opc-case-research
Skill29 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Systematic public-information research for OPC, super-individual, creator IP, and one-person business cases, with Chinese outputs focused on content strategy, IP positioning, channel strategy, business models, timelines, and replicable lessons. Use when Codex needs to research a named person, creator brand, or one-person company case; produce a case brief or structured report; map sources and evidence; compare facts versus inferences; or turn scattered public materials into a reusable research deliverable.
In this repository26 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-writing-diagnosisSkill
- benchmark-filterSkill
- book-material-minerSkill
- cc-designSkill
- celf-style-writerSkill
- content-strategy-diagnosisSkill
- deep-writerSkill
- hook-optimizerSkill
- horizontal-vertical-analysisSkill
- learning-builderSkill
- mrbeast-perspectiveSkill
- naval-perspectiveSkill
- paul-graham-perspectiveSkill
- perspective-distillerSkill
- short-video-script-builderSkill
- speech-structure-coachSkill
- spoken-script-polishSkill
- steve-jobs-perspectiveSkill
- video-packaging-diagnosisSkill
- wechat-draft-publisherSkill
- x-article-publisherSkill
- x-content-mentorSkill
- xhs-image-directorSkill
- xhs-title-selectorSkill
- youmindSkill
- zhang-yiming-perspectiveSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
30 rules. About 0 are common, 27 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈27
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 11
Use this skill to research a specific person, creator brand, or one-person business case as an "OPC / super-individual / creator IP" …
- Distinctive: line 29
If the request is only a fast initial screen, do not load every reference file.
- Distinctive: line 33
Treat these as the input contract:
- Distinctive: line 44
If the user does not specify otherwise, assume:
- Distinctive: line 74
Prefer source types in this order:
- Distinctive: line 80
Read references/search-playbook.md when constructing search queries, sampling plans, or source maps.
- Distinctive: line 84
Do not jump straight into opinions.
- Distinctive: line 109
Read references/research-standard.md for the full checklist and evaluation rules.
- Distinctive: line 113
Every important point should be marked as one of:
- Distinctive: line 119
When in doubt, downgrade confidence instead of overstating certainty.
- Distinctive: line 121
Use cautious language for:
- Distinctive: line 129
Read references/evidence-schema.md when building evidence tables or appendices.
- Distinctive: line 135
Default to a minimum evidence slice with 6-12 rows or bullet-equivalents that support the most important claims across:
- Distinctive: line 143
If the user did not ask for tables, the evidence slice can be a compact appendix or a short "evidence snapshot" section instead of a full …
- Distinctive: line 147
When evidence is weak, incomplete, or highly indirect:
- Very specific: line 152
keep a to verify next list if the case is still worth researching
- Very specific: line 188
Read references/report-template.md before drafting a full report.
- Very specific: line 189
Use the copyable templates in assets/ when the output should become a reusable document or table.
- Distinctive: line 208
use private or non-public information
- Distinctive: line 214
When information is weak, say so clearly and narrow the claim.
- Distinctive: line 219
Read for the full SOP, evidence rules, deliverables, quality bar, and uncertainty handling.
- Distinctive: line 221
Read for search query patterns, source mapping, verification rules, and sampling.
- Distinctive: line 223
Read for field definitions for evidence, timeline, content samples, and business model tables.
- Distinctive: line 225
Read when drafting a standard long-form report.
- Distinctive: line 227
Use when creating a short case brief.
- Distinctive: line 229
Use when creating a full report draft.
- Distinctive: line 231
Use when creating the evidence table.
- Distinctive: line 233
Use when creating the timeline table.
- Distinctive: line 235
Use when creating the content sampling table.
- Distinctive: line 237
Use when creating the business model table.
≈ “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
OPC Case Research
Overview
Use this skill to research a specific person, creator brand, or one-person business case as an "OPC / super-individual / creator IP" example.
Default to:
- public information only
- Chinese output
- single-case research
- emphasis on content strategy, IP positioning, and business model
- explicit separation of facts, inferences, and unknowns
Quick Start
- Confirm the target and scope. If the user did not specify depth, use the standard mode.
- Build a base profile and source map before writing conclusions.
- Build the timeline before interpreting strategy or causality.
- Analyze content system, IP positioning, channels, and business model together.
- End with replicability analysis instead of generic praise.
If the request is only a fast initial screen, do not load every reference file. Read only what is needed.
Default Inputs
Treat these as the input contract:
- Required: target person, brand, or case name
- Optional: focus areas such as content, IP, business model, channels, key decisions, or methods
- Optional: depth
quick: short case briefstandard: structured research outputdeep: standard output plus evidence tables, samples, and estimates
- Optional: time range
- Optional: comparison target
If the user does not specify otherwise, assume:
- use public information
- write in Chinese
- prioritize content strategy, IP building, and monetization
- analyze one case at a time
- include a minimum evidence slice in
standardanddeepoutputs
Workflow
1. Scope the Request
Resolve only the ambiguity that blocks the work. If the target is clearly identifiable, start immediately.
