alihusains
UserDepartment-ready Claude Skills for engineering, IT, data, HR, finance, legal, marketing, sales, product and operations. Measured before they ship. Works with any agent.
Categories
Indexed Skills (37)
cross-functional-deck-assembly
Turns finished material — an analysis, a document, a set of findings — into a deck: one message per slide, the evidence that supports each message named, an explicit cut list, and the rule that a slide with no takeaway line is not finished. Use when existing work has to become slides for a meeting, and when a draft deck is bloated, unsequenced, or ends without an ask. Trigger on 'turn this into a deck', 'build slides from this', 'make a presentation out of this analysis', 'tidy up these slides', 'we present this on Thursday', 'can you produce a pptx'. Not for preparing a governance pack where the decision rights and appendix split matter (use executive-board-pack-preparation), not for a recurring delivery update (use operations-project-status-report), and not for a customer-facing commercial proposal (use sales-proposal-assembly).
cross-functional-spreadsheet-build
Builds a spreadsheet somebody else will maintain: inputs, calculations and outputs on separate sheets, no constants buried inside formulas, a documented assumptions block, a checks sheet that fails loudly, and a written refresh procedure. Use when producing a model, tracker, budget, forecast, pricing sheet, reconciliation or allocation workbook that will be reopened next month by someone who did not build it. Trigger on 'build me a spreadsheet', 'make this into an Excel model', 'turn this into a workbook', 'build a forecast/budget/pricing model', 'can you produce an xlsx', 'this sheet keeps breaking'. Not for checking numbers already produced by a report or dashboard (use data-analytics-report-qa), not for agreeing what a metric means before it is modelled (use data-analytics-metric-definition), and not for writing the narrative that accompanies a variance (use finance-budget-vs-actual-commentary).
support-ticket-triage
Agent-assist triage for an inbound customer contact: classifies it as incident, request, question or complaint, sets severity from customer impact rather than tone, routes it to the owning queue first time, and drafts a reply for a human agent to review, edit and send. It never sends, closes, refunds, promises or auto-resolves anything. Use when a ticket, chat or email arrives and needs classifying and routing, when a support queue has backed up and needs ordering, when a ticket keeps bouncing between teams, or when several contacts look like one underlying fault. Trigger on 'triage this ticket', 'what severity is this', 'which team owns this', 'draft a reply to this customer', 'the support queue is backed up', 'is this a complaint'. Not for internal staff IT issues, which are it-service-desk-triage, and not for scoring an agent's handled conversations against a quality rubric.
data-analytics-metric-definition
Turns a metric name into a binding definition contract: the population, the qualifying event, the time grain, the timezone, the deduplication rule, restatement policy, and a single named owner. Use when two teams report different numbers for the same metric, when a new KPI is being introduced, when a dashboard figure cannot be reconciled with a report, or when a definition needs reviewing before it goes into a board pack. Trigger on 'what counts as an active user', 'our numbers do not match', 'define this metric', 'metric definition', 'why is the dashboard different from the report', 'source of truth for X'. Not for checking whether a specific report is correct before it ships — that is data-analytics-report-qa; not for reviewing the query that implements the definition, which is data-analytics-sql-review.
data-analytics-report-qa
The pre-publication check for any report, dashboard, or number going to decision-makers: freshness, completeness, reconciliation to an independent source, segment additivity, period-over-period sanity, and a statement of what the numbers cannot support. Use before a report ships, when a figure looks surprising, when a dashboard has quietly stopped updating, or when a stakeholder asks whether a number can be trusted. Trigger on 'check this report before I send it', 'does this number look right', 'sanity check these figures', 'the dashboard looks off', 'can we trust this number', 'QA the deck numbers'. Not for settling what a metric means when two teams disagree — that is data-analytics-metric-definition; not for reviewing query correctness and cost, which is data-analytics-sql-review.
data-analytics-sql-review
Reviews analytical SQL for correctness and cost: the join fan-out and row-loss traps, filters that silently change join semantics, window and grain errors, null and timezone handling, then scan volume, partition pruning, and predicate placement. Use when a query is about to feed a report or model, when results look wrong or duplicated, when a query is expensive or slow, or when reviewing someone else's analytical SQL. Trigger on 'review this query', 'why are my rows duplicated', 'this query is expensive', 'check my SQL', 'the join is wrong', 'why is this so slow'. Not for verifying a finished report's outputs against an independent source — that is data-analytics-report-qa; not for deciding what the metric should mean, which is data-analytics-metric-definition.
