justin/pm-claude-skills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat: v14.0.0 — 12 community-inspired skills, pm-writers profession, extend pm-cross/operations/engineering

Browse Source 
New profession: Writers & Content Creators (pm-writers bundle, skills 156–160)
- instagram-post-downloader: Downloads Instagram images/carousels as high-res files + PDF stitch
- aeo-optimizer: Restructures articles for AI citation (AEO) — question H2s, answer capsules, trust signal audit
- thumbnail-creator: Generates brand-aligned thumbnail candidates via Gemini API with computer vision eval
- substack-notes-scraper: Scrapes Substack Notes engagement data to formatted .xlsx
- notes-humanizer: Strips AI writing patterns across 3 phases; injects genuine human signals

Extended pm-cross (+3 skills, skills 161–163):
- sycophancy-challenger: Argues against your idea first, holds position under pushback
- last-30-days-research: Multi-platform research (Reddit, X, web) with signal confidence scoring
- notebooklm-connector: Automates NotebookLM from Claude Code via Chrome extension

Extended pm-operations (+2 skills, skills 164–165):
- email-triage: Reads Gmail and surfaces only actionable emails with priority + reply starters
- morning-intelligence: 15-question interview → personalised master news brief prompt

Extended pm-engineering (+2 skills, skills 166–167):
- context-mode: Output filtering + session log for long Claude Code sessions
- claude-superpowers: Plan→Isolate→Test→Double-review framework for Claude Code

Updated: marketplace.json v14.0.0 (167 skills, 18 professions, 26 bundles)
Updated: README.md — title, badges, What's New, All 167 Skills table, install list

Credits: skills inspired by Frank & Diana Dovgopol, Gencay (LearnAIwithMe), Karen Spinner (Wondering About AI), Orel (TheIndiepreneur), Joel Salinas (Leadership in Change), Ilia Karelin (Prosper), Ashwin Francis (Cash&Cache), Nate Herk

https://claude.ai/code/session_01E4bTUWxx4Zo5rsFpad5X5B
This commit is contained in:
Mohit Aggarwal
2026-05-27 12:29:45 +00:00
parent 6bb25a8c13
commit 20eda05cc6
16 changed files with 4420 additions and 21 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
plugins/pm-cross/skills/last-30-days-research/SKILL.md
+150
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
---
name: last-30-days-research
description: Multi-platform research skill that gathers recent (last 30 days) opinions, sentiment, and signal on any topic from Reddit, X/Twitter, and the web. Cuts through SEO-stuffed results to surface what real people are actually saying.
---
# Last 30 Days Research
## The Problem
Googling gives SEO-stuffed "best of" lists written six months ago by someone who has never used the thing. Real honest takes live on Reddit threads, X replies, and niche communities — but chasing them across platforms eats your afternoon. This skill does the chase for you.
## Required Inputs
| Input | Required | Notes |
|-------|----------|-------|
| Topic | Yes | Tool, trend, feature, product, event, company — anything with a name |
| Date scope | No | Defaults to last 30 days. Can override to last 7 days or last 90 days |
| Angle | No | e.g. "focus on developer sentiment" or "looking for pricing complaints specifically" |
## Output Structure
The output is a structured research report with the following sections, delivered in this exact order:
```
## Last 30 Days Research: [Topic]
Research window: [Date 30 days ago] → [Today's date]
---
## What People Agree On
[Consensus points that appear across multiple platforms — most reliable signal]
## Where People Disagree
[Active debates, contrasting views — include which side has more weight]
## Pain Points That Keep Coming Up
[Recurring complaints and frustrations — strongest signal of real problems]
## Positive Signals
[What people genuinely praise — not PR, but unprompted appreciation]
## Most Interesting Takes
[Contrarian, unexpected, or surprisingly insightful comments worth noting]
## Sources
[Links to the most useful threads/posts found — 5–10 links with brief labels]
## Signal Confidence
[High / Medium / Low — with a one-line rationale based on data volume and consistency]
```
Each section should contain substantive content, not placeholders. If a section has no findings (e.g. no positive signals found), state that explicitly rather than leaving it empty or fabricating content.
## Instructions for Claude
### Step 1 — Calculate the date window
Determine today's date and subtract 30 days to get the research start date. Format: YYYY-MM-DD. Use these dates explicitly in every search query.
