client-brief-analyzer
Skill1 starsChanged 31 days agoMITView on GitHub
Turn a messy client message, job post, or voice-note transcript into a clear project brief with scope, deliverables, missing information, red flags, and questions to ask before accepting the work. Use when a user pastes a client message or job post and asks what the client wants, whether to take the job, or what to ask the client. Also use when the user says analyze this job post, what is this client asking, or make a brief.
In this repository11 other files it gives its agents.
- assignment-researcherSkill
- fyp-project-managerSkill
- interview-grillerSkill
- learn-in-30-daysSkill
- portfolio-case-studySkill
- pricing-calculatorSkill
- professional-emailSkill
- project-scope-plannerSkill
- proposal-writerSkill
- resume-builderSkill
- study-any-topicSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
7 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 10
Before replying to or accepting a freelance job
- Distinctive: line 11
When a project later went wrong because scope was never clear
- Distinctive: line 14
Read the whole message twice.
- Distinctive: line 22
Never invent a budget, deadline, or deliverable the client did not state.
- Distinctive: line 23
Never advise accepting work that requires breaking a platform terms or doing unpaid full work as a test.
- Distinctive: line 24
Keep the client original wording for key requirements in quotes, so nothing is lost in paraphrase.
- Distinctive: line 25
Ask questions in the output - do not answer them on the client behalf.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Client Brief Analyzer
When to use this skill
- A client message or job post is pasted and it is vague, long, or confusing
- Before replying to or accepting a freelance job
- When a project later went wrong because scope was never clear
Workflow
- Read the whole message twice. Separate facts the client actually stated from things you are guessing - never mix them.
- Extract: the problem the client has, the exact deliverables they named, deadline, budget (if stated), tools and platforms mentioned, and who approves the work.
- List every missing piece that changes price or effort: quantity, revisions, source files, access needed, format, timeline, payment method.
- Scan for red flags: unpaid test work that is a full job, no clear payment method, scope that grows inside the message, unrealistic deadline for the budget, requests to work off-platform against that platform rules.
- Draft the clarification questions a professional would ask before quoting - grouped as Scope, Timeline, Money, Access.
- Give a verdict: Clear / Workable after questions / Risky - with the one-sentence reason.
Rules - never break these
- Never invent a budget, deadline, or deliverable the client did not state. Mark unknowns as UNKNOWN.
- Never advise accepting work that requires breaking a platform terms or doing unpaid full work as a test.
- Keep the client original wording for key requirements in quotes, so nothing is lost in paraphrase.
- Ask questions in the output - do not answer them on the client behalf.
Output format
- One-line summary - what this job actually is
- Deliverables - bullet list, only what was stated
- Known facts - deadline / budget / tools, or UNKNOWN
- Missing information - what must be asked
- Red flags - or none found
- Questions to send the client - ready to copy-paste
- Verdict - Clear / Workable after questions / Risky + reason
Example
User: Analyze this job post: Need someone to fix my website, it is slow and some pages broken, need it done ASAP, budget is small, maybe more work later...
Good output (excerpt): Verdict: Workable after questions. Missing: which pages are broken, current platform and hosting access, what ASAP means in days, and the actual budget range. Red flag: more work later is used to justify a low first budget - quote this job on its own value.
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
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.