engineering-code-review
A prioritised code review procedure: read the change for intent first, then correctness, security, and operability, and write findings with a severity that says whether they block the merge. Use when reviewing a pull request or diff, when a review has stalled in nitpicks, or when a change needs a risk-appropriate depth of review. Trigger on 'review this PR', 'review my diff', 'is this safe to merge', 'what should I look for in this change', 'the review is going in circles'. Not for reviewing a live incident fix under time pressure — take the hotfix path in engineering-incident-command and review after; not for architectural direction on a change that has not been written yet, which is engineering-decision-record.
engineering-decision-record
Writes and reviews architecture decision records (ADRs): frames the decision as a forced choice, states the options actually considered with their real trade-offs, and records the consequences the team accepts. Use when a technical choice will be expensive to reverse, when a decision keeps being relitigated, when onboarding reveals nobody knows why a component exists, or when reviewing a draft ADR. Trigger on 'write an ADR', 'architecture decision record', 'document this decision', 'why did we choose X', 'we keep re-arguing this'. Not for decisions that are cheap to reverse — record those in the ticket; not for reviewing code that implements an already-accepted decision, which is engineering-code-review.
engineering-incident-postmortem
Runs a blameless incident post-mortem: reconstructs the timeline from evidence, separates trigger from cause from contributing conditions, and produces owned, dated remediation actions. Use when an incident, outage, degradation, or severe bug has been resolved and a written review is due, or when a draft post-mortem needs review before it goes to a review board. Trigger on 'write the post-mortem', 'RCA for the outage', 'incident review', 'five whys', 'what was the root cause', 'corrective actions for INC-'. Not for triaging an incident that is still live — that is engineering-incident-command; not for routine bug write-ups with no customer or availability impact, which belong in the ticket.
executive-board-pack-preparation
Prepares board, executive-committee or steering material to a governance standard: the decision being asked for stated on the first page, options with real trade-offs, the management recommendation and the reasoning behind it, risks that are actually risks, and a disciplined split between the main body and the appendix. Use when material is going to a board, an exec committee, a risk or audit committee, or any forum that takes minuted decisions. Trigger on 'board pack', 'paper for the board', 'exec committee paper', 'steerco decision paper', 'prepare for the risk committee', 'we need approval from the board for X'. Not for a recurring delivery status (use operations-project-status-report), not for building slides from a finished analysis (use cross-functional-deck-assembly), and not for drafting the policy or standard a board is being asked to approve (use legal-compliance-policy-drafting).
finance-budget-vs-actual-commentary
Turns a reconciled budget-versus-actual position into cost-centre commentary that a budget holder can act on: driver-based explanation, an explicit full-year implication for every variance, a named owner and action, and a hard refusal to write narrative for figures that were never supplied or were not reconciled first. Use when preparing budget-holder commentary, a monthly business review, a cost-centre pack, a forecast update, or when a budget owner asks what their overspend means for the year. Trigger on 'budget vs actual', 'BVA', 'cost centre commentary', 'forecast update', 'why are we over budget', 'management commentary', 'run rate'. Not for the reconciliation and period-over-period flux that must precede it (use finance-month-end-variance-analysis) or for judging whether a specific claim is policy-compliant (use finance-expense-policy-triage).
finance-expense-policy-triage
Triages expense claims against a supplied expense policy using a fixed disposition table, separates a policy breach from a tax or evidence problem, and escalates bribery, conflict-of-interest and fraud indicators out of the finance queue instead of deciding them. Refuses to rule on a claim when the policy text, the receipt evidence or the business purpose was not supplied. Use when reviewing a claim or a batch of claims, when a claimant disputes a rejection, when writing a rejection that must stand up, or when deciding whether a spend pattern needs escalation. Trigger on 'expense claim', 'is this claimable', 'expense policy', 'reject this claim', 'entertainment expense', 'gifts and hospitality', 'per diem', 'out of policy'. Not for explaining a cost-centre budget overrun (use finance-budget-vs-actual-commentary) or for month-end reconciliation (use finance-month-end-variance-analysis).
finance-month-end-variance-analysis
Runs month-end variance analysis in the only order that works: reconciliation first, explanation second, so that anything failing to tie out is reported as the finding rather than explained as a variance. Decomposes explained movement into price, volume, mix, timing, FX and one-off effects and refuses to produce commentary when the ledger, sub-ledger or prior-period figures were not supplied. Use at month-end or quarter-end close, when a P&L or cost line moved unexpectedly, when preparing the close pack, or when a reviewer asks why a number changed. Trigger on 'month-end', 'variance analysis', 'why did this line move', 'close pack', 'flux analysis', 'reconciliation', 'period-over-period'. Not for forward-looking budget narrative and forecast implications (use finance-budget-vs-actual-commentary) or for assessing individual expense claims (use finance-expense-policy-triage).
