SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

BB proposal-writer

Write a client proposal, quote, scope of work, or engagement letter for a service business. Covers project understanding, scope, timeline, pricing presentation, and terms. Use whenever the user asks for a proposal, quote, project proposal, client proposal, SOW, statement of work, engagement letter, or B2B service engagement document — for web dev, consulting, trades, or any service business.

jezweb/claude-skills Agent Skills author: jezweb 1 file body ≈ 2 754 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 31 h ago

Write a client proposal, quote, scope of work, or engagement letter for a service business.

As a process B 77/100 · Nearly there — weak spots: running it twice, progress reporting

GeneratorWordPressSales and CRMtype and topics are labelled automatically from the skill text
Runs in: Claude / Claude Code ChatGPT / Codex Gemini CLI Cursor GitHub Copilot / VS Code Qwen Code Kimi Code CLI Z.ai (GLM) DeepSeek (Deep Code) Mistral Vibe LangChain (deepagents) OpenClaw Goose OpenCode
JSON
Technical rating
B
93/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
83
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
B
77/100
Nearly there
Progress reporting w 2
0
Running it twice w 4
30
Result and completion w 14
60
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten
This is a copy of a skill from another catalog; the rating counts the canonical one: proposal-writer (Lord1Egypt/RA-Skills)

How to improve

    For the model run — optional
    • 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: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.

    Against the Agent Skills spec

    ✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec

    Process rating: all ten parameters 77/100

    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 30Running it twice. 4 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 65Failures and branches. 3 branches
    • 70When it triggers. States when to use, but not when not to
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 21 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 2754 tokens

    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

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +4No input/output examples
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 394: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 15 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 21 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 83.