metis-strategy/metis-premier-proposal
Build premier landscape PDF proposals for Metis Strategy business development. Use whenever the user asks to create, build, draft, rebuild, refine, or iterate on a proposal, BD follow-up document, pitch document, or client-facing document to be sent to an external prospect after a discovery call. Output is a 16:9 landscape PDF (13.33" x 7.5") combining full-bleed photography, branded graphic devices, and coordinate-based ReportLab layout. Do NOT use for PowerPoint decks (use metis-pptx), whitepapers (use metis-whitepaper), one-pagers or internal reports (use metis-pdf-creator), or SOWs/MSAs (use metis-legal-drafting).
94
94%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Quality
Discovery
100%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is an excellent skill description that excels across all dimensions. It provides highly specific capabilities, comprehensive trigger terms covering both explicit keywords and contextual scenarios, clearly answers both what and when, and proactively prevents conflicts by naming adjacent skills that should be used instead. The 'Do NOT use for' section is a particularly strong differentiator that would help Claude disambiguate among related skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Lists multiple specific concrete actions: 'proposals, capability decks, and case studies,' specifies output format details (16:9 landscape PDF, 13.33" x 7.5", 10-25 pages, full-bleed photography, branded graphic devices, ReportLab layout), and explicitly names what it does NOT do. | 3 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (produce client-ready proposals, capability decks, case studies as branded landscape PDFs) and 'when' (explicit 'Use whenever' clause, detailed 'Trigger on' list, and 'Also trigger when' for contextual scenarios). Additionally includes 'Do NOT use for' with specific alternative skills. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including 'proposal,' 'premier proposal,' 'capabilities deck,' 'capabilities piece,' 'case study,' 'BD follow-up,' 'build the proposal,' and contextual triggers like 'transcript, prospect, champion, buyer, SVP, CDO, CIO.' These are terms users would naturally use in a BD context. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Exceptionally distinctive with explicit negative boundaries listing five other skills by name (metis-pptx, metis-whitepaper, metis-pdf-creator, metis-legal-drafting, metis-capability-map) to prevent conflicts. The niche of BD proposals with specific output format is very clear. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 12 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a strong, battle-tested skill that encodes real lessons learned from production failures. The workflow is exceptionally clear with proper validation gates, the actionability is high with concrete commands and schemas, and the progressive disclosure is well-structured across reference files. Minor weaknesses include some redundancy in planning warnings, the presence of git merge conflict markers at the bottom, and a few sections that could be tightened for conciseness.
Suggestions
Remove the git merge conflict markers (<<<<<<< HEAD / ======= / >>>>>>>) at the bottom of the file — these are literal noise that could confuse execution.
Consolidate the repeated 'plan before coding' warnings (appears in Workflow step 2, Activation section, and closing paragraph) into a single prominent callout to save tokens.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is fairly long (~300 lines) but most content is genuinely novel domain knowledge (mode differences, YAML structure, QA checklist, deployment paths, lessons learned). Some sections could be tightened — e.g., the repeated warnings about planning-first and the Citi engagement anecdotes appear multiple times. The git merge conflict markers at the bottom are noise. However, it largely avoids explaining things Claude already knows. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Highly actionable throughout: concrete bash commands for building and verification, specific YAML schema with required fields, exact file paths for reference implementations, a detailed QA checklist with specific rules (no em dashes, no contractions, exactly 3 next steps), mode-specific starter scripts, and precise dimensions/file size targets. The guidance is copy-paste ready and leaves little ambiguity. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 9-step workflow is clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: mechanical QA with multiple verification modes (overlaps, repetition, titles, visual render), a three-pass polish process, a content rules checklist, and a strong gate ('never declare done without visual verification'). The feedback loop is explicit — fix and re-validate. The brief-before-YAML gate prevents the documented failure mode of premature coding. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Excellent progressive disclosure: the main skill provides a clear overview and workflow, then points to 8 well-organized reference files (narrative-planning, polish-pass, architecture, page-patterns, brand-standards, content-rules, qa-process, failure-modes) — all one level deep with clear descriptions. Scripts are listed separately. The inline content is appropriately scoped to what's needed for the overview. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents