本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

commercial-skills

Use when reviewing, approving, or designing commercial motion — pricing models, deal review, discount approval, partnership economics, channel mix, commercial policy, RFP/RFI response, bookings forecast. Triggers on "review this deal", "should we discount", "pricing model", "partner economics", "RFP response", "bookings forecast", "channel mix". Forks context to route to one of seven Commercial sub-skills (pricing-strategist, deal-desk, partnerships-architect, channel-economics, commercial-policy, rfp-responder, commercial-forecaster) and returns a digest. Distinct from business-growth (sales execution) and c-level-advisor/cro-advisor (strategic CRO judgment).

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md9.0 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Commercial — Domain Orchestrator

The Commercial surface is per-deal economics and packaging: how the company prices, packages, approves, and forecasts revenue. This orchestrator forks its context, routes your inquiry to one of seven sub-skills, then returns a digest. Heavy intake (RFP PDFs, pipeline exports, partner agreements) stays in the forked context.

When to invoke

SymptomSub-skill
"We're losing deals on price — should we drop prices or repackage?"pricing-strategist
"Can we approve a 40% discount on this Enterprise deal?"deal-desk
"Should we sign with this reseller? What's their tier?"partnerships-architect
"Is our partner channel actually profitable?"channel-economics
"What should our standard discount matrix look like?"commercial-policy
"Help me respond to this 60-page RFP"rfp-responder
"What's our Q4 bookings forecast at current conversion?"commercial-forecaster

Routing logic (deterministic)

Same two-signal threshold pattern as business-operations-skills. Single-signal → clarifying question. Mixed signals → highest-confidence first, chain second in follow-up turn.

Signal table

Signal classKeywordsSub-skill
PRICINGpricing, price, packaging, tier, WTP, willingness to pay, Van Westendorp, value pricingpricing-strategist
DEALdeal, discount, approval, margin, T&Cs, redline, exception, MSAdeal-desk
PARTNERSHIPpartner, reseller, OEM, co-sell, joint GTM, revenue share, channel agreementpartnerships-architect
CHANNEL_ECONchannel mix, cost to serve, channel ROI, direct vs partner, channel economicschannel-economics
POLICYcommercial policy, discount matrix, T&C library, exception policy, deal frameworkcommercial-policy
RFPRFP, RFI, RFQ, proposal request, vendor questionnaire, security questionnairerfp-responder
FORECASTforecast, bookings, billings, ARR, NRR forecast, pipeline math, funnel projectioncommercial-forecaster

Workflow (Matt Pocock grill discipline)

Derived from Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs pattern: explore-then-ask, one question per turn with a recommended answer, walk the decision tree depth-first, track dependencies, anchor every challenge in the SaaS pricing / deal desk canon (references/).

Step 1 — Explore before asking

Check the user's working directory first:

  • Is there a deal record, pricing comp table, RFP doc, or pipeline export already in the workspace?
  • Does the inquiry already disambiguate the lane (e.g., "review this 60-page RFP" — that's rfp-responder, no question needed)?
  • Is there an artifact filename that resolves the lane (pipeline-Q4.csv → forecast; MSA-redline.docx → deal)?

If the workspace resolves the lane, route silently.

Step 2 — If still ambiguous, ONE forcing question with a recommended answer

Matt's rule: never bundle. Always recommend.

Pattern:

Q1/1: [precise question naming the two candidate lanes]
Recommended: [Lane X, because <signal-table rationale>]

(Confirm, or override?)

Step 3 — Decision-tree walk for multi-lane inquiries

If the inquiry legitimately crosses two lanes (e.g., "this RFP wants a discount we don't normally give" = RFP + DEAL + maybe POLICY), walk depth-first:

  1. Highest-confidence lane first → run sub-skill in forked context → digest
  2. Ask: "Now run [second lane]? Recommended: yes, because [dependency]."
  3. Confirm before chaining.

Never silently chain.

Step 4 — Invoke sub-skill in forked context

Forward original prompt + structured inputs (pipeline CSV, RFP doc path, pricing comp table, MSA redline).

