agentleFS
varunk130varunk130/claude-code-skills/skills/ai-marketing-growth/ai-activation-optimizer/SKILL.md

ai-activation-optimizer

Skill1 starsChanged 21 days agoMITView on GitHub

Produces an activation diagnosis and onboarding redesign for Artificial Intelligence (AI) products where output quality varies by user input: an aha-moment definition tied to retention, a time-to-first-good-output metric, a quality-aware activation funnel, first-session scaffolding, and quality-gated nudges. Use when AI product signups do not convert to retained users; users try the product once and leave after a mediocre output; defining the activation metric for an AI assistant, copilot, or agent; or redesigning the empty prompt box and first-run experience.

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:

    After a model change shifts output quality for new users

    line 27
  2. Distinctive:

    Run each scaffolding or nudge change as an experiment with activation rate as the primary metric and week-4 retention as the confirming …

    line 104
  3. Distinctive:

    Leave new users with an empty prompt box and no starter tasks

    line 126

≈ “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

AI Activation Optimizer

In an AI product the first output is the onboarding - if it is mediocre, nothing else in the funnel matters.

What this skill is

An activation workflow for products where the value a user sees depends on what they type, upload, or connect. Classic activation assumes a deterministic aha moment; AI products add a quality step - the user can complete every onboarding step and still get a poor answer. This skill defines activation as reaching a good output on a real task, measures how fast and how often new users get there, and redesigns the first session so the product does the work of good prompting and context setup for the user.

What it solves

  • Activation metrics that count "first prompt sent" instead of "first useful result"
  • Empty prompt boxes that leave new users guessing what to ask
  • First outputs that are generic because the product has no user context yet
  • Nudges and lifecycle emails sent to users who already had a bad experience, accelerating churn
  • Funnel analysis that cannot separate "did not try" from "tried and was disappointed"

When to invoke

  • Signup-to-retained conversion is low or falling for an AI assistant, copilot, or agent
  • Setting the North Star or activation metric for a new AI product
  • Redesigning onboarding, templates, or the first-run experience
  • After a model change shifts output quality for new users
  • Planning lifecycle messaging for a product-led AI offering

Phase 1: Define the aha moment with retention data

List candidate behaviors and test which best predicts week-4 retention.

Candidate behaviorUsers who did it in first 7 daysWeek-4 retention if yesWeek-4 retention if noLift
Sent first prompt
Accepted or copied an output
Connected own data source
Completed 3 tasks of the core job
Returned on a second day

Pick the behavior with high lift and meaningful reach that the team can influence. Express it as: "<number> <quality-qualified action> within <days>", for example "3 accepted outputs on own data within 7 days." This is correlation; confirm with an experiment before treating it as causal.

Phase 2: Define a good output

The activation event must include a quality signal. Choose observable proxies:

SignalStrengthCaveat
Output accepted, inserted, sent, or exportedStrongRequires an action surface
Output copiedMediumUsers copy to fix elsewhere
No regenerate or heavy edit within 2 minutesMediumSilent abandonment looks similar
Explicit positive ratingWeakLow response rate, selection bias
Task-level automatic evaluation scoreMediumNeeds a validated grader
Good-output rate = sessions with at least one good output / sessions with at least one output
Time to first good output (TTFGO) = timestamp of first good output - signup timestamp

Report median and 75th percentile TTFGO; the tail is where churn hides.

Phase 3: Build the quality-aware activation funnel

StepDefinitionConversionDrop-off reason (hypothesis)
Signed upAccount created100%
Context setRole, use case, or data connected
First attemptFirst prompt or task run
First outputOutput rendered without error
First good outputQuality signal met
ActivatedAha-moment definition met
RetainedActive in week 4

Split the "first output to first good output" drop by: input type (blank prompt versus template), whether data was connected, task category, and model or route used. That split usually explains most of the activation gap.

Phase 4: First-session scaffolding

LeverPatternEffect on quality
Replace the blank box3-6 role-specific starter tasks with the prompt pre-filledRemoves prompt-writing skill as a prerequisite
Collect context up front2-3 onboarding questions that feed the system promptLess generic first output
Use sample dataA realistic workspace or document so value shows before setupSeparates "is it useful" from "is my data connected"
Show a worked exampleOne finished output for the chosen task before the user runs itSets expectations for format and depth
Ask before guessingClarifying question when the input is ambiguousFewer confident wrong answers
Make editing easyInline refine actions (shorter, more formal, add sources)Turns a near miss into an accepted output

Prioritize levers by the funnel step with the largest absolute drop.

Phase 5: Quality-gated nudges

Route lifecycle messaging by the user's actual experience, not by time since signup.

User stateNudgeNever send
No attempt within 24 hoursOne starter task matched to stated roleFeature tour
Attempted, no good outputRecovery: a better template, a connected-data prompt, or a human help offer"You are doing great" or upsell
One good output, not activatedNext task in the same job, building toward the aha definitionUnrelated feature
ActivatedHabit loop: schedule, integration, or share with teammateBasic tips
Quality incident affected the userAcknowledgment and what changedGeneric re-engagement

Phase 6: Measure and iterate

Run each scaffolding or nudge change as an experiment with activation rate as the primary metric and week-4 retention as the confirming metric. Watch for activation inflation: a change that makes the activation event easier without raising retention has moved the metric, not the user.

Output

  • Aha-moment definition with the retention-lift evidence behind it
  • Good-output definition and time-to-first-good-output baseline (median and 75th percentile)
  • Quality-aware activation funnel with drop-off split by input type and data connection
  • Prioritized first-session scaffolding changes
  • Quality-gated nudge matrix
  • Experiment backlog with expected lift per change

Operating rules

Always

  • Include a quality signal in the activation definition
  • Validate the aha moment against week-4 retention before adopting it
  • Report the tail of time to first good output, not only the median
  • Route nudges by experienced quality, not by days since signup
  • Re-baseline the funnel after every model or prompt change

Never

  • Count "first prompt sent" as activation
  • Leave new users with an empty prompt box and no starter tasks
  • Send upsell or upgrade prompts to users who have not yet had a good output
  • Rely on voluntary ratings as the only quality signal
  • Declare a scaffolding change a win on activation alone if retention did not move

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.