Results for “proposal”

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or plan in character as a Chief Technology Officer archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings cited to the exact passage, technology risks (architecture, build versus buy, vendor lock-in, security of design, engineering capacity), what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a CTO review", "pressure-test the technical side of this plan", "what would a CTO ask about this" or "rehearse the technology seat before the review". Do not use for cash, payback or budget questions, use cfo-reviewer instead; for capacity and timeline questions, use coo-reviewer; for security controls, privacy or compliance, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck or rollout plan in character as a Frontline Sceptic archetype, the experienced staff member who will live with the change, and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage, adoption risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Use when the user asks to "run a frontline review", "give me the shop-floor view of this rollout", "pressure-test adoption of this plan" or "what will the team actually say about this". Do not use for employee consultation, monitoring or works council preparation, use works-council-reviewer instead; for people strategy or restructuring, use chro-reviewer; for product evidence, use cpo-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Reviews a proposal, business case, deck, plan or contract summary in character as a General Counsel archetype and returns a DRAFT review in the chat with a verdict, findings that cite the exact passage or clause, legal risks, what would change the verdict and five interrogation questions. Meeting preparation, not legal advice. Use when the user asks to "run a general counsel review", "what would legal say about this", "pressure-test the legal exposure in this deal" or "prepare me for the deal committee". Do not use for price, term, renewal or vendor leverage, use procurement-reviewer instead; for lawful basis and data flows, use cdo-reviewer; for security controls, use ciso-reviewer. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use after substantial web projects or repeated design defects to convert evidence into reusable skill improvements through root-cause analysis, regression scenarios, and controlled proposals without silently changing the core OS.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Open-format data ingestion for NV oOS Pro toolkits — the reusable pattern behind the F&B data-ingestion track (Proposal 078). Covers structural (header) matching over filename mapping, the configurable table_map + header-matcher + name-guess resolution order and the slug-first regression, the multi-format loader (CSV/TSV/JSON/JSONL/XLSX/ODS/PDF/photo), the Observation + terminology-map layer (vitals/FHIR analogue) with raw preservation, dedupe/retention/out-of-band banding, complete-by-default/resumable (offset) imports, and the read-only ingest-review dashboard anatomy (edit_posts review vs manage_options write, dry-run-first). Use when adding or extending data ingestion to a toolkit, ingesting heterogeneous owner files, wiring XLSX/PDF/photo imports, building an ingest/review dashboard, or debugging partial/truncated imports.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Operational guide for the NV oOS Model Foundry (Proposal 067) — the cluster fine-tuning flywheel. Phase 1 shipped: the Corpus Foundry (Pro addon, addons/pro/includes/model-foundry/) — consent-gated, deduplicated, PII-scrubbed corpus exporters (trajectory_v1, preference_v1, docs_v1) with deterministic holdout splits and R12 provenance manifests. Covers the governance contract, row schemas, output layout, filter seams, the registration pattern for foundry tool slices, how to add a new exporter, and the test/validation gates. Use when extending the Corpus Foundry, debugging corpus exports, wiring a new data source, or continuing Phases 2–6 (train-worker, registry/serving, eval gate, fleet sharing).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Generate professional documents — PDF, Word (.docx), Excel (.xlsx), and invoices — from natural language descriptions or structured data. Covers AI-powered and simple document creation, HTML-to-PDF conversion, PDF extraction/OCR, merging, watermarking, and data export. Use when you need to create campaign decks, reports, proposals, invoices, spreadsheets, or any shareable document — especially for Step 7 monthly presentations, campaign briefs, and analytics reports.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Generate or audit an `/llms.txt` file at the site root that makes the site legible to LLMs and AI answer engines at inference time, following the llms.txt proposal (Jeremy Howard, 2024). Use this skill whenever the user asks to "build llms.txt", "create llms.txt", "generate llms.txt", "audit llms.txt", "make my site LLM-friendly", "expose the site to AI assistants", "let ChatGPT / Claude / Perplexity cite my site", "add an AI assistants index", or asks about `.md` companion pages for LLM consumption. Output is a valid `llms.txt` file (or an audit) plus optional `.md` companion page generation for top pages.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Structured decision-making framework for technical proposals and trade-off analysis. When the user faces a choice between multiple approaches (architecture decisions, tool selection, refactoring strategies, migration paths), this skill produces a 1-3-1 format: one clear problem statement, three distinct options with pros/cons, and one concrete recommendation with definition of done and implementation plan. Use when the user asks for a "1-3-1", says "give me options", or needs help choosing between competing approaches.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