finance-reconciliation-exception-report
Reconciles two supplied sources — ledger to sub-ledger, bank to cash book, intercompany pair, processor settlement to billing — at item level, then produces the exception report: every break classified by cause (timing, missing entry, duplicate, FX, cut-off, genuine error), aged, quantified, and given a named owner and an action. Re-derives the match from the supplied data rather than accepting an asserted total, and never books, nets or plugs a difference. Use when two sources of the same balance disagree, when a reconciliation needs preparing or reviewing, when a control account will not tie, or when someone asks what the unreconciled difference consists of. Trigger on 'reconcile these', 'the balance does not tie', 'unreconciled difference', 'break analysis', 'exception report', 'bank rec', 'intercompany mismatch', 'suspense account'. Not for explaining why a reconciled P&L line moved period on period (use finance-month-end-variance-analysis) and not for deciding whether a single expense claim is payable (u
hr-job-description-authoring
Drafts and audits job descriptions against an inclusive-language checklist, an essential-versus-desirable split, and a job-evaluation grading rubric, then reports which grading factors are unevidenced rather than guessing a grade. Use when writing a new JD, refreshing an old one, checking a JD before it is posted, resolving a disagreement about which grade a role sits at, or auditing a set of adverts for exclusionary wording. Trigger on 'write a job description', 'review this JD', 'is this advert inclusive', 'what grade is this role', 'job spec', 'role profile', 'person specification'. Not for consolidating development gaps across an existing team (use hr-training-needs-analysis) or for writing objectives for someone already in post (use hr-performance-review-coaching).
hr-performance-review-coaching
Coaches a manager through writing evidence-based performance review text and SMART objectives, grading each objective against a rubric, naming the specific rating bias present in draft wording, and stopping rather than inventing evidence or a rating the manager has not supplied. Use when drafting or editing a performance review, writing or fixing objectives for the year, preparing for a calibration session, giving difficult feedback in writing, or checking whether a draft review is defensible. Trigger on 'performance review', 'write my objectives', 'SMART goals', 'appraisal', 'feedback for my report', 'calibration', 'is this objective any good'. Not for team-wide capability planning (use hr-training-needs-analysis) or for authoring the role profile itself (use hr-job-description-authoring).
hr-training-needs-analysis
Consolidates a team-level training needs analysis from evidenced capability gaps, separating genuine skill gaps from process, tooling and motivation problems that training cannot fix, and refusing to infer any individual's development need from job title, tenure or team average. Use when planning a learning budget, responding to an audit or regulator finding about competence, building a team capability plan, deciding whether to buy training, or consolidating individual development plans into one view. Trigger on 'training needs analysis', 'TNA', 'skills gap', 'capability assessment', 'learning plan', 'what training does the team need', 'development plan for the team'. Not for writing or grading a role profile (use hr-job-description-authoring) or for coaching a single person's objectives and review (use hr-performance-review-coaching).
it-access-review
Runs user access reviews and joiner-mover-leaver processing: reconciles entitlements against an authoritative people source, routes each item to the right approver, and closes the loop on revocations with evidence. Use when a periodic access recertification is due, when someone joins, changes role, or leaves, when an auditor asks who has access to a system, or when orphaned and privileged accounts need sweeping. Trigger on 'access review', 'user access recertification', 'joiner mover leaver', 'offboarding checklist', 'who has admin on X', 'orphaned accounts', 'entitlement review'. Not for granting a single new permission on request — that is it-service-desk-triage; not for deciding what a role should be entitled to in the first place, which is the role design that precedes this.
it-service-desk-triage
Triages inbound service desk contacts: separates incident from request from problem, sets priority from impact and urgency, routes to the right queue first time, and decides when to escalate or link tickets to a major incident. Use when a ticket arrives and needs classification, when a queue has backed up and needs prioritising, when reassignments keep bouncing a ticket between teams, or when several tickets look like one underlying fault. Trigger on 'triage this ticket', 'what priority is this', 'which team owns this', 'the queue is backed up', 'is this P1', 'ticket keeps bouncing'. Not for the periodic recertification of who should have access — that is it-access-review; not for scheduling the fix once it needs a controlled production change, which is it-change-management.
