fix(plugins): sync all 171 plugin SKILL.md files with fixed skills/ versions

Propagates Anti-Patterns sections, description rewrites, Required Inputs additions, and Quality Checks format fixes from skills/ to matching plugin SKILL.md copies. https://claude.ai/code/session_01MuGKn3a3Gbqoe8uM5Lmuqt
2026-06-08 13:06:21 +00:00
parent fb85a1cb55
commit affae033fe
171 changed files with 1428 additions and 56 deletions
@@ -88,6 +88,13 @@ At end of [period]:
 - [Expansion opportunity] progressed to [stage]
 - Health score moved from [current] to [target]

+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not list only executive contacts in the relationship map — champions and day-to-day users are often more influential on renewal decisions
+- [ ] Do not set growth opportunity estimates without a basis — even rough ARR values prevent the plan from being treated seriously
+- [ ] Do not treat "no known risks" as acceptable — if no risks are identified, the plan hasn't been scrutinised honestly
+- [ ] Do not write 90-day actions as vague aspirations ("strengthen the relationship") — each action must specify a call, meeting, or deliverable with a named owner
+
 ## Quality Checks

 - [ ] Relationship map identifies decision-makers, influencers, and any relationship gaps
@@ -99,6 +99,14 @@ This call is NOT successful if we only pitched and got "sounds interesting, send
 - [ ] Success criteria define what "not successful" looks like (not just the ideal outcome)
 - [ ] A specific next step is proposed (not "let's stay in touch")

+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not write the call hypothesis after the call — hypotheses written post-hoc are rationalisations, not testable predictions
+- [ ] Do not open with a product pitch before establishing the prospect's problem — leading with pitch signals you are not there to learn, which closes discovery conversations
+- [ ] Do not use closed questions in the discovery phase ("Do you have this problem?") — they produce yes/no answers that confirm bias rather than reveal pain
+- [ ] Do not skip the "not successful" definition in success criteria — a call that ends with "send me more info" feels like progress but is not a qualified next step
+- [ ] Do not treat all prospect research equally — recent news (last 90 days) is more relevant to call context than static company facts from LinkedIn
+
 ## Example Trigger Phrases
 - "Prepare me for a discovery call with [company/contact]"
 - "Build a call brief for my meeting with [name] at [company]"
@@ -226,3 +226,11 @@ How we'll know the partnership is working:
 - "Create a reseller partnership proposal for [Company]"
 - "Build the business case for a strategic partnership with [Partner]"
 - "Structure a technology integration partnership proposal"
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not write the value proposition from your own perspective — the "For Partner" section must be written from the partner's point of view, in the language of their goals and their customers
+- [ ] Do not leave commercial terms as structure without numbers — a proposal that says "revenue share" without stating the percentage is not a proposal, it is a conversation opener
+- [ ] Do not omit the "What we're not proposing" section — leaving unstated assumptions creates misaligned expectations that derail negotiations later
+- [ ] Do not set success metrics unilaterally — metrics that only your company controls or cares about will not earn partner commitment
+- [ ] Do not write a go-to-market plan with "TBD" owners — every activity must have a named owner on at least one side before the proposal goes out
@@ -94,6 +94,14 @@ Writes commercial proposals that win business — structured around the prospect
 - [ ] Next steps include a specific date and named action
 - [ ] "Valid until" date is included to create urgency

+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not lead with the solution before establishing that the problem is understood — the proposal must demonstrate problem comprehension first
+- [ ] Do not use vague investment language like "competitive pricing" — every proposal must state a specific price or range
+- [ ] Do not omit a "not included" section — undefined scope leads to disputes after the proposal is accepted
+- [ ] Do not forget a "valid until" date — proposals without expiry create awkward situations and stale pricing
+- [ ] Do not list next steps without naming who is responsible for each and what the expected timeline is
+
 ## Example Trigger Phrases
 - "Write a proposal for [prospect] to [solve their problem]"
 - "Draft a statement of work for [project]"
@@ -86,3 +86,11 @@ We lose when: [Honest scenario — e.g. primary driver is lowest upfront cost]
 - "Build a battlecard against [competitor]"
 - "Create a competitive cheat sheet for [competitor]"
 - "Write objection handling for [competitor] comparisons"
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not minimise or ignore genuine competitor strengths — sales reps who encounter them unprepared lose credibility
+- [ ] Do not write differentiators without proof points — a claim without evidence is marketing, not a battlecard
+- [ ] Do not make the battlecard exhaustive — it is a one-page cheat sheet, not a full competitive analysis
+- [ ] Do not include a "When we lose" section that is dishonestly optimistic — honest loss scenarios build rep trust
+- [ ] Do not skip the review date — an outdated battlecard with wrong information is worse than no battlecard
@@ -128,3 +128,11 @@ To hit £[target]:
 - "Create a pipeline model for [team/business]"
 - "Help me build a bottom-up revenue forecast"
 - "What is our forecast for Q[N] based on current pipeline?"
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- [ ] Do not present a single forecast number without scenario analysis — a forecast without upside and downside cases hides risk
+- [ ] Do not use 100% confidence on conversion rates that are not backed by historical data — flag them as assumptions
+- [ ] Do not skip the activity sanity check — a forecast number that requires unreachable activity levels is not credible
+- [ ] Do not use top-down quota as the only forecast method when pipeline data exists — bottom-up is more accurate and defensible
+- [ ] Do not omit the coverage ratio — without it, stakeholders cannot assess whether the pipeline is sufficient to hit target