agentleFS
ChuluuMGLChuluuMGL/proposal-skill/SKILL.md

proposal

Skill3 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Create, revise, or audit commercial proposals as editable PowerPoint, interactive HTML, or PDF, with proposal logic, case evidence, scope and pricing, presenter scripts, and format-specific validation. Use for client proposals, pitches, tenders, and proposal revisions, rather than general marketing websites.

  • Commits and pushes

16 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use audit.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • OpenAISkill

    audit

    Audit or critique a product flow, journey, workflow, funnel, onboarding path, checkout path, settings path, screen, or multi-step product experience by capturing screenshots first, then reporting UX, design, and accessibility findings inline from that evidence. Use Figma only when the user explicitly asks for a board. Use when the user asks to audit, review, critique, inspect, assess, analyze, evaluate, or give feedback on a product experience.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

12 rules. 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 13 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 10

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read the latest source and user feedback.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Default full creation output is the requested proposal plus a Markdown presenter script and unresolved-input list, unless declined.

    line 16
  3. Distinctive:

    Read output-contract and runtime-compatibility.

    line 29
  4. Distinctive:

    Connect diagnosis to delivery: Use argument-traceability: evidence → diagnosis → recommendation → proof/example → deliverable → …

    line 36
  5. Distinctive:

    Write clear titles and copy: Use client-facing-copy. A title can be an evidenced conclusion or a precise subject such as “实施排期” or “服务报价”.

    line 39
  6. Distinctive:

    Synchronize and verify: Update affected titles, captions, transcripts, resource links, totals, appendices, and script sections.

    line 41
  7. Distinctive:

    Learn from accepted revisions: When requested to improve the reusable skill, use iteration-learning.

    line 42
  8. Distinctive:

    Never present generated concepts, third-party references, simulated inquiries, or unverified analytics as real client results.

    line 54
  9. Distinctive:

    Keep client names, credentials, private cases, proprietary frameworks, and commercial numbers out of reusable/public assets.

    line 55
  10. Very specific:

    Use supplied official logo artwork.

    line 56
  11. Distinctive:

    Do not change amounts, quantities, exclusions, or contractual promises to make a layout fit.

    line 58
  12. Very specific:

    Run scripts/audit_proposal_pptx.py for PPTX package checks.

    line 59

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 13 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Commercial Proposal · 商业提案

Turn a brief, research, cases, brand assets, scope, and budget into a proposal the client can understand and evaluate. PPT and HTML share the commercial argument; their layouts and interactions differ. PDF is a validated export, not an independently rewritten proposal.

Start with the actual assignment

  • Read the latest source and user feedback. Preserve manual edits and approved content; do not regenerate an existing proposal for a narrow change.
  • Identify audience, decision, evidence, scope, format, and unresolved inputs. Mark uncertainty; never invent results, cases, prices, permissions, or delivery commitments.
  • guided: agree the argument and visual direction before building when those decisions are open. auto: proceed with reasonable stated assumptions when directly requested. Existing authorization or an approved design satisfies the relevant checkpoint; do not ask again.
  • edit: make scoped edits to PPT or HTML. edit-final-polish: use final-polish-workflow for an existing PPTX with protected manual edits. audit: inspect without editing.
  • Default full creation output is the requested proposal plus a Markdown presenter script and unresolved-input list, unless declined. A small edit does not require rebuilding the entire script; synchronize affected sections and report any pre-existing drift.
  • Proposal creation does not itself authorize GitHub publication, production deployment, sending the proposal to a client, or paid asset generation.

Route by delivery format

NeedRoute
Editable slides, client template, live slide presentationPPTX; identify authoring and rendering backends first
Browser sharing, scroll narrative, expandable evidence, working demonstrationsResponsive HTML proposal
Fixed slide canvas presented in a browserStaged HTML, usually 16:9
Email, print, formal submissionPDF exported from the approved source
Several formatsOne approved content ledger; separate PPT/web layouts and validate each

Read output-contract and runtime-compatibility. Do not silently substitute formats. When no format is specified, infer from use and state the choice. An explicitly requested PPTX requires an editable PPTX backend; HTML is an alternative only with agreement.