### Step 2 — Reddit search
Run at least three web searches targeting Reddit:
```
site:reddit.com "[topic]" after:[30-days-ago-date]
site:reddit.com "[topic]" 2025
reddit.com "[topic]" discussion OR thread OR comments
```
For each result: read the thread title, top-level comments, and any highly-upvoted replies. Record the key claims and the URL.
If the topic has common synonyms or abbreviations, run additional searches with those (e.g. "Claude Code" and "claude.code" and "Anthropic coding tool").
### Step 3 — X/Twitter search
Run at least two web searches targeting X:
```
site:twitter.com OR site:x.com "[topic]" after:[30-days-ago-date]
"[topic]" site:x.com -is:retweet
```
Note: X search via web has limitations. If results are sparse, supplement with searches for specific accounts known to discuss the topic area (e.g. tech journalists, domain experts).
### Step 4 — Broader web search
Run at least two broader searches for articles, blog posts, and commentary:
```
"[topic]" review OR opinion OR experience [month] [year]
"[topic]" vs OR alternative OR comparison [month] [year]
```
Target sources: Hacker News, Substack, dev.to, personal blogs, product communities. Avoid press releases and vendor-authored content.
### Step 5 — Cross-platform corroboration check
Before writing the report, review everything collected and apply the corroboration rule:
**When the same point appears on both Reddit and X independently, treat it as strong signal — it's likely true.**
A point mentioned only once on one platform is a data point, not a finding. Weight your sections accordingly.
### Step 6 — Write the report
Populate each section of the output structure. Follow these rules:
- **What People Agree On**: Only include points you saw on 2+ platforms or in multiple independent threads. These are your most reliable findings.
- **Where People Disagree**: Name the sides. "Some say X, others say Y — and the X camp seems louder based on upvote counts / engagement."
- **Pain Points**: Be specific. "Performance issues" is weak. "Cold start times over 4 seconds on the free tier" is useful.
- **Positive Signals**: Must be unprompted praise, not from product marketing or sponsored content.
- **Most Interesting Takes**: At least 2, maximum 5. Quote or closely paraphrase where possible.
- **Sources**: Include the actual URLs. Label each one briefly (e.g. "Reddit thread: 'Has anyone switched from X to Y?'").
- **Signal Confidence**: Rate High/Medium/Low based on:
- High = 10+ sources, consistent signal across platforms
- Medium = 5–10 sources, some inconsistency
- Low = fewer than 5 sources, or highly fragmented signal
### Step 7 — Sanity check before delivering
Before outputting the report, verify:
- [ ] Every claim in the report traces to an actual source found during research (not prior knowledge)
- [ ] The date window was actually applied to searches, not ignored
- [ ] No fabricated or hallucinated URLs in the Sources section
- [ ] Signal Confidence rating reflects the actual data volume, not optimism
## Quality Checks
- [ ] At minimum 3 Reddit searches were run with the date filter applied
- [ ] At minimum 2 X/Twitter searches were run
- [ ] At minimum 2 broader web searches were run
- [ ] Cross-platform corroboration principle was applied (same point on multiple platforms = stronger signal)
- [ ] Pain Points section contains specific, concrete details — not vague generalisations
- [ ] Sources section contains real URLs (not hallucinated), verified during research
- [ ] Signal Confidence is rated and justified
- [ ] If a section has no findings, it says so explicitly rather than being omitted or padded
- [ ] No vendor-authored content or press releases treated as independent signal
- [ ] Synonyms and alternative names for the topic were searched
## Example Trigger Phrases
- "What are people saying about Cursor AI from the last 30 days?"
- "Research Vercel's recent sentiment"
- "Last 30 days on the Arc browser shutdown"
- "What's the current vibe on Supabase?"
- "What are developers saying about Claude Code lately?"
- "Research [topic] from the last 30 days"
- "Give me a signal report on [product]"
- "What's the Reddit and Twitter take on [trend]?"
plugins/pm-cross/skills/notebooklm-connector/SKILL.md
+175
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,175 @@
---
name: notebooklm-connector
description: Automates NotebookLM from Claude Code — creates notebooks, adds sources, and triggers outputs (mindmaps, audio overviews, slide decks) without manual clicking via the Claude Chrome extension.
---
# NotebookLM Connector
## The Problem
NotebookLM is one of the best AI research tools — but it doesn't connect to your other tools. Every notebook requires manual setup inside the NotebookLM UI: open browser, name the notebook, paste URLs one by one, click generate. For researchers, builders, or anyone who works with a high volume of sources, this friction compounds fast.
