partner-affiliate
When the user wants to build a partner program, launch an affiliate program, design integration partnerships, or create distribution partnerships. Also use when the user mentions 'partnerships,' 'affiliate program,' 'referral program,' 'partner ecosystem,' 'integration partner,' 'reseller,' 'co-marketing,' 'PartnerStack,' or 'revenue share.' This skill covers partner and affiliate program design from recruitment through performance optimization. Do NOT use for technical implementation, code review, or software architecture.
81
76%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./packages/skills-catalog/skills/(gtm)/partner-affiliate/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
89%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 a strong skill description with excellent trigger term coverage and clear completeness, explicitly addressing both what the skill does and when to use it. The negative boundary clause is a nice addition that reduces conflict risk. The main weakness is that the specificity of concrete actions could be improved—rather than saying it 'covers partner and affiliate program design from recruitment through performance optimization,' it could list specific deliverables or actions.
Suggestions
Replace the broad capability statement with specific concrete actions, e.g., 'Designs partner tiers and incentive structures, creates affiliate onboarding workflows, builds referral tracking frameworks, and optimizes partner performance metrics.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (partner/affiliate programs) and mentions some actions like 'build,' 'launch,' 'design,' and 'create,' but the core capability statement ('covers partner and affiliate program design from recruitment through performance optimization') is fairly broad rather than listing multiple specific concrete actions. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (partner and affiliate program design from recruitment through performance optimization) and 'when' (explicit trigger terms and use-case scenarios listed). Also includes a helpful negative boundary ('Do NOT use for technical implementation, code review, or software architecture'). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms users would say: 'partnerships,' 'affiliate program,' 'referral program,' 'partner ecosystem,' 'integration partner,' 'reseller,' 'co-marketing,' 'PartnerStack,' 'revenue share.' These are terms users would naturally use when seeking help in this domain. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a clear niche around partnership and affiliate program strategy with highly specific trigger terms like 'PartnerStack,' 'reseller,' 'co-marketing,' and 'revenue share.' The explicit exclusion of technical implementation further reduces conflict risk with engineering-focused skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
62%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill provides exceptionally actionable and well-structured guidance for partner program design with specific numbers, frameworks, and decision trees. However, it is significantly over-verbose—much of the educational context (why co-creation wins, model comparisons) could be cut or moved to reference files, and several tables contain information that Claude could derive from simpler rules. The progressive disclosure is partially implemented but the main file still carries too much detail inline.
Suggestions
Cut the educational/explanatory prose (e.g., 'The partner landscape has shifted decisively...', 'Integration partnerships have become the fastest-growing...') — Claude doesn't need persuasion, just instructions.
Move detailed reference tables (commission structures by revenue model, clawback policies, platform comparison) into `references/quick-reference.md` and keep only the decision frameworks and tier summaries in the main skill.
Condense the model comparison section into a brief decision rule (e.g., 'Under $500 ACV → affiliate; complex enterprise → integration+solution; platform with API → co-creation') rather than a full explanatory table plus a second 'when to use' table.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is extremely verbose at ~300+ lines. It explains concepts Claude already knows (what co-creation ecosystems are, why integration partnerships win, general partnership landscape shifts). The 'Co-Creation vs. Traditional Partner Models' section is largely educational rather than instructional. Many tables repeat information that could be condensed significantly. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The content provides highly specific, concrete guidance: exact commission percentages by tier and revenue model, specific platform recommendations with pricing, a detailed launch checklist with day-by-day timelines, scoring models with exact weights and point values, and clear decision trees. The examples section shows concrete input→output patterns. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit timelines: the affiliate launch checklist has week-by-week phases, the integration partner onboarding has a clear 4-step process with week ranges, and the platform decision tree provides unambiguous branching logic. Validation checkpoints exist (Month 2 analysis, monthly partner syncs, QBR cadence). | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references external files (`references/implementation-guide.md` and `references/quick-reference.md`) and has a related skills table, which is good. However, the main file itself is a wall of content that could benefit from moving detailed tables (commission structures, clawback policies, platform comparisons) into reference files, keeping only the framework and decision logic in the main skill. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.
- Repository
- tech-leads-club/agent-skills
- Commit
81e7e0d
- 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.