legal-compliance-contract-review
Produces a structured first-pass contract review: a clause inventory against the expected set for the contract type, non-standard terms flagged against the supplied playbook, missing provisions listed as absences, and every issue risk-graded with a proposed position — while never asserting a legal conclusion the supplied text does not support. Use when reviewing an inbound contract, comparing a counterparty's redlines to a fallback position, checking what is missing from a draft, triaging a queue of agreements, or preparing a summary for a qualified reviewer. Trigger on 'review this contract', 'check this MSA', 'what's missing from this agreement', 'redline', 'non-standard clause', 'NDA review', 'supplier agreement', 'terms and conditions review'. Not for drafting an internal policy or standard (use legal-compliance-policy-drafting) or for assessing a new rule's effect across the business (use legal-compliance-regulatory-change-impact).
legal-compliance-obligation-extraction
Turns a supplied regulation, rule, contract or policy instrument into an atomic obligation register: one row per obligation, each carrying its provision reference, the obligated party, the trigger that makes it bite, the deadline or frequency, the modality (must, must not, may), any carve-out, and the evidence that would demonstrate compliance. Extracts only from the supplied text and marks anything the text does not settle as an open question rather than resolving it. Use when a rule or contract must be turned into something trackable, when a compliance register or obligations matrix is being built, when a counterparty agreement needs its duties listed, or when an impact assessment needs a register it does not have. Trigger on 'extract the obligations', 'obligations register', 'what do we have to do under this', 'build the compliance matrix', 'list the duties in this contract', 'clause register'. Not for assessing what a regulatory change means for the business and what to remediate (use legal-compliance-reg
legal-compliance-policy-drafting
Drafts or revises an internal policy or standard with testable control statements, named accountable roles, a real exception route, and a mandatory self-audit that lists every change made to the source text — including changes nobody asked for — so a reviewer approves the actual diff rather than a summary of it. Use when writing a new policy or standard, implementing a regulatory change into internal rules, revising a policy after an audit finding or incident, harmonising conflicting policies, or preparing a policy for approval and publication. Trigger on 'draft a policy', 'update the standard', 'write the procedure', 'revise this policy', 'policy review', 'turn this into a standard', 'implement this rule internally'. Not for reviewing a counterparty contract (use legal-compliance-contract-review) or for assessing what a new regulation requires in the first place (use legal-compliance-regulatory-change-impact).
legal-compliance-questionnaire-response
Answers an inbound security questionnaire, vendor assessment, due diligence questionnaire or RFP compliance section from a maintained evidence library: every question mapped to a named source document, every answer marked SOURCED, NEEDS-SME or UNANSWERABLE, and anything amounting to a legal, security or regulatory attestation routed to the named human who is entitled to give it. Never composes a control the organisation does not demonstrably operate. Use when a prospect, client, counterparty, auditor or insurer sends a questionnaire, when an RFP contains a security or compliance annex, when a vendor assessment must be returned by a deadline, or when the answer library itself needs building or refreshing. Trigger on 'security questionnaire', 'DDQ', 'due diligence questionnaire', 'vendor assessment', 'RFP security section', 'SIG', 'client wants our controls', 'fill in this assessment'. Not for evaluating a vendor we are assessing (use operations-vendor-evaluation) and not for the commercial and pricing body of
legal-compliance-regulatory-change-impact
Converts a regulatory change into an atomic obligation register, tests applicability before assuming the rule bites, maps each obligation to the existing control that satisfies it, and produces a dated remediation plan — refusing to state what a rule requires from a summary, a press article, or memory rather than the supplied provision text. Use when a regulator publishes a new or amended rule, a consultation closes, a supervisory statement or guidance lands, a compliance deadline is approaching, or someone asks what a change means for the business. Trigger on 'new regulation', 'regulatory change', 'what does this rule mean for us', 'impact assessment', 'compliance deadline', 'gap analysis against the rules', 'guidance published'. Not for reviewing a commercial contract's clauses (use legal-compliance-contract-review) or for writing the internal policy that implements the change (use legal-compliance-policy-drafting).
marketing-campaign-brief
Writes a campaign brief that survives review — required fields, a single measurable primary objective, the audience-evidence check, and the named approval gate before any asset is produced. Use when someone asks to brief a campaign, launch, promotion, always-on channel push, or event marketing programme; trigger on 'write a campaign brief', 'brief the agency', 'we need a campaign for X', 'kick off the launch marketing'. Not for reviewing claims already written into copy (use marketing-claim-substantiation), not for organic search briefs (use marketing-seo-content-brief), and not for the product launch decision itself (use product-roadmap-communication).