RSI Phase 2: Full learned proposal integration

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

RSI stable: zero proposals after full 6-file rotation

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "run my launch day", "build a launch day runbook / war room", or "decide CONTINUE or ROLLBACK after the push"; produces a pre-conditions gate check (launch-readiness-auditor SHIP verdict + the authoritative date in launch-registry — missing either stops the skill), a dated hour-blocked runbook with owners (morning irreversible pushes, daytime monitoring loop, evening consolidation), a forced observation-window verdict after every irreversible action against pre-declared kill criteria, a P0-P3 incident ladder with rollback playbooks, and T-0 status lines for the registry proposal protocol. Not for channel submission content and platform rules — use community-launch-runner; not for media replies — use press-media-relations. 发布日runbook/作战室/观察窗/回滚裁决/发布日指挥

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "build our social crisis protocol", "mentions are exploding — what do we do first", or "when do we pause the posting queue"; produces a 1-5 severity ladder with tunable Estimated trigger thresholds (mention-velocity multiples vs the 7-day listening baseline, sentiment flip, journalist/regulator contact, employee-conduct class), the first-mechanical-action rule — pause ALL scheduled posts AND paid amplification, with dated state markers dropped to the channels proposal protocol and reconciled post-incident — a pre-approved holding-statement library with committed update cadences, when-NOT-to-post rules, a spokesperson/approval matrix, and a post-crisis retro template; re-runs the social-quality-auditor pre-publish gate before un-pausing the queue. Not for email deliverability incidents (blocklist, spam-rate spikes) — use deliverability-qa; inside a launch window launch-day-conductor owns incident handling. 社媒危机预案/暂停队列/声明库/发言人矩阵

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user asks to "design an employee advocacy program", "set up founder-led sharing", or "build a share kit for the team"; produces an advocacy program blueprint in two modes — participation-driven opt-in (default) or top-down assigned with its coercion and authenticity risks flagged — with a voluntary opt-in roster spec submitted as channel-registry proposal events, share kits with mandatory per-person variation, staggered human posting windows plus anti-pod guardrails (no coordinated identical reshares, no engagement rings), per-person material-connection disclosure lines per FTC and 《互联网广告管理办法》, and a Slack/Teams distribution spec. Not for paid creator campaigns — use campaign-planner. 员工倡导/创始人IP分享/内部分享计划/披露合规

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Create sales collateral such as decks, one-pagers, objection docs, demo scripts, playbooks, and proposal templates. Use when a sales team needs assets that help reps move deals forward and close.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Draft cold emails, follow-ups, and proposal templates. Creates pricing pages, case studies, and sales scripts. Use PROACTIVELY for sales outreach or lead nurturing.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Create structured docs from scratch — PRDs, technical specs, design docs, decision records, knowledge bases. Use when drafting documentation, writing proposals, defining requirements, or planning features.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when asked to compare, cross-review, merge, judge, choose, or arbitrate competing plans from multiple agents such as Codex and Claude Code; when given two or more proposed plans, session IDs, transcripts, plan documents, PR descriptions, or pasted strategies; or when the user wants one recommended execution plan after agents review each other's proposals.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Stress-tests ideas by surfacing assumptions, counterarguments, and confidence gaps. Use when evaluating claims, proposals, plans, or decisions that need rigorous intellectual scrutiny.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Writing skill for freelancers and independent consultants. Covers project proposals, bids, client emails, and scope summaries. Leads with the client's problem, not the consultant's background.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when: reviewing or producing any external-facing prose — ADRs, proposals, GitHub comments, Telegram messages, cover letters, client drafts, or planner-mode wording. Removes AI-tell patterns and raises writing quality before output leaves the team.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when: planner mode, planning mode, proposal, scope definition, estimate, timeline, how hard, feasibility, effort, how long, how big, client message, external communication, pricing, delivery confidence, commercial risk, or project delivery planning.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Propose a new change with all artifacts generated in one step. Use when the user wants to quickly describe what they want to build and get a complete proposal with design, specs, and tasks ready for implementation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Use when the user presents an idea/plan/proposal and wants a specific 16-minds (MBTI) personality to ask probing questions back — instead of giving an answer. Triggers on Japanese phrases like 「ENTPでツッコんで」「INFJに問い詰めて」「ENTJ視点で質問して」「このアイデア叩いて」, English equivalents like "as ENTP, question this" / "INFJ would ask what?", or 16-minds commands with a `--ask` flag. AIに「答えさせる」のではなく「問わせる」ためのSkill。ユーザーが思考を整理したい時に使う。

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.