The tool sits where the copy is written.
claude plugin marketplace add Blessing-Digital/99takes-plugin
claude plugin install 99takes@99takes> Write me a headline for our HRIS landing page.
The employee record that keeps itself up to date.
> Check it against b2b-saas-procurement-us.
⚙ simulate_copy
Your copy LOSES against a market-standard alternative.
Score 5.1 vs 6.0 (-0.9), 2 of 6 personas picked yours.
Objections, lowest score first:
- Head of IT, 120 employees (3.8/10): Doesn't say what it replaces.
I can't tell if this sits next to our HR system or takes it over.
Source: review · g2-2026-03-11
- Head of People, 400 employees (4.6/10): "Keeps itself up to date"
reads like a promise that lands on me in the next audit.Illustrative example. The marketplace opens with the beta — everyone on the list gets access and a key before prices are fixed.
Checking is half the job. Rewriting is the other half.
A human reads a report and files it away. An agent reads the objections, rewrites, and checks again — inside the same minute.
Write
The agent drafts the headline, the ad, the section — exactly as it does today.
Collect the pushback
Six decision-makers read along and say where they get stuck. Not as a rating, as a sentence.
Check the rewrite
The new version runs against the old one. That's how you know it's better and not merely different.
Every objection shows where it came from.
A persona in this system is not an invented role with a name and a stock photo. It is distilled from publicly quotable sources — software reviews, published interviews, industry forums — and every objection it raises carries the place it came from.
Where an objection has no evidence behind it, none is shown. We would rather print nothing than a source that doesn't exist.
"To this day I don't know whether that thing replaces our HR system or sits next to it. That's the reason we didn't take it further."
review · g2-2026-03-11
People who write copy in the terminal and don't want to wait.
Growth and dev teams
You already build landing pages with an agent. The copy is the one part nobody checks before it goes live.
Freelancers
No subscription for a tool you need twice a month. You pay for the runs you make.
Agencies
A second opinion before client sign-off — and a record of why this version and not the other one.
A simulation doesn't replace a measurement.
If your page has traffic and conversions, your own numbers are the better source — test, don't simulate. The value sits precisely before that: in the window where nothing can be measured yet, because nothing is running.
And it isn't an oracle. It tells you which of two versions carries further with these personas and where they get stuck. Whether your offer is right is not a question it answers.
Access before the prices are set.
Everyone on the list gets a key, the first runs free, and the pricing structure for comment before it's fixed.
You're on the list.
We'll get in touch as soon as there's something to show. If you need something concrete in the meantime, just reply to the confirmation email.
What people want to know first
What does the plugin actually do?
It gives your agent in Claude Code a tool called simulate_copy. You hand it a piece of copy, it puts that copy in front of several researched B2B decision-makers and compares it against a market-standard alternative. What comes back are the specific objections that stop the click.
Why not just ask the model whether the copy is good?
Because it will agree with you. A model that just wrote a piece of copy judges it with the same knowledge it used to write it, and without knowing what your buyers actually said. The difference isn't the model. It's the body of evidence it checks against.
Why a comparison instead of a score?
Because a score on a single piece of copy means nothing — there is no yardstick that makes a 6.4 good or bad. Two versions side by side is an answerable question: which one carries further? If you don't supply a second version, the system writes a market-standard one for you.
Where do the personas come from?
From publicly quotable sources: software reviews, published interviews, industry forums. Every quoted statement carries its origin, and any objection that leans on one hands that origin back to you. Where a persona isn't backed by evidence, no source is shown — rather than a source we made up.
Does this replace A/B testing?
No, it comes before it. An A/B test needs traffic, which new copy by definition doesn't have yet — by the time you reach significance, budget has already run through the copy you wanted to check. Once you have traffic and conversions, your own data is the better source.
Does it work outside Claude Code?
Yes. Underneath sits an HTTP API you can wire into any workflow — CI, your own tooling, a CMS. The plugin is the most convenient route to it, not the only one.
What does it cost?
Billed per persona run, no subscription. Prices aren't fixed yet — everyone on the beta list gets them for comment before they are.
Why we check copy before the traffic arrives is laid out under the A/B test alternative. What the full landing page service looks like: landing page optimization.