CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sales-engineer

Analyzes RFP/RFI responses for coverage gaps, builds competitive feature comparison matrices, and plans proof-of-concept (POC) engagements for pre-sales engineering. Use when responding to RFPs, bids, or proposal requests; comparing product features against competitors; planning or scoring a customer POC or sales demo; preparing a technical proposal; or performing win/loss competitor analysis. Handles tasks described as 'RFP response', 'bid response', 'proposal response', 'competitor comparison', 'feature matrix', 'POC planning', 'sales demo prep', or 'pre-sales engineering'.

72

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

The risk profile of this skill

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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.

The body is well-structured with a strong, validated 5-phase workflow and clean progressive disclosure. Its main weakness is actionability: the inline validation snippets reference output keys the scripts do not actually produce, so they would fail on copy-paste, and there is some redundancy between the phase walkthroughs and the tool-reference section.

Suggestions

Fix the validation snippets to match the scripts' actual output schema: use result['coverage_summary']['overall_coverage_percentage'] and result['coverage_summary']['must_have_gaps'] (and requirements_detail) instead of top-level coverage_score/must_have_requirements, and use result['go_no_go_framework']['recommendation_logic'] instead of a top-level recommendation key.

Remove the redundancy between the per-phase 'Tools' command blocks and the later 'Python Automation Tools' section, or have the phases link to that section instead of repeating usage.

Move the inline validation Python one-liners into the analyzer/POC scripts as a `--check` or `--validate` flag so the SKILL.md checkpoints stay copy-paste correct as the scripts evolve.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with executable commands and checklists, but the standalone 'Python Automation Tools' section re-describes usage and scoring logic already shown inline in the phases, and several inline Python one-liners could be folded into the scripts. Minor over-explanation keeps it just below 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Provides concrete `python` commands, but the validation-checkpoint snippets are not executable as written: Phase 1 reads `r['coverage_score']` and `r['must_have_requirements']` and Phase 4 reads `p['recommendation']`, yet the scripts emit `coverage_summary.overall_coverage_percentage`, `requirements_detail`, and `go_no_go_framework` — so the copy-paste code would raise KeyError. This drops it below 'copy-paste ready'.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-phase sequence with explicit validation checkpoints and thresholds ('Coverage score must be >50% and must-have gaps ≤3'), plus feedback loops ('if score <60% ... loop back to Phase 2') and per-phase checklists, matching the top anchor.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is an overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references: three reference docs, five asset templates, and three scripts are listed in tables, and the referenced files exist and contain substantive content rather than redirect stubs. Navigation is easy.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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.

The description is excellent: it states several concrete capabilities, gives an explicit 'Use when...' clause, and lists natural trigger terms with synonyms. Third-person voice is maintained throughout. No material weaknesses identified.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'Analyzes RFP/RFI responses for coverage gaps, builds competitive feature comparison matrices, and plans proof-of-concept (POC) engagements' — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities.

5 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both 'what' (analyzes coverage gaps, builds matrices, plans POCs) and 'when' via a concrete 'Use when responding to RFPs, bids, or proposal requests; ...' clause with concrete trigger phrases.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural trigger terms with synonyms and variants — 'RFP response', 'bid response', 'proposal response', 'competitor comparison', 'feature matrix', 'POC planning', 'sales demo prep', 'pre-sales engineering' — the phrases users would actually say.

5 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear pre-sales/RFP niche with distinct, domain-specific triggers that would not collide with adjacent skills; minimal conflict risk.

5 / 5

Total

20

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

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.