본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

client-proposal

Write a consulting engagement proposal. Use when a consultant says "write me a proposal", "draft a proposal for [your client]", "I need to send a proposal", "how do I structure a proposal", "client wants a SOW", "write a statement of work", "I need to propose a project", or "help me price and scope this engagement". Also trigger when someone describes a client conversation that ended with "send me something in writing".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md7.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Overview

Based on "The Consulting Bible" by Alan Weiss and "Flawless Consulting" by Peter Block. A proposal is not a scope document - it is a business case. The client must see their problem clearly, understand why your approach solves it, and see the value of solving it before they encounter the investment. Sequence matters: value before price, always.

The fatal mistake is leading with methodology. Clients do not buy methodology - they buy outcomes. Every section of the proposal must connect to business value.

Workflow

Step 1: Confirm the Business Outcomes

Before writing a word, confirm the three levels Weiss calls the "business outcomes hierarchy":

  • Business outcomes - measurable results for the organization (revenue, cost, speed, quality)
  • Personal outcomes - what this means for the sponsor's career, reputation, or goals
  • Relationship outcomes - what a successful engagement means for the client-consultant relationship

If you cannot name at least two business outcomes and one personal outcome, go back and ask. A proposal without clear outcomes is a scope document - it invites line-item negotiation and price pressure.

Step 2: Write the Situation Summary

Open with a 2-3 paragraph summary of the client's situation and the problem being solved. Write it from the client's point of view, not yours.

Template:

[Your client] is facing [situation: current state + relevant context]. This has resulted
in [consequence 1] and [consequence 2]. Left unaddressed, [risk or cost of inaction].

The opportunity is [desired future state]. Achieving it requires [key challenge].

Rules:

  • Mirror the language the client used in conversations, not your consulting vocabulary
  • Name specific consequences, not vague ones ("revenue at risk" not "challenges")
  • Make the cost of inaction visible - this is what justifies the investment

Step 3: Proposed Approach

Describe your methodology in 3-5 phases. Each phase gets: a name, a one-sentence purpose, key activities, and a deliverable.

Template:

Phase 1: [Name]
Purpose: [What this phase accomplishes and why it comes first]
Activities: [2-4 bullet points of what you will do]
Deliverable: [Tangible output the client receives]
Duration: [X weeks]

Phase 2: ...

Keep this section shorter than the outcomes section. The client is hiring you to achieve outcomes, not to run activities. If the approach section is longer than the outcomes section, rebalance.

Step 4: Deliverables and Measures of Success

List what the client will have when the engagement is complete, and how success will be measured.

Template:

Deliverables:
- [Tangible output 1 - be specific: "12-page competitive analysis" not "analysis"]
- [Tangible output 2]
- [Tangible output 3]

Measures of Success:
- [Quantitative metric 1: "Reduce onboarding time from X to Y"]
- [Quantitative metric 2]
- [Qualitative indicator: "Leadership team aligned on 3-year strategy"]

Never promise process deliverables (workshop, meeting, presentation) as the primary value. Process is how you get there. Outcomes are what the client is buying.

Step 5: Investment

Weiss's core principle: present value-based fees, not time-and-materials rates. A value-based fee is anchored to the value of the outcome, not the hours you will spend.

Template:

Investment Options:

Option A - [Name, e.g. "Core Engagement"]: $[X]
Includes: [phases 1-3, primary deliverables]

Option B - [Name, e.g. "Full Partnership"]: $[X]
Includes: [all phases, advisory access, implementation support]

Option C - [Name, e.g. "Accelerated"]: $[X]
Includes: [compressed timeline, senior-only staffing, weekly exec reviews]

Payment: [50% on signing, 50% on delivery] or [monthly installments]

Always offer 3 options. Three options shifts the client's decision from "yes or no" to "which one" - a much better anchoring position. Price Option B at your target. Option A is the floor. Option C is aspirational.

Step 6: Terms and Logistics

Short section. Covers:

  • Engagement start date (proposed)
  • Client responsibilities (what you need from them to succeed)
  • What is explicitly out of scope
  • Validity period ("This proposal is valid for 30 days")
  • Next steps ("Sign and return page 4" or "Schedule kickoff call")

The out-of-scope list is as important as the in-scope list. Scope creep starts in proposals that are vague about boundaries.

Step 7: ROI Framing (Optional but powerful)

For large engagements, add a one-page ROI section before the investment. Show the math:

If this engagement achieves [outcome X], the estimated value is [$ or %].
At the proposed investment of $[Y], the ROI is [Z]x over [timeframe].

Conservative scenario: [assumption + value]
Expected scenario: [assumption + value]

This reframes the investment conversation entirely. The client is no longer asking "is $Y too much?" - they are asking "is $Y a good investment for $Z in return?"

Anti-Patterns

1. Leading with credentials Bad: Opening with "Our firm has 20 years of experience in..." Good: Open with the client's situation. They know who you are - that's why you're writing the proposal. Save credentials for a brief bio section at the end if needed at all.

2. Time-and-materials pricing Bad: "Senior consultant: $250/hr, estimated 120 hours = $30,000" Good: "$30,000 for the engagement." T&M pricing invites the client to audit your hours and question every line. Value-based fees keep focus on outcomes.

3. One option Bad: A single fixed price with no alternatives. Good: Three options at different scopes and prices. One option forces a yes/no. Three options create an anchoring effect that moves the decision to "which level of engagement."

4. Vague deliverables Bad: "Recommendations report" Good: "15-20 page findings report with 3-5 prioritized recommendations, implementation roadmap, and executive presentation deck (12-15 slides)" Vague deliverables create scope disputes. Specific deliverables set clear expectations.

5. Proposal before understanding Bad: Writing a proposal after one exploratory call. Good: Write the proposal only after you can articulate the client's business outcomes, personal outcomes, and cost of inaction. If you can't, schedule another discovery call.

Quality Checklist

  • Situation summary uses the client's language, not your consulting vocabulary
  • At least two specific business outcomes named, with metrics where possible
  • Cost of inaction is named explicitly
  • Approach section is shorter than outcomes section
  • Deliverables are specific and tangible (not process-only)
  • Measures of success are measurable (not "client satisfaction")
  • Three investment options presented
  • Out-of-scope items listed
  • Client responsibilities listed (what you need from them)
  • Next steps are a single, specific action
  • Proposal validity date included

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

qa-aman의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고