event-selection
Skill2 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use before committing to any event, or when the user says "should we do this event", "is this conference worth it", "which events should we sponsor", "what format should we use", "they sent us a sponsorship deck". Produces the expected-pipeline arithmetic, scores candidate formats against weighted criteria, and returns a go or no-go with a named alternative. Willing to say no. Writes workspace/events/<event>/decision.md. Owns the go or no-go. Once the answer is go and money is moving, `sponsorship-negotiation` owns the terms.
In this repository23 other files it gives its agents.
- artifact-evalSkill
- audience-machineSkill
- conference-activationSkill
- event-and-scale-osSkill
- event-budgetSkill
- event-contentSkill
- event-followupSkill
- event-logisticsSkill
- event-measurementSkill
- event-program-setupSkill
- event-retrospectiveSkill
- executive-dinnerSkill
- invite-motionSkill
- meeting-engineSkill
- owned-eventSkill
- roundtable-and-salonSkill
- run-of-showSkill
- speaking-and-stageSkill
- sponsorship-negotiationSkill
- staffing-and-briefingSkill
- venue-selectionSkill
- virtual-eventsSkill
- writing-qualitySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈6
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
- Distinctive: line 24
Before any discussion of creative, booth design, or theme:
- Distinctive: line 59
When the question is "what should we do" rather than "should we do this", score each candidate 1 to 10 on five weighted criteria:
- Distinctive: line 77
Not a recommendation. A decision, with a named decision maker:
- Distinctive: line 102
Arithmetic before opinion: No recommendation without the expected-pipeline calculation
- Distinctive: line 103
Staff days are in the cost model: Every time
- Distinctive: line 107
Never invent a conversion rate: Use the company's own history, or mark the assumption and show the sensitivity
≈ “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
Event Selection
Decide whether an event happens, and in what form, before any money moves. Most of the money lost on events is lost at signature.
When to use
- A sponsorship deck landed in someone's inbox
- Choosing between formats for a goal ("we want to do something for these accounts")
- Annual planning, evaluating a slate of candidates
- Somebody senior wants to do an event and nobody has done the math
Inputs
- Reads:
workspace/program/charter.md,workspace/audience/target-list.csvif it exists - Needs from user: the event, the cost including travel and staff time, the attendee list or a credible estimate, historic conversion rates if any exist
Workflow
1. Do the arithmetic first
Before any discussion of creative, booth design, or theme:
Target accounts attending (verified, not the organizer's claim)
x realistic meeting rate (15 to 25% with good pre-work)
= meetings
x historic meeting-to-opportunity rate
= opportunities
x average deal size
= expected pipeline
x win rate
= expected closed revenue
Total cost:
sponsorship or venue
+ travel and accommodation
+ staff days at loaded cost ← the line everyone omits
+ creative and production
+ shipping, insurance, collateral
+ follow-up time
= fully loaded costPipeline and revenue are two different numbers. Report both, labelled. Expected pipeline stops at opportunities times deal size. Applying win rate gives expected closed revenue, which at a 25% win rate is a quarter of the pipeline figure. Calling the win-rate-adjusted number "pipeline" understates the event by 4x and will lose you the budget argument against a channel that reports pipeline honestly.
Staff days are usually the second largest line and are almost never counted. Four people for three days including travel is twelve loaded days.
Verify attendance independently. Organizers quote registration, which includes staff, press, and sponsors. Ask for expected attendance and title mix, and net out sponsor and exhibitor staff. Twenty exhibitors at four to eight staff each is a hundred bodies who are not prospects.
2. Apply the standing rule
If you cannot pre-book fifteen meetings, do not buy the booth. Send two people with a coffee budget and work the hallway.
This is the most valuable sentence in the skill. Attending without sponsoring produces a comparable number of qualified meetings at a fraction of the cost at most events, and it is available right up until you sign.
3. Score candidate formats
When the question is "what should we do" rather than "should we do this", score each candidate 1 to 10 on five weighted criteria:
| # | Criterion | What earns a high score |
| 1 | Audience flexibility | Works across the segments still under discussion, so logistics can be locked before the vertical decision |
| 2 | Differentiation | High "I have never been to this with a vendor" factor. Scarce access beats familiar comfort |
| 3 | Conversation density | Supports a structured discussion where everyone speaks |
| 4 | Lead time fit | Bookable inside the window you actually have |
| 5 | Budget fit | All-in, including staff days and follow-up |
Then score the shortlist on Impact, Confidence, and Ease, out of 30. The confident thing you can ship this quarter usually beats the ambitious thing you cannot staff.
docs/formats.md carries the economics and failure modes for eight formats.
4. Check the calendar and the collisions
Two events at T-4 weeks in the same fortnight will both be under-run. Check the annual calendar in the charter before saying yes.
5. Write the decision
Not a recommendation. A decision, with a named decision maker:
EVENT / FORMAT
Recommendation: GO / GO WITH CONDITIONS / NO-GO / ATTEND WITHOUT SPONSORING
Expected pipeline: $n (opportunities x average deal size)
Expected closed rev: $n (pipeline x win rate)
Assumptions: <every rate used, and where it came from>
Fully loaded cost: $n
Meeting target: n, derived from <arithmetic>
Conditions: <what has to be true, e.g. the five diligence answers>
The alternative: <what we do instead, costed>
Decision maker: <name> Decision date: <date>Always include the alternative. A no-go with no alternative gets overturned by whoever wanted the event. A no-go that says "instead, send two people and host a dinner for a third of the price, here is the expected pipeline" wins the argument.
6. If it is a go and money is changing hands
Route immediately to sponsorship-negotiation before signature. The five diligence questions are conditions of the go, not follow-up tasks.
Output
- Writes:
workspace/events/<event>/decision.md - Prints: the arithmetic, the go or no-go, the meeting target with its derivation, the conditions, and the costed alternative
Rules & quality bar
- Arithmetic before opinion. No recommendation without the expected-pipeline calculation
- Staff days are in the cost model. Every time
- Verify attendance independently of the sales deck, and net out sponsor staff
- Fifteen pre-bookable meetings or no booth
- Every no-go carries a costed alternative
- Never invent a conversion rate. Use the company's own history, or mark the assumption and show the sensitivity
- Be willing to say no out loud. This skill exists partly to talk people out of things
Related skills
- Reads:
event-program-setup - Hands off to:
sponsorship-negotiation(if paid),event-budget, then the format skill - See also:
docs/formats.md,docs/metrics.mdfor the meeting-target arithmetic
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.

