marketing: FRE-199 first pair of informational pages + pitch shape (drafts)

- agent-done-signal: 'How do you know when your coding agent is done?' —
  the zero-looks-like-success cluster (1xjb3j0, 1xm09fs, 1xmnz2c, HN fhub/
  sadilek); Stop/Notification/StopFailure hooks cited to the agent's own
  docs, re-read 2026-11-05. No product, no competitor, no price.
- agent-waiting-on-permission: 'Why is my coding agent sitting on a
  permission prompt?' — the 1xhbc71 thread + invisible-permission cluster;
  permission modes, /permissions, rule syntax, acceptEdits cited to the
  permissions doc; undo-split attributed to 1xkoz06.
- newsletter-postmortem-pitch: item 2's shape, placeholders only; send
  gated on FRE-202 or a CTO-confirmed direct relay-store read.

All drafts: sponsor fact-check moves pending/ -> approved/; nothing
publishes itself.

marketing/drafts/agent-waiting-on-permission/copy.md

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# Why is my coding agent sitting on a permission prompt?
+
+> **Status: draft — not approved, not published.** Sponsors fact-check the claims
+> table at the bottom; the page moves `pending/` → `approved/` only after that.
+> This page never names a product of ours and never names a competitor.
+> Internal target: second page of the FRE-199 pair, Fri 2026-11-07.
+
+Because it tried to do something its permission settings don't allow, and the
+default is to wait — indefinitely and quietly — for you. The prompt is not the
+expensive part; the hour you spent not knowing it was waiting is. The way out is
+not to approve faster, it's to make the prompts rare and the waiting visible.
+
+## The mechanism
+
+Claude Code's permission system decides, per tool call, whether to run, refuse,
+or stop and ask. In its `default` mode, it prompts for permission on the first
+use of each tool. Modes are set with `defaultMode` in the settings files, and a
+session's rules come from allow / ask / deny lists evaluated in that order —
+the first match wins.
+
+You can see the whole rule set at any time with `/permissions`, which lists
+every permission rule and the settings file each one came from. Rules can name
+a specific use — `Bash(npm run build)` matches exactly that command — or a
+wildcard, like `Bash(git log *)`.
+
+So the prompt you came back to an hour later is not a malfunction. It is the
+system working as configured, on a call your rules never covered — and the
+"waiting" state being invisible is what turned ten seconds of approval into a
+lost hour.
+
+## What to check or do
+
+1. **Read the prompt before automating it away.** It names the tool and the
+   input. The right response to "it keeps asking" is usually a rule, not a
+   wider mode.
+2. **Allowlist the undoable, prompt on the irreversible.** Reads, tests, and
+   status commands are safe to allow — `git` is the undo for edits. Anything
+   that reaches another person or another system — network calls, deletes,
+   deploys — is worth keeping on ask. Rule syntax is in the permission docs;
+   `/permissions` shows what you already have.
+3. **Consider `acceptEdits` before anything broader.** It auto-accepts file
+   edits and common filesystem commands inside the working directory. That is
+   usually the difference between ten prompts a session and two — without
+   handing over network or delete.
+4. **Bound the blast radius instead of removing the gate.** If you do widen
+   what runs unattended, do it where a mistake is recoverable: a worktree per
+   task, commits pushed early, nothing irreversible in reach. Operators who run
+   agents unattended describe exactly this split — free hand on what git can
+   undo, confirmation on what it can't.
+5. **Make the wait visible.** Claude Code fires a `Notification` hook when it
+   sends a notification, and a permission prompt is one — the payload carries a
+   `notification_type` of `permission_prompt`. A hook on that event, wired to a
+   desktop notification you'd see from another window, turns the silent wait
+   back into a ten-second approval.
+
+One next step: run `/permissions` today and add allow rules for the three
+commands you find yourself approving most. The prompts that remain will be the
+ones that deserve a read.
+
+---
+
+## Fact-check table (not part of the page)
+
+Every technical claim above, with its primary source. Claims about Claude
+Code's behaviour come from its own documentation, re-read 2026-11-05.
+
+| # | Claim in the page | Source |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1 | In `default` mode Claude Code "prompts for permission on first use of each tool" | Claude Code permissions doc — https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/permissions (Permission modes table) |
+| 2 | `defaultMode` in settings files sets the default mode for new sessions | same permissions doc (Permission modes section) |
+| 3 | Rules are evaluated deny → ask → allow, first match wins | same permissions doc (Permission rule syntax) |
+| 4 | `/permissions` lists all permission rules and the settings.json each comes from | same permissions doc (Manage permissions) |
+| 5 | `Bash(npm run build)` matches the exact command; `Bash(git log *)` wildcard form | same permissions doc (Use specifiers for fine-grained control) |
+| 6 | `acceptEdits` "automatically accepts file edits and common filesystem commands such as mkdir, touch, mv, cp for paths in the working directory" | same permissions doc (Permission modes table) |
+| 7 | A `Notification` hook fires when Claude Code sends a notification; permission prompts carry `notification_type: "permission_prompt"` and a message like "Claude needs your permission" | Claude Code hooks reference — https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/hooks (Notification event) |
+| 8 | Undo-split practice ("free hand on what git can undo, confirmation on what it can't") | r/ClaudeCode 1xkoz06 (2026-10-31, u/tomm3hshipp thread), commenter's described practice, logged in `drafts/listening.md` Scan 3 addendum. Described as one operator's approach, not a rule. |
+| 9 | The 55-minutes-lost framing | r/ClaudeAI 1xhbc71 (2026-10-28): "coming back an hour later to find it's been sitting on a permission prompt for 55 minutes". Used as the problem's shape, not quoted as a person. |
+
+**Ban compliance:** no product of ours named · no competitor named · no
+superlatives · no benchmark numbers · no invented testimonials · no price · no
+roadmap dates.