SKILLEMALL.ai
GitHub ↗ RU Sign in

AC win-loss-analysis

Analyze why deals are won and lost and turn it into an action plan. Use when asked to run a win/loss analysis, review closed-won and closed-lost deals, understand why the team is losing to a competitor, or summarize sales feedback into patterns. Produces a structured win/loss report with themes, win/loss rates by segment and competitor, representative quotes, and prioritized actions for product, marketing, and sales.

mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills Agent Skills author: mohitagw15856 MIT 2 files body ≈ 1 061 tokens Open the sourcegithub.com↗ analyzed 2 d ago

Analyze why deals are won and lost and turn it into an action plan.

As a process C 64/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: when it triggers, failures and branches, running it twice

AnalyzerData and analyticsWriting and documentstype 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
A
96/100
safety, quality, tests
Safety 60%
100
Quality 40%
91
Run on models
none yet
Process rating
C
64/100
Has gaps
Failures and branches w 10
0
Progress reporting w 2
0
When it triggers w 12
20
the three weakest of ten parameters · all ten

The same skill appears in 2 more places: pm-claude-skills, pm-claude-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: 2. 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 64/100

    • 0Failures and branches. Linear process with no failure handling
    • 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
    • 20When it triggers. No condition that starts the skill
    • 30Running it twice. 1 mutating operations with no state check
    • 60Result and completion. Output format stated, no completion criterion
    • 70Inputs and preconditions. Inputs and preconditions are listed
    • 85Steps. 31 steps, 1 vague phrases
    • 100Tools and files. No external tools needed
    • 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
    • 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 1061 tokens
    • low 14 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

    • +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
    • +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
    • +1No license
    • +2Single-language instructions
    • +3Description length 420: enough signal without eating the budget
    • +4Structure: 16 headings
    • +3Step-by-step instructions: 31 items
    • +3Output format is stated explicitly
    • +4Has examples (0 code blocks)
    • +4Reference files are cited in the instructions (1 of 1)

    Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 91.