cold-offer-review
Skill4 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Audit an existing B2B offer from the perspective of a cold buyer with no transferred trust. Use when reviewing a website, proposal, call transcript, case study, offer note, pricing or terms, or user-supplied answers to determine what is clear, supported, coherent, and safe to test; expose contradictions, claim-to-proof gaps, risk, effort, time-to-value, and first-commitment weaknesses without claiming market validation or likely conversion. Do not use to invent, redesign, or build an offer; route an explicitly requested post-audit rebuild to offer-creation.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
14 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈11
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Read all three before auditing:
- Distinctive: line 22
Do not declare market urgency, product-market fit, offer validation, or likely conversion from copy or internal coherence alone.
- Distinctive: line 23
Do not invent buyer pains, proof, testimonials, guarantees, scarcity, outcomes, prices, or terms.
- Distinctive: line 24
Do not import universal benchmarks.
- Distinctive: line 43
Search the user-provided workspace for the company, offer name, buyer, mechanism, pricing, and evidence terms before asking questions.
- Distinctive: line 45
Treat private notes as input, not automatically as buyer-visible proof.
- Distinctive: line 64
Use the intake reference. Populate it from artifacts first.
- Distinctive: line 66
If the offer nucleus is incomplete or artifacts conflict, return the supported portion of the audit, preserve each contradiction or gap, …
- Distinctive: line 70
Create a separate row for each material promise, numerical claim, guarantee premise, testimonial implication, timing claim, economic claim, …
- Very specific: line 78
Use FAIL only for an evidenced contradiction, incoherence, or explicit mismatch.
- Very specific: line 79
Use UNPROVEN when evidence is missing, inaccessible, stale for the claim, or insufficiently matched.
- Very specific: line 80
Use PASS only for the bounded question tested.
- Distinctive: line 98
Use the output mode in the schema.
- Distinctive: line 102
Stop only when no bounded audit is possible because:
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Cold Offer Review
Audit whether a cold buyer can understand, believe, judge, and accept an existing B2B offer. Treat the result as an evidence-led diagnosis, never as market validation or a conversion forecast.
Required references
Read all three before auditing:
- Intake and evidence protocol for workspace search, progressive questions, evidence labels, and input coverage.
- Audit criteria for the seven dimensions, additional cold-buyer tests, status rules, source limits, and earliest-broken-link logic.
- Output schema for the required report and validation plan.
Scope boundary
- Review an existing offer. Accept websites, proposals, call transcripts, case studies, notes, offer and pricing documents, terms, and user answers.
- Audit the offer as presented to the stated buyer and sales context. Do not silently rewrite it.
- Do not declare market urgency, product-market fit, offer validation, or likely conversion from copy or internal coherence alone.
- Do not invent buyer pains, proof, testimonials, guarantees, scarcity, outcomes, prices, or terms.
- Do not import universal benchmarks. Treat external frameworks and operator examples as diagnostic prompts, not laws or proof for this offer.
- Route net-new offer creation or a requested redesign/rebuild to
$offer-creation. When the original request is "audit, then improve," finish the evidence-led audit first, then invoke$offer-creationin the same turn using only the evidenced findings. Ask for further authority only if the rebuild requires a new material business decision.
Workflow
1. Fix the audit question
State:
- offer and version or date;
- intended buyer;
- true cold, trust-assisted, warm follow-up, mixed, or unknown sales context;
- artifacts in scope;
- decision the audit should inform.
Mark any missing item unknown. Never substitute a likely answer.
2. Search before asking
Search the user-provided workspace for the company, offer name, buyer, mechanism, pricing, and evidence terms before asking questions. Inspect only relevant offer notes, proposals, transcripts, case studies, terms, and decision records. Prefer exact-name searches, then bounded keyword searches.
Treat private notes as input, not automatically as buyer-visible proof. Record inaccessible links or files as unknown. Do not widen into unrelated confidential material.
3. Build the evidence register
Extract claims and inputs without merging their status. Label every item as one of:
current decision;verified fact;user-provided assertion;source/operator example;inference;unknown.
Record the artifact, location, date, buyer visibility, and limitation. Never turn missing values into zero, false, or a fact.
Current decision means the user or an authoritative decision record identifies the rule or version that governs this audit. It establishes decision authority, not the factual truth of a buyer, market, performance, or legal claim.
4. Complete intake progressively
Use the intake reference. Populate it from artifacts first. Ask only the smallest next batch of high-leverage questions, normally three to five, and explain which audit decision each unlocks. Continue in batches when needed.
If the offer nucleus is incomplete or artifacts conflict, return the supported portion of the audit, preserve each contradiction or gap, and ask the smallest governing question. Do not manufacture a pass/fail verdict to fill the template.
5. Map claims to proof
Create a separate row for each material promise, numerical claim, guarantee premise, testimonial implication, timing claim, economic claim, and differentiator. Match only evidence that supports the same buyer, problem, method, result, conditions, period, acquisition motion, buyer visibility, and permission at the claimed scope.
An artifact can verify that a claim was made without verifying that the claimed result occurred. State that distinction.
6. Audit the offer
Apply every required dimension and additional test in the criteria reference. Label every conclusion PASS, FAIL, or UNPROVEN and cite the supporting artifact or missing evidence.
- Use
FAILonly for an evidenced contradiction, incoherence, or explicit mismatch. - Use
UNPROVENwhen evidence is missing, inaccessible, stale for the claim, or insufficiently matched. - Use
PASSonly for the bounded question tested; a pass never means the market will buy.
Expose contradictions instead of resolving them by assumption.
7. Diagnose the earliest broken link
Trace the cold-buyer decision chain in order. Report the earliest evidenced failure and the earliest unresolved link separately. If no failure is proven, say so; if no link is unresolved, say so. Never call uncertainty a break.
Prioritize that link over cosmetic copy improvements.
8. Define the next evidence and validation step
Specify the exact artifact, observation, buyer response, operational record, or term clarification needed next. Propose the smallest safe test that can resolve the highest-impact uncertainty.
Predefine what the test will inform. Do not promise validation from an arbitrary number of interviews, replies, or sales calls, and do not borrow an operator's benchmark as a decision threshold.
9. Deliver the report
Use the output mode in the schema. Default to the compact decision brief. Use the full audit only when the user asks for it or when the scope, stakes, or contradictions require the underlying tables. Lead with the status and earliest broken or unresolved link.
Hard-stop conditions
Stop only when no bounded audit is possible because:
- the buyer or offer itself is not identifiable;
- an essential artifact is inaccessible and no supplied evidence supports even a partial review;
- the only requested conclusion is legal and requires qualified legal review; or
- the requested conclusion cannot be narrowed to the available evidence.
Unknown sales context, conflicting price or scope, incomplete numerical claims, and unspecified guarantee obligations do not stop the whole audit. Mark affected conclusions UNPROVEN or FAIL under the criteria, complete the supported review, and ask what governs.
In this repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- audience-content-osSkill
- buyer-signal-list-researchSkill
- google-maps-list-builderSkill
- google-maps-owner-email-finderSkill
- icp-prompt-builderSkill
- linkedin-content-writerSkill
- list-builderSkill
- list-expanderSkill
- offer-creationSkill
- outbound-funnel-economicsSkill
- tiktok-slideshow-machineSkill
- x-content-writerSkill
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.

