AC upwork-proposal-coach
Coach freelancers on writing winning Upwork proposals (and equivalents on Fiverr Pro, Toptal, Contra, Catalant) — diagnose why proposals get ignored, rewrite them with hooks that win first-line review, structure pricing and scoping, and choose which jobs to actually bid on. Knows the 2026 Upwork algorithm: connects, JSS, BSS, profile completeness, top-rated badges, response time, and how to game the search ranking ethically. Also covers proposal rewrites for cold outbound on LinkedIn/email when Upwork dries up. Use when asked to write or improve an Upwork proposal, raise interview rate, set Upwork pricing, structure a proposal template, choose between hourly and fixed bids, evaluate if a job is worth bidding, fix low JSS, or migrate clients off-platform. Triggers on "upwork proposal", "fiverr gig", "freelance proposal", "win clients", "interview rate", "JSS", "fixed bid", "hourly bid", "freelance bidding", "upwork algorithm", "off-platform clients".
As a process C 58/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: inputs and preconditions, failures and branches, running it twice
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 2. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
- warning
frontmatter-yamlSKILL.md: the frontmatter is not valid YAML (YAML parse error: Nested mappings are not allowed in compact mappings at line 2, column 14: description: Coach freelancers on writing winning Upwork proposals (and equival… ^ ); fields were read line by line. The usual cause is a colon inside an unquoted value
Process rating: all ten parameters 58/100
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 30Running it twice. 9 mutating operations with no state check
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
- 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
- 100Steps. 79 steps
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2540 tokens
- low 13 top-level sections: this looks like several domains in one skill
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Description length 963: 120–800 characters recommended
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +5Description quotes 10 example trigger phrases
- +4Structure: 18 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 79 items
- +3Output format is stated explicitly
- +4Has examples (3 code blocks)
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 79.