win-loss-review
Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use after a deal, project, pitch, proposal, or client pursuit to learn why the outcome happened. Use when applying the Win Loss Review consulting method and when a user asks for Win Loss Review, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- calven-ai/calven-mcptheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- getcargohq/gtm-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- anthropics/knowledge-work-pluginstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins★ 35ksame name
- calven-ai/calven-mcp★ 3same name
- getcargohq/gtm-skills★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository57 other files it gives its agents.
- 5w1h-analysisSkill
- abductive-reasoningSkill
- account-planSkill
- affinity-diagramSkill
- assumption-inventorySkill
- balanced-scorecardSkill
- break-even-analysisSkill
- business-model-canvasSkill
- change-event-timelineSkill
- change-impact-analysisSkill
- communications-planSkill
- competitive-positioningSkill
- constraint-analysisSkill
- cost-benefit-analysisSkill
- critical-uncertaintiesSkill
- customer-segmentationSkill
- customer-success-health-scoreSkill
- deal-strategy-mapSkill
- decision-matrixSkill
- deductive-reasoningSkill
- effort-impact-matrixSkill
- empathy-mapSkill
- evidence-mapSkill
- fifteen-percent-solutionsSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- fishbone-diagramSkill
- five-whys-root-causeSkill
- force-field-analysisSkill
- go-to-market-diagnosisSkill
- hypothesis-treeSkill
- inductive-reasoningSkill
- issue-treeSkill
- jobs-to-be-doneSkill
- kano-modelSkill
- mece-frameworkSkill
- metrics-treeSkill
- mind-map-analysisSkill
- min-specsSkill
- north-star-metricSkill
- pestel-analysisSkill
- porter-five-forcesSkill
- power-interest-gridSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- pricing-strategy-checkSkill
- raci-matrixSkill
- rice-scoringSkill
- risk-matrixSkill
- scenario-planningSkill
- service-blueprintSkill
- signal-vs-noise-filterSkill
- stakeholder-power-mapSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- user-journey-mappingSkill
- validation-planSkill
- weighted-scorecardSkill
- wsjf-prioritizationSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 9
Use this skill to run Win Loss Review as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
- Very specific: line 26
If an input is missing, do not block automatically.
- Distinctive: line 30
Do not use as a blame review.
- Distinctive: line 86
Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Win Loss Review
Use this skill to run Win Loss Review as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.
Method Notes
- Separate factual timeline from interpretation.
- Classify drivers as controllable, influenceable, or external.
Required Inputs
Collect or infer these inputs before execution:
- opportunity history
- outcome
- buyer feedback
- competitor information
- sales actions
If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.
When Not To Use
Do not use as a blame review. Use it to improve the next pursuit, decision, or operating process.
Adjacent Methods
deal-strategy-map: plan a live opportunity before the outcome.competitive-positioning: improve buyer-facing differentiation from repeated decision evidence.
Step-by-Step Execution
| Step | Required input | How to execute | Output |
| Reconstruct timeline | Opportunity data, meetings, proposal, feedback, outcome. | Write factual chronology without interpretation. | Win/loss timeline. |
| Map decision drivers | Buyer criteria, stakeholders, competitors, price, proof. | Identify why the buyer chose the outcome. | Decision driver map. |
| Classify drivers | Decision driver map. | Mark each driver as controllable, influenceable, or external. | Controllability view. |
| Extract lessons | Controllability view and future pursuits. | Convert drivers into specific behavior or asset changes. | Lessons learned. |
| Update playbook | Lessons, owners, next opportunities. | Define qualification, messaging, proof, pricing, or relationship changes. | Improvement action plan. |
Output Template
### 1. Decision Timeline
Opportunity:
Outcome:
Buyer decision date:
Sources:
### 2. Decision Drivers
| Driver | Buyer evidence | Our performance | Competitor / alternative |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### 3. Controllability
| Factor | Controllable / influenceable / external | Confidence | Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### 4. Playbook Changes
| Change | Owner | Apply when | Success signal |
|---|---|---|---|
| | | | |
### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:Quality Gate
- Produce the method-specific outputs for Decision Timeline, Decision Drivers, Controllability; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
- Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
- Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
- Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
- State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
- Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.
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.