Set the working mode:
quick: decide whether the case is worth deeper studystandard: produce the default structured case studydeep: add evidence tables, sampling, and cautious estimates
2. Build the Base Profile and Source Map
Collect:
- identity labels
- platform presence
- official pages or landing pages
- visible business entry points
- likely primary and secondary sources
Prefer source types in this order:
- A: first-party statements, official pages, original program or event pages
- B: mainstream media, platform profile pages, databases, partner pages
- C: reposts, forums, summaries, comments, only for leads
Read references/search-playbook.md when constructing search queries, sampling plans, or source maps.
3. Build the Timeline First
Do not jump straight into opinions. Build an event sequence first.
Minimum expectations:
quick: 5+ meaningful nodesstandard: 10+ nodesdeep: 10-20 nodes plus notes on why each node matters
Track:
- role shifts
- platform shifts
- format shifts
- commercialization upgrades
- major public launches or collaborations
4. Analyze the Four Core Layers
Analyze these together, not in isolation:
- Identity and positioning
- Content system and channel strategy
- Business model and monetization structure
- Key decisions, turning points, and path evolution
Read references/research-standard.md for the full checklist and evaluation rules.
5. Classify Evidence Carefully
Every important point should be marked as one of:
- fact
- inference
- unknown
When in doubt, downgrade confidence instead of overstating certainty.
Use cautious language for:
- revenue structure
- team size
- conversion assumptions
- audience profile assumptions
- operational scale
Read references/evidence-schema.md when building evidence tables or appendices.
6. Build a Minimum Evidence Slice
Even in standard mode, do not leave evidence fully implicit.
Default to a minimum evidence slice with 6-12 rows or bullet-equivalents that support the most important claims across:
- identity or self-positioning
- timeline
- content or IP
- channels
- business model
If the user did not ask for tables, the evidence slice can be a compact appendix or a short "evidence snapshot" section instead of a full spreadsheet.
7. Shrink Claims When Public Information Is Thin
When evidence is weak, incomplete, or highly indirect:
- narrow the scope instead of compensating with confident writing
- separate
confirmed facts,best-effort inferences, andunknowns - reduce the depth of business-model claims first
- keep a
to verify nextlist if the case is still worth researching
A smaller but more reliable output is better than a complete-looking report built on speculation.
8. Produce the Right Deliverable
Choose the smallest deliverable that still answers the user.
For quick, produce:
- one-line positioning
- identity tags
- main platforms
- visible monetization entry points
- 3-5 reasons the case matters
- open questions
For standard, produce:
- case brief
- source map summary
- timeline
- content and IP analysis
- channel analysis
- business model analysis
- evidence snapshot or minimum evidence slice
- replicability analysis
- limitations and unknowns
For deep, add:
- full evidence table
- content sampling table
- business model table
- estimate disclosures when needed
Read references/report-template.md before drafting a full report.
Use the copyable templates in assets/ when the output should become a reusable document or table.
Output Requirements
Always aim for:
- Chinese writing
- research tone, not fan tone
- visible structure
- evidence awareness
- at least a small evidence trail for the main claims
- explicit dates or time ranges when claims depend on time
- direct linkage between content strategy, channel choice, and business model
- actionable takeaways for people studying super-individual paths
Hard Rules
Do not:
- use private or non-public information
- present unverified claims as facts
- invent revenue, team, or deal details
- turn gossip into business analysis
- hide uncertainty behind confident phrasing
When information is weak, say so clearly and narrow the claim.
Resource Map
- references/research-standard.md
- Read for the full SOP, evidence rules, deliverables, quality bar, and uncertainty handling.
- references/search-playbook.md
- Read for search query patterns, source mapping, verification rules, and sampling.
- references/evidence-schema.md
- Read for field definitions for evidence, timeline, content samples, and business model tables.
- references/report-template.md
- Read when drafting a standard long-form report.
- assets/case-brief-template.md
- Use when creating a short case brief.
- assets/research-report-template.md
- Use when creating a full report draft.
- assets/evidence-table.csv
- Use when creating the evidence table.
- assets/timeline-table.csv
- Use when creating the timeline table.
- assets/content-sample-table.csv
- Use when creating the content sampling table.
- assets/business-model-table.csv
- Use when creating the business model table.
Not for This Skill
This skill is not for:
- celebrity gossip
- private intelligence gathering
- legal, financial, or investment due diligence
- unsupported claims about real income or private operations
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.