Step 5 — Return digest with cited canon challenge

≤ 200 words: analyzed, top 3 findings (anchored to canon citation), top 3 next actions (named approver where applicable), artifact path, and one grill challenge for the user. Examples:

  • "Your deal scorecard shows 38% margin after discount. Skok's For Entrepreneurs benchmark says SaaS deals < 70% gross margin pre-discount need scrutiny. Did you model fulfillment cost or just COGS?"
  • "Your packaging has 14 features in Better and 16 in Best. Madhavan Ramanujam (Monetizing Innovation): tiers with no clear differentiator make 70% of customers pick the cheapest. What's the one feature that forces an upgrade?"

Forcing-question library (grill-with-docs pattern)

Grill the user on lane-defining decisions before invoking the sub-skill. One per turn, recommended answer, canon citation:

  • PRICING lane: "Before picking a model: is your customer paying for outcomes, seats, or usage? Recommended: outcomes (value-based) if you can measure them. Anti-pattern (Ramanujam 2016 Monetizing Innovation): seat-based pricing on a usage-variable product caps your TAM at 20% of WTP."
  • DEAL lane: "Before approving: what's the gross margin at full discount, and what does next quarter's pipeline look like at the same terms? Recommended: model both. Anti-pattern (Tunguz benchmarks): one 40% precedent reshapes 3 quarters of pipeline."
  • FORECAST lane: "Before forecasting: are you using stage-conversion rates from the last 4 quarters, or the last 12? Recommended: last 4 weighted heavier. Anti-pattern (Skok, OpenView): equal-weighting 12 months hides the recent slowdown."
  • PARTNERSHIP lane: "Before signing: does the partner have independent demand, or are they reselling our pipeline? Recommended: insist on indep demand evidence. Anti-pattern (Forrester channel research): channel-led deals from your own pipeline cost more than direct."

Never run a sub-skill until the lane-defining decision is locked.

Assumptions

  1. User has commercial authority OR is preparing analysis for someone who does.
  2. User wants deterministic decision support, not the final answer — the human approves the deal, sets the price, signs the partner.
  3. Inputs may be partial — every sub-skill ships templated dummy data so the user can see the shape before filling in their own.

Non-goals

  • Not a CRM, CPQ system, or contract repository.
  • Does not auto-approve deals. Every output is a score + recommendation + human-approver routing.
  • Does not store deal history across sessions.

Distinct from

  • business-growth/sales-engineer — that's the technical sale (demos, POCs). Commercial is economic shape of the deal.
  • business-growth/revenue-operations — that's process (lead routing, SDR motion). Commercial is per-deal economics + policy.
  • business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer — that's authoring prose. Commercial is decision logic + structured response.
  • c-level-advisor/cro-advisor — that's strategic CRO judgment ("when do we hire VP Sales?"). Commercial is tactical ("approve this discount").
  • finance/financial-analysis — that's close + report. Commercial is forecast + per-deal economics.

Output artifacts

Sub-skillArtifact
pricing-strategistpricing_model.md + wtp_analysis.json
deal-deskdeal_scorecard.md + discount_approval_routing.json
partnerships-architectpartner_tier_assignment.md + revshare_model.json
channel-economicschannel_mix_analysis.md + cost_to_serve.json
commercial-policycommercial_policy.md (discount matrix + exception flow)
rfp-responderrfp_response.md + winrate_estimate.json
commercial-forecasterforecast.md + pipeline_math.json

Anti-patterns (do not)

  • ❌ Recommend a specific price — recommend a range + model, user picks the number
  • ❌ Auto-approve discounts above policy — every >X% discount routes to a named human approver
  • ❌ Generate an RFP response without proof points the user can verify
  • ❌ Forecast bookings without surfacing the conversion assumption explicitly
  • ❌ Run all 7 sub-skills "to be thorough" — pick one, digest, chain if needed

References

  • SaaS pricing canon: Tomasz Tunguz, David Skok, Bessemer Venture Partners
  • Deal desk: SaaStr playbooks, Winning by Design
  • Path-B build pattern: documentation/implementation/bizops-commercial-expansion-plan.md

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

aeo

無料

Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.8万2026年8月30日 更新

alirezarezvani のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する