agentleFS
Starlight-IntelligenceStarlight-Intelligence/starlight-agent-skills/skills/substrate/agentic-income/SKILL.md

agentic-income

Skill1 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

The substrate operating brain for building income systems with AI agents. Use when planning, building, or scaling an affiliate/content/product income network — deciding what to build next, where money actually comes from, how to make it compound, and how the system improves itself. Portable and brand-neutral. Composes affiliate-audit. Trigger phrases: build an income system, make money with agents, scale my content network, what should I build next, passive income with AI, monetize this site, agentic income.

3 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    Own the audience: Every reader is income *or* a future relationship.

    line 27
  2. Distinctive:

    When asked "what should I build/do next," rank candidate actions by leverage:

    line 59
  3. Distinctive:

    Fork a spoke: only once the hub has ≥1 ranking post proving the shape works.

    line 63
  4. Distinctive:

    Never: chase a one-time bounty over a recurring one, link a tool you haven't used, or build site N+1 while site N has un-linked payer …

    line 66

≈ “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

agentic-income

The brain that turns "make money with AI agents" into a system that scales itself. One thesis, five principles, four loops. Everything else is execution.

This is the substrate-level, brand-neutral version of the operating brain. It carries no product names of its own — wire it to whatever sites, catalog, and rails your operator owns.

The thesis

Honest tool-comparison content is the most scalable, lowest-cost income engine an AI agent can run. The frontier tools that drive enormous search volume (the foundation-model and generative leaders) typically pay nothing. So rank for them, tell the genuine truth, and route to the adjacent tools that pay recurring — the ones the operator actually uses. The reader gets the real answer; the system earns when they act on it. Trust is the asset; the link is downstream.

The five principles (non-negotiable)

  1. Honest pick always wins. Recommend what's genuinely best, then link the payer you'd actually buy. A link that overrides the truth burns the only asset that compounds: trust.
  2. Recurring > one-time. Passive income compounds on subscriptions, not flat bounties. Build around recurring-payers; treat one-time bounties as bonus.
  3. Own the audience. Every reader is income or a future relationship. One email capture per page turns rented traffic (SEO/social) into an owned list you control.
  4. Build the engine once, fork the sites. One shared catalog + one template; each new site is a config swap. The second site is near-zero marginal cost. Effort goes into the substrate, not the Nth instance.
  5. Compounding over spikes. Content that ranks for years + recurring commissions + a growing list = income that runs without you. Optimize for the asset that's still earning in 12 months, not the post that spikes today.

The architecture (hub-and-spoke)

income engine (catalog + audit + this brain)   ← the OSS lead-gen substrate
   │
   ├─► hub site            ← the authority brand. Spokes link up to it.
   ├─► spoke site A        ← a distinct search audience / angle
   └─► spoke site B        ← another angle, near-zero overlap

One engine, N brands, N search audiences, near-zero overlap. Cross-link spokes→hub for topical authority + referral flow. If one wins, double down; the losers cost almost nothing.

The four loops (this is what "agents that learn" means)

The system improves itself because each loop feeds the next. An agent runs these on a cadence — no human strategy meeting required.

1. Monetization loop (weekly): affiliate-audit joins the catalog × every site's content × traffic → ranks (a) which programs to join next, (b) which existing posts mention a payer with no link. Join → set the program's link in the catalog → sync → links go live network-wide → re-audit, gap clears.

2. Content loop (weekly): pull each site's top-traffic + highest-intent queries → a ranked backlog scores the next post by opportunity = authority × intent × monetization × low-competition. Build the top one in the citable shape. The winners tell you what to write next.

3. Authority loop (continuous): the OSS engine + public playbook earn stars and inbound links → that authority lifts the sites that consume the engine → more traffic → more audit signal. Giving the method away is the distribution.

4. Learning loop (monthly): every published post is a labeled example — query × shape × conversion. Feed outcomes back: which hooks/tables/answer-boxes converted, which programs actually paid. Bias the next batch toward what worked. The catalog status + the backlog ranking are the memory.

What to build next (the decision)

When asked "what should I build/do next," rank candidate actions by leverage:

  1. Set a program link for a tool already mentioned in a high-traffic post → instant revenue on existing traffic. (Run affiliate-audit to find these.) Highest ROI, do first.
  2. Write the top backlog post for the site with the most authority in that cluster.
  3. Fork a spoke only once the hub has ≥1 ranking post proving the shape works. Don't scale an unproven template.
  4. Join the next recurring-payer the audit flags as high-mention/no-link.

Never: chase a one-time bounty over a recurring one, link a tool you haven't used, or build site N+1 while site N has un-linked payer mentions.

The honest shape (every post)

Direct answer box up top (what AI search lifts) → sortable comparison table (the conversion surface; renders a CTA only when a program link is set) → the genuine recommendation in prose → real FAQ with FAQPage JSON-LD → one affiliate disclosure. Recommend, don't sell. The shape ranks and converts.

Compose

  • affiliate-audit — the monetization-loop engine (catalog × content × traffic → gaps). This brain decides what to do; affiliate-audit finds where the money is.
  • payments-mandate — when income flows past affiliate links into actual settlement, hand the money step to the payments skill. This brain never moves money itself.

Guardrails

  • One disclosure per page with links (FTC + trust).
  • Catalog status flags dead-ends (frontier tools with no program) and closed programs — ignore them.
  • Re-verify affiliate terms before relying on them; they change often.
  • Null program link → plain text, never a dead link.
  • This skill plans and routes. It never settles money — that is the payments skill's gated job, behind a human.

How SIS consumes this

The Starlight Intelligence System loads this as the operating brain behind its Wealth IS income thesis. A stream queen (see swarm-queen-coordination) runs the four loops on a cadence; the founder agent owns capital allocation and the gate ladder. Outputs are SIP-attested.


Built on SIP — Starlight Intelligence Protocol Substrate: starlightintelligence.org/protocol v1.1.0 Layers used: [file-contract, attestation, sovereignty] Vertical: starlight-agent-skills · portable capability layer

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.