This skill automates NotebookLM from Claude Code using browser automation via the Claude Chrome extension.
## Prerequisites
| Requirement | Details |
|-------------|---------|
| Claude Chrome extension | Must be installed and active in your Chrome browser |
| NotebookLM account | Active account at notebooklm.google.com |
| Chrome browser | Open and signed into NotebookLM |
If the Chrome extension is not installed, this skill cannot function. There is no fallback — you will need to perform actions manually.
## Required Inputs
| Input | Required | Notes |
|-------|----------|-------|
| Action(s) to perform | Yes | What you want done — see Supported Actions below |
| Notebook name | Conditional | Required for create; optional for add/generate if a notebook is already open |
| Sources | Conditional | Required for add sources action — URLs, file paths, or pasted text |
| Output type | Conditional | Required for generate action — mindmap, audio overview, or briefing doc |
## Supported Actions
| Action | What It Does |
|--------|-------------|
| Create notebook | Opens NotebookLM, creates a new notebook with the specified title |
| Add sources | Adds one or more URLs, files, or text blocks as sources to a notebook |
| Generate mindmap | Triggers mindmap generation from the notebook's sources |
| Generate audio overview | Requests an audio overview (note: takes several minutes to render) |
| Generate briefing doc | Requests a briefing document or slide deck from sources |
| List notebooks | Lists your existing notebooks and their source counts |
| Open notebook | Navigates to a specific existing notebook by name |
Actions can be chained in a single request: "Create a notebook called 'AI Trends Q2', add these 3 URLs as sources, then generate a mindmap."
## Output Structure
After completing actions, Claude returns a structured confirmation:
```
## NotebookLM — Actions Completed
**Notebook:** [Notebook name]
**URL:** [Direct link to the notebook]
**Actions completed:**
- [x] Created notebook: "[Name]"
- [x] Added source: [URL or file name]
- [x] Added source: [URL or file name]
- [x] Triggered: Mindmap generation
**Status:** [Any pending items — e.g. "Audio overview is generating, check back in 5–10 minutes"]
**Notes:** [Any issues encountered or deviations from the requested actions]
```
If an action fails, the failed step is marked with `[ ]` and a reason is provided. See Error Handling below.
## Instructions for Claude
### Step 1 — Parse and confirm the request
Before opening any browser, parse the full request into discrete steps:
1. What notebook is being targeted (new or existing)?
2. What sources need to be added (list each URL or file)?
3. What outputs need to be generated?
If anything is ambiguous — e.g. "add my research sources" without specifying what they are — ask for clarification before proceeding. Do not guess at source URLs.
### Step 2 — Check the Chrome extension is available
Confirm browser automation is available via the Claude Chrome extension. If it is not active, stop and report:
> "This skill requires the Claude Chrome extension to be installed and active. Please install it at [extension URL] and try again."
### Step 3 — Navigate to NotebookLM
Open or navigate to `https://notebooklm.google.com`. Confirm the user is logged in. If a login screen appears, stop and ask the user to log in manually, then retry.
### Step 4 — Execute actions in order
Execute each action in the sequence requested. After each action, confirm it completed before moving to the next. Do not batch actions speculatively.
**Creating a notebook:**
- Click "New Notebook"
- Enter the specified title
- Confirm the notebook is created and visible
**Adding a URL source:**
- In the notebook, click "Add Source"
- Select "Website" or "URL"
- Paste the URL
- Wait for the source to process and appear in the sources list
- Confirm before adding the next source
**Adding pasted text:**
- Click "Add Source"
- Select "Copied text" or "Paste text"
- Paste the content
- Confirm the source appears
**Generating a mindmap:**
- Navigate to the notebook's output options
- Select "Mindmap" from available outputs
- Trigger generation
- Confirm the mindmap begins rendering
**Generating an audio overview:**
- Navigate to output options
- Select "Audio Overview"
- Trigger generation
- Note: rendering takes several minutes — report this to the user, do not wait for completion
### Step 5 — Compile and return the confirmation
Return the structured output described in the Output Structure section above, including the direct notebook URL and a checklist of completed/failed actions.
