proof-point-packager

Use when the user asks to "package our proof points", "build reusable stat cards and case snippets", or "put proof where each pillar makes its claim"; turns claims-ledger-approved proofs into reusable proof modules — stat cards, case snippets, testimonial blocks, comparison proofs — each pinned to a message-house pillar and the ledger claim ID it substantiates, and flags any pillar making a claim with no approved proof behind it. Never adjudicates a proof: unverified or ledger-absent proofs are marked '[needs source]' and routed to the claims candidates. Not for adjudicating or substantiating claims — use offer-claims-registry; not for fabricating a benchmark to fill a gap — a missing proof is flagged, not invented; not for scoring narrative quality — use narrative-quality-auditor. 证据模块/证据卡/客户案例/主张对齐

Quality

83%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Quality

Content

67%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A well-structured skill contract with concrete module forms, precise memory-path routing, and a gated 6-step workflow ending in a self-check. Main weaknesses are restated handoff/scope content across sections and deferred output templates rather than inline examples.

Suggestions

Consolidate the handoff-to-narrative-quality-auditor and scope-guard statements so each appears once (e.g., keep them in Skill Contract / Next Best Skill and trim the intro paragraph) to reduce redundancy.

Inline a minimal proof-module output template (stat card / case snippet / testimonial block / comparison proof) instead of deferring entirely to skill-contract.md, so the packaging step is copy-paste ready.

Add an explicit fix-and-retry branch to the self-check step (what to do when a module is missing a claim ID or an uncleared comparison is found) to close the workflow validation loop.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Mostly efficient contract prose with no concept-padding, but the handoff relationships (esp. narrative-quality-auditor as primary next skill) and scope-guard clauses are restated across the intro, Skill Contract, Reference Materials, and Next Best Skill sections and could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	Concrete, executable guidance — specific module forms ('stat card: one metric, its Measured/User-provided source, as-of date', 'case snippet: situation → what changed → result'), exact memory paths, and explicit event routing ('operation: propose request to registry-events.py') — but output templates are deferred to skill-contract.md rather than shown inline.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A clear 6-step sequence with an early NEEDS_INPUT stop ('If no message house exists, stop'), an inline gate ('A module with no claim ID does not ship'), and a self-check checklist; minor gap is that no explicit fix-and-retry loop is given when a self-check fails.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Well-signaled one-level-deep references with a dedicated Reference Materials section and inline links, but no bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets to verify, and the same links recur across multiple sections (a minor organization gap).	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

100%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, third-person description that pairs concrete proof-module actions with quoted natural-language triggers and crisp negative-scope disambiguation against sibling skills. It answers what, when, and what-not comprehensively.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'stat cards, case snippets, testimonial blocks, comparison proofs', pinning each 'to a message-house pillar and the ledger claim ID it substantiates', and 'flags any pillar making a claim with no approved proof' — giving comprehensive coverage of what the skill produces.	5 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ('turns claims-ledger-approved proofs into reusable proof modules … and flags any pillar making a claim with no approved proof') and when ('Use when the user asks to …') with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Quotes natural user phrases directly — 'package our proof points', 'build reusable stat cards and case snippets', 'put proof where each pillar makes its claim' — alongside synonyms (proof points, stat cards, case snippets, testimonial blocks, comparison proofs).	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Occupies a clear niche and explicitly disambiguates from siblings — 'Not for adjudicating or substantiating claims — use offer-claims-registry', 'not for scoring narrative quality — use narrative-quality-auditor' — minimizing wrong-skill triggering.	5 / 5
	Total	20 / 20 Passed

Validation

81%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 13 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_field	'metadata' should map string keys to string values	Warning
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning
relative_links	Relative link issues: 33 suspicious	Warning

	Total	13 / 16 Passed

Repository: aaron-he-zhu/aaron-marketing-skills
Path: narrative/land/proof-point-packager/SKILL.md
Commit: 888dd38

Reviewed: 6 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.