When the user is a solo founder building their GTM motion, wants to scale without hiring, or needs to design an AI agent team for go-to-market. Also use when the user mentions 'solo founder,' 'one-person startup,' 'solopreneur,' 'bootstrapped,' 'no team,' 'AI agents as team,' 'scaling without hiring,' 'founder-led sales,' 'lean GTM,' 'one-person company,' or 'no employees.' This skill covers the complete solo founder GTM playbook from stack selection through agent team design, revenue-stage transitions, time allocation, and when to finally hire. Do NOT use for technical implementation, code review, or software architecture.
70
62%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./packages/skills-catalog/skills/(gtm)/solo-founder-gtm/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 when/what delineation, including helpful exclusion criteria. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion reads more as a list of topic areas rather than concrete actions the skill performs. The description would benefit from more action-oriented language describing specific outputs or deliverables.
Suggestions
Replace topic-area language with concrete action verbs, e.g., 'Designs AI agent team architectures for GTM, recommends tool stacks, creates revenue-stage transition plans, and advises on time allocation and first-hire timing.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | The description names the domain (solo founder GTM) and mentions several areas like 'stack selection,' 'agent team design,' 'revenue-stage transitions,' 'time allocation,' and 'when to finally hire,' but these are more like topic areas than concrete actions. It lacks specific verbs describing what the skill actually does (e.g., 'designs agent workflows,' 'creates GTM playbooks,' 'recommends hiring timelines'). | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | The description clearly answers both 'what' (complete solo founder GTM playbook covering stack selection, agent team design, revenue-stage transitions, time allocation, hiring decisions) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' triggers and a 'Do NOT use' exclusion clause). The when-clause is thorough with multiple trigger scenarios. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms including 'solo founder,' 'one-person startup,' 'solopreneur,' 'bootstrapped,' 'no team,' 'AI agents as team,' 'scaling without hiring,' 'founder-led sales,' 'lean GTM,' 'one-person company,' and 'no employees.' These are terms users would naturally use when seeking this kind of help. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | The description carves out a very specific niche (solo founder GTM with AI agents) and explicitly excludes technical implementation, code review, and software architecture, which reduces conflict risk with developer-oriented skills. The combination of 'solo founder' + 'GTM' + 'AI agent team' is highly distinctive. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
35%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a comprehensive strategic reference for solo founder GTM but suffers significantly from verbosity—it reads more like a blog post or playbook than a concise skill instruction. While it contains genuinely useful frameworks, thresholds, and decision tables, much of the content explains concepts Claude already understands and could be condensed by 60-70%. The lack of executable implementation details (no actual agent configs, no automation code, no API examples) limits its actionability despite having good strategic specificity.
Suggestions
Cut content by at least 50%: remove explanatory prose Claude already knows (e.g., 'Personal brand is the cheapest, highest-converting acquisition channel'), eliminate the redundant 'Questions to Ask' section (duplicates 'Before Starting'), and collapse the Quick Reference into the relevant sections rather than repeating data.
Split detailed reference tables (tool stack, agent definitions, enterprise features to skip, content cadence) into separate linked files, keeping only the decision logic and key thresholds in the main SKILL.md.
Add validation checkpoints to the revenue stage transitions: specify concrete metrics that signal readiness to move to the next stage, and what to do if metrics aren't met (e.g., 'Do not move to Stage 3 until you have 3 consecutive months of channel-attributed growth').
Replace the abstract agent workflow descriptions with concrete implementation snippets—e.g., an actual Clay enrichment waterfall config, an n8n workflow JSON skeleton, or specific API prompt templates for the Writing Agent.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | This is extremely verbose at 500+ lines. It explains concepts Claude already knows (what building in public means, what a CRM does, why free users give bad feedback), includes extensive tables that could be summarized, and repeats information across sections (e.g., time splits appear in both the stage playbook and quick reference). The 'Before Starting' questions, 'Questions to Ask', and examples sections are largely redundant with each other. | 1 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides concrete tool recommendations, specific metrics/thresholds, and decision frameworks with clear criteria, which is good. However, it lacks executable implementation details—there are no actual agent configurations, no API call examples, no automation workflow definitions. The agent team section names tools but doesn't show how to wire them together. It's more of a strategic reference than step-by-step executable guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The revenue stage playbook provides a clear progression with time splits and priorities at each stage, and the founder-led sales process has a good sequential flow. However, there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops—no 'check if this channel is working before moving on' criteria, no explicit 'if this metric is below X, go back to step Y' guidance. The agent deployment order is listed but lacks verification steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The Related Skills section at the end provides good cross-references to other skills, and the content is organized into numbered sections. However, the SKILL.md itself is monolithic—much of the detailed content (agent definitions, enterprise features to skip, content cadence tables) could be split into separate reference files. The skill tries to be both overview and comprehensive reference, resulting in a very long single document. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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.
906a57d
Table of Contents
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.