## Error Handling
If any step fails, do the following:
1. Stop at the failed step (do not attempt to continue)
2. Report the exact step that failed and what was observed
3. Suggest a manual workaround for that step
4. Offer to retry from that point
**Common failures and workarounds:**
| Failure | Likely Cause | Manual Workaround |
|---------|-------------|-------------------|
| Extension not detected | Extension not installed or disabled | Install from Chrome Web Store |
| Login screen appears | Session expired | Log in manually, then retry |
| Source fails to process | URL is paywalled or blocked | Download content and add as pasted text instead |
| Mindmap not available | Source volume too low | Add more sources (NotebookLM requires minimum content) |
| Audio overview grayed out | Sources not yet indexed | Wait 1–2 minutes for indexing, then retry |
## Limitations
- **Chrome extension required** — This skill does not work in the Claude web interface without the extension. It cannot function in API-only or terminal-only Claude setups.
- **NotebookLM UI changes** — If Google updates the NotebookLM interface, specific steps (button names, navigation paths) may need to be updated in this skill.
- **Audio overview render time** — Audio overviews are queued server-side by NotebookLM and typically take 5–15 minutes. Claude can trigger the request but cannot wait for completion.
- **File uploads** — Uploading local files (PDFs, docs) requires the file to be accessible from the browser. File paths must be absolute.
- **Session state** — Claude cannot save or restore NotebookLM session state between conversations. Each session starts fresh.
## Quality Checks
- [ ] User's full request was parsed into discrete steps before any browser action was taken
- [ ] Ambiguous source references were clarified before proceeding
- [ ] Each action was confirmed complete before the next one started
- [ ] Direct notebook URL is included in the output
- [ ] If audio overview was triggered, user was informed of the render delay
- [ ] Any failed steps are explicitly reported with the specific failure reason
- [ ] Manual workaround was offered for any step that failed
- [ ] Output checklist accurately reflects what was completed vs. what failed
## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Open NotebookLM and create a notebook called 'Competitor Analysis Q2'"
- "Add these 5 URLs as sources to my NotebookLM notebook"
- "Generate a mindmap in NotebookLM from my current notebook"
- "Create a NotebookLM notebook on AI agent frameworks, add these sources, and generate an audio overview"
- "What notebooks do I have in NotebookLM?"
- "Add this article to NotebookLM: [URL]"
- "Generate a briefing doc from my NotebookLM sources on [topic]"
plugins/pm-cross/skills/sycophancy-challenger/SKILL.md
+156
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
---
name: sycophancy-challenger
description: Flips Claude's default from "find reasons you're right" to "find reasons you're wrong." A genuine thinking partner, not a mirror with grammar. Use before high-stakes decisions, plans, assumptions, or pitches you haven't stress-tested.
---
# Sycophancy Challenger
Claude defaults to validating. You bring a decision, it finds three reasons your instinct is solid, and you leave more confident but not more right. That's actively dangerous when the stakes are high — a hiring call, a pricing change, a strategy pivot, a public commitment. This skill flips the default: Claude argues against your idea first, holds its position under pushback, and only concedes when you give it new evidence. Not when you express displeasure.
> Credit: Originally created by Joel Salinas (Leadership in Change) — adapted and extended for this library.
---
## Required Inputs
| Input | Format | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Your idea, decision, plan, or assumption | Describe it in plain language | More context = sharper challenge. Include reasoning if you have it. |
No other setup required. Activating the skill is enough — describe your idea and Claude will challenge it immediately.
---
## Output Structure
Every response in this mode follows this exact format:
```
## Strongest Case AGAINST This
[The single most damaging criticism of the idea. Not a list of concerns — the
one argument that, if true, would kill this. Stated directly, without softening.]
## The Weakest Element
[The specific part of the idea most likely to fail, be wrong, or break under
real-world conditions. Named precisely. Not "execution risk" — the actual thing.]
## What You'd Need to Prove to Make This Work
[The assumptions that must be true for this idea to succeed. Written as testable
claims, not as encouragement. If an assumption can't be tested, that's noted.]
## What I Can't Find Fault With
[Only appears when a genuine search finds nothing damaging. States clearly what
holds up and why — doesn't invent weak praise to fill the section. If everything
is actually fine, says so plainly and explains why the challenge came up short.]
```
No additional sections. No summary. No "overall, this is a solid idea." The format ends when the four sections are complete.
---
## Instructions for Claude
### On activation
Do not open with agreement, validation, or any form of "I see where you're coming from." Begin the challenge immediately. The first word of your response should advance the criticism, not soften the user's expectations.
### Step 1: Assume the idea hasn't been stress-tested
Treat the idea as if the user believes in it strongly and has not actively looked for reasons it fails. Your job is to be the adversary they didn't have in the room.
### Step 2: Find the strongest case against it
Not a balanced view. Not pros and cons. The strongest case against. Ask:
- What's the most likely way this fails?
- What's the assumption that, if wrong, makes everything else irrelevant?
- Who would argue against this, and what's the best version of their argument?
- What does this idea get wrong about how people, markets, or systems actually behave?
State the strongest case directly. Do not list multiple criticisms in this section — lead with the one that does the most damage.
### Step 3: Identify the weakest element
This is different from the strongest case against. The weakest element is the most fragile specific component — the thing most likely to crack under execution, scrutiny, or changed conditions. Name it precisely. Examples of insufficient answers:
- "The timeline might be tight" → insufficient
- "The assumption that customers will pay $99/month before experiencing the product is the element most likely to break this, because you have no evidence of willingness-to-pay at that price point" → correct level of specificity
### Step 4: Surface the required assumptions
List what must be true for this to work. Write each assumption as a testable claim:
```
For this to work, the following must be true:
1. [Assumption stated as a claim that can be verified or falsified]
2. [Assumption stated as a claim]
3. [Assumption stated as a claim]
```
If an assumption cannot be tested — it's based on hope, belief, or unprovable prediction — flag it explicitly: "This assumption cannot currently be tested. That's a risk."
### Step 5: Report what holds up (only if true)
Search genuinely for what the idea gets right or where the challenge fails. If you find it, state it clearly. If you can't find a real flaw, say exactly that: "I've looked for the failure points and I can't find them. Here's what actually holds up: [specific things]." Do not invent praise. Do not invent flaws either.
### Handling pushback
If the user pushes back:
- **New evidence or new information:** update your position based on the evidence. State what changed and why.
- **Emotional pushback, repetition, or displeasure:** do not move. Restate the criticism calmly. Example: "I understand you feel strongly about this — I'm not backing off the point about X because that hasn't changed. If there's something I'm missing, tell me what it is."
- **A clarification that changes the picture:** acknowledge the clarification, adjust if warranted, and explain exactly what the clarification changed.
Do not soften a position because the user seems upset. Do not move back to validation mode mid-conversation.
### When the skill ends
The session is complete when the user has either:
1. Strengthened their idea by addressing the core criticism with real evidence or a genuine plan adjustment, or
2. Identified a real flaw they're going to fix.
Not when they've expressed satisfaction. Not when a certain number of exchanges have happened. The measure is whether something actually changed or was genuinely defended.
### Prohibitions
These prohibitions do more work than the rules above. Follow them absolutely:
- **Never open with agreement or validation.** Not "That's an interesting approach," not "I can see why you'd think that." Start with the challenge.
- **Never say "great question," "great point," or "I see where you're coming from" as a lead.** These are validation openers, not neutral transitions.
- **Never soften a criticism with "however, there are also positives."** If the positives are real, they go in the "What I Can't Find Fault With" section, not as a counterweight to every criticism.
- **Never back down because the user expressed displeasure.** Only move if given new evidence.
- **Never invent a flaw that isn't real.** If the idea is actually solid, say so. Inventing fake criticisms is as useless as fake validation.
- **Never use the word "valid" to describe the user's perspective mid-challenge.** It's a validation signal disguised as a neutral word.
---
## Quality Checks
- [ ] Response opened with the challenge — not with a softening phrase or acknowledgment
- [ ] "Strongest Case Against" section contains one argument, not a list
- [ ] "Weakest Element" is specific — names the actual component, not a category of risk
- [ ] "What You'd Need to Prove" lists testable assumptions, not encouragement
- [ ] Untestable assumptions are explicitly flagged as risks
- [ ] "What I Can't Find Fault With" only appears if the search was genuine and something held up
- [ ] No invented flaws — every criticism connects to something real in what the user described
- [ ] Pushback was met with a position restatement, not a retreat (unless new evidence was provided)
- [ ] The session ended because something changed or was genuinely defended — not because the user seemed satisfied
- [ ] None of the prohibited phrases or patterns appear anywhere in the response
---
## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Use the sycophancy-challenger skill — here's my plan: [describe it]"
- "Challenge this idea before I commit to it: [describe it]"
- "I've already decided to do X — tell me why I'm wrong"
- "Be the devil's advocate on this hire: [describe the candidate and the role]"
- "I'm about to pitch this to investors — tear it apart first: [describe it]"
- "Don't validate this, challenge it: [idea or assumption]"
- "Stress-test this strategy: [describe it]"
- "What's the strongest argument against doing this: [decision]"
- "I think I'm right about X — what am I missing?"