For HTML, distinguish responsive proposals from fixed-stage slide decks before using templates or audits. Responsive pages must not be shrunk into an unreadable miniature 16:9 canvas on a phone. Web motion is not an editable PowerPoint export.

Shared proposal method

  1. Audit inputs and define the argument. Identify the client's problem, decision criteria, and why this approach fits. Use proposal-routes. For brief/tender work, map explicit requirements using brief-compliance; do not invent scoring weights.
  2. Connect diagnosis to delivery. Use argument-traceability: evidence → diagnosis → recommendation → proof/example → deliverable → schedule/cost. Catch unsupported diagnoses, unexplained services, and scope/price contradictions before styling. The map is an internal working artifact unless requested in the proposal.
  3. Plan pages or scenes. Each needs a client question, key message, explanatory/evidence object, source status, and role in the next decision. Use page-types and story-map-and-sequencing. A method diagram explains an approach; it does not prove past results.
  4. Choose a visual system. Respect supplied VI and approved references. Otherwise use style-template-strategy and visual-system-card. Test a representative introduction, mechanism, and dense business page before scaling a new style. Preserve deliberate whitespace; never fill an empty column with an unrelated image.
  5. Write clear titles and copy. Use client-facing-copy. A title can be an evidenced conclusion or a precise subject such as “实施排期” or “服务报价”. Do not force slogans onto pricing, process, or appendix pages. Notes retain only necessary source, scope, uncertainty, and conditions.
  6. Build for the chosen format. PPT: retain editable text and diagrams where practical, use the runtime backend. HTML: read web-proposals, select interactions by explanatory purpose using web-interactions, then adapt the bundled component starter when useful. Do not add every component by default.
  7. Synchronize and verify. Update affected titles, captions, transcripts, resource links, totals, appendices, and script sections. Use quality-check and report technical, visual, and commercial status separately per quality-levels. For web deployment add the separate live-release evidence described in web-proposals.
  8. Learn from accepted revisions. When requested to improve the reusable skill, use iteration-learning. Extract general decisions and neutral examples; do not copy the client's project or turn a local preference into a universal law.

Load references selectively

  • Visual execution: visual-system, layout-rhythm, font-system, palette-library.
  • Existing PPT final polish: final-polish-workflow, which routes to protected-edit tools and acceptance reports.
  • Responsive HTML / interaction / release: web-proposals, web-interactions.
  • Worked revision examples: proposal-revisions.
  • Fixed-stage HTML themes: templates/README. Responsive behavior starter: templates/web-components/README.

Delivery boundaries

  • Never present generated concepts, third-party references, simulated inquiries, or unverified analytics as real client results. Label the distinction briefly where needed.
  • Keep client names, credentials, private cases, proprietary frameworks, and commercial numbers out of reusable/public assets. Brand-specific models and visual themes remain project configuration.
  • Use supplied official logo artwork; do not reconstruct a combined lockup with typed brand text. Preserve its proportions and confirm it belongs to the presenter/client/reference being shown.
  • For supplied media, check the actual subject, aspect ratio, poster frame, caption, and playback/link destination. Replacing a file without checking its accompanying text is incomplete.
  • Do not change amounts, quantities, exclusions, or contractual promises to make a layout fit. Surface inconsistencies for resolution.
  • Run scripts/audit_proposal_pptx.py for PPTX package checks. Use scripts/audit_html_demo.mjs only for fixed-stage .slide demos; it does not validate responsive web proposals or scroll states. Render full-size pages and exercise actual interactions; a clean structural audit is not visual or commercial approval.
  • Public style showcases require human visual approval before being labeled approved templates. Bundled web components are a neutral behavior starter, not a finished client-ready theme. Respect the user's already-given approval; do not invent extra approval gates for routine revisions.
  • Preserve client systems and authentication during authorized deployment. Report what was actually verified; local QA, git push, server activation, live browser verification, and client acceptance are distinct events.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.