agentleFS
OneWave-AIOneWave-AI/claude-skills/cowork-qbr-builder/SKILL.md

cowork-qbr-builder

Skill378 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub

Build a quarterly business review from a client folder -- reports, usage exports, support tickets, meeting notes, emails. Extracts delivered value with receipts, surfaces risks before the client does, and drafts the QBR narrative plus expansion asks. For agencies, consultancies, and CS teams.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Every win cites its source artifact.

    line 23
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep confidential internal material out: internal cost notes, margin discussions, and team-performance comments in the folder never surface …

    line 27
  3. Distinctive:

    If the folder is thin (< 5 substantive artifacts), lead with the documentation gap and build what is defensible rather than padding.

    line 28

≈ “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.

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

Cowork QBR Builder

Prepare a QBR the way a top customer-success lead does: prove the value delivered with specifics, name the problems before the client names them, and earn the expansion conversation. Input: a folder of client artifacts for the quarter -- status reports, deliverables, usage/analytics exports, support tickets, meeting notes, email threads -- plus the engagement's stated goals if documented.

Workflow

  1. Reconstruct the quarter. From the folder, build a timeline of what actually happened: deliverables shipped (with dates), meetings held, issues raised and resolved, scope changes. Distinguish documented fact from inference.
  2. Score against goals. Map the quarter's work to the engagement's stated objectives. For each goal: status (achieved/on-track/at-risk/missed), the evidence, and the metric where one exists. If no goals were ever documented, say so -- and propose measurable ones for next quarter, because that gap is itself a finding.
  3. Mine the wins. Extract concrete value receipts: metrics that moved, hours saved, incidents prevented, quotes from the client's own emails ("this saved our launch"). Specific and cited beats impressive and vague.
  4. Face the misses. List what slipped, stalled, or disappointed -- with the honest reason and the fix already in motion. A QBR that hides the miss the client remembers loses the room.
  5. Health and risk read. From ticket sentiment, email response patterns, meeting attendance, and champion activity: engagement health (strong/stable/drifting), risks (champion departure, budget noise, declining usage), and renewal posture.
  6. Draft the QBR. Output qbr-[client]-[quarter].md structured for a deck: executive summary, goals scorecard, wins with receipts, misses with fixes, next-quarter plan, and -- only where the evidence supports it -- 1-2 expansion recommendations framed around the client's goals, not your revenue. Hand to pptx or presentation-design-enhancer for the deck build.

Rules

  • Every win cites its source artifact. Unsupported claims get cut, not softened.
  • Report the quarter that happened, not the quarter that was planned. If the folder shows drift, the QBR shows drift.
  • Client's language over your jargon: pull their vocabulary from their own emails and notes.
  • Expansion asks must trace to an observed need in the artifacts. No need observed, no ask drafted.
  • Keep confidential internal material out: internal cost notes, margin discussions, and team-performance comments in the folder never surface in client-facing output.
  • If the folder is thin (< 5 substantive artifacts), lead with the documentation gap and build what is defensible rather than padding.

Quick Commands

  • "Build the QBR from [folder]" -- full workflow
  • "Just the wins" -- step 3, receipts list
  • "Health check" -- step 5 only
  • "What should next quarter's goals be?" -- proposed measurable objectives from the evidence

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.