marketing-claim-substantiation
Reviews marketing or client-facing copy claim by claim, classifies each claim type, demands a named and dated source, and returns a verdict of SUPPORTED, NEEDS-QUALIFIER, or UNSOURCED — never a rewrite that quietly weakens an unsupported claim. Use before publishing web copy, ads, decks, PR, or sales collateral; trigger on 'check these claims', 'is this copy compliant', 'can we say this', 'substantiate', 'legal review of the copy', 'we claim we are the fastest'. Not for writing the campaign that will carry the claims (use marketing-campaign-brief), not for search-intent content planning (use marketing-seo-content-brief), and not for verifying a metric's calculation logic (use data-analytics-metric-definition).
marketing-seo-content-brief
Builds a search content brief grounded in observed intent: classifies the query's intent, reads what currently ranks to infer what the searcher wants, sets the page type and the questions the page must answer, and defines internal linking and success measurement. Use when planning a page or article intended to earn organic search traffic; trigger on 'SEO brief', 'what should this page target', 'we want to rank for X', 'content brief for the blog', 'keyword research for this topic'. Not for paid campaign briefing (use marketing-campaign-brief), not for verifying claims inside the finished copy (use marketing-claim-substantiation), and not for technical crawl, indexation, or site-speed remediation.
operations-meeting-decision-capture
Converts a meeting transcript or set of notes into three separated lists — decisions made (with who decided and on what basis), actions with a named owner and a date, and open questions — applying one hard rule: an item with no named owner or no date is recorded as an unresolved discussion, never promoted into a decision or an action with an invented owner. Use after a meeting, a workshop, a steering committee or a stand-up when the notes need turning into something trackable, when 'what did we actually agree' is being asked, or when last meeting's actions need checking before the next one. Trigger on 'capture the decisions', 'turn these notes into actions', 'what did we agree', 'meeting minutes', 'action items from this call', 'who owns what after that meeting'. Not for writing the recurring project status report that these actions feed (use operations-project-status-report if present, otherwise the project owner) and not for recording an architectural or technical choice with its options and consequences (u
operations-process-mapping
Maps a real process into a swimlane by role, capturing every handoff, decision, wait, and rework loop, distinguishing the process as performed from the process as designed, and quantifying where time is actually lost. Use when a cross-team process is slow, error-prone, or disputed, or before documenting or automating it; trigger on 'map this process', 'draw the workflow', 'swimlane diagram', 'where does this get stuck', 'nobody agrees who does what here'. Not for writing the step-by-step instructions once the flow is agreed (use operations-sop-authoring), not for system architecture diagrams (use engineering-decision-record), and not for a product feature flow (use product-requirements-doc).
operations-project-status-report
Produces a recurring project or programme status that survives a steering group: a RAG rating with stated criteria rather than sentiment, an explicit diff against the last report, decisions needed FROM the reader each with an owner and a date, and the rule that a status green for six consecutive weeks is not a status. Use when assembling a weekly or monthly update from systems of record, when a status is written but reads as reassurance, or when a project went from green to red with nothing in between. Trigger on 'write the status report', 'weekly project update', 'steerco update', 'what do I tell the steering group', 'RAG status', 'update on the programme'. Not for the post-hoc analysis of something that already failed (use engineering-incident-postmortem), not for communicating a roadmap to a broad audience (use product-roadmap-communication), and not for a board pack where decision rights and options analysis are the substance (use executive-board-pack-preparation).
operations-sop-authoring
Writes and versions a standard operating procedure that a competent new person can execute unaided — scope, role prerequisites, numbered steps with decision points, exception handling, escalation, and a controlled version block with owner, effective date, and review cycle. Use when documenting a repeatable business process or revising an existing SOP; trigger on 'write an SOP', 'document this process', 'we need a runbook for X', 'update the procedure', 'this process only lives in one person's head'. Not for drawing the cross-team flow of a process (use operations-process-mapping), not for a one-off product requirement (use product-requirements-doc), and not for a technical change or deployment procedure (use it-change-management).
operations-vendor-evaluation
Runs a defensible vendor or tool selection: requirements weighted and agreed before any demo, a scoring rubric with written anchors, mandatory pass/fail gates for security, data protection and viability, evidence recorded per score, and total cost of ownership including exit. Use when choosing between suppliers, software, or outsourcing options; trigger on 'evaluate these vendors', 'which tool should we buy', 'build a comparison matrix', 'vendor scoring', 'we're renewing this contract, should we switch'. Not for responding to someone else's RFP as the seller (use sales-proposal-assembly), not for documenting the resulting operational process (use operations-sop-authoring), and not for an internal build-versus-buy technical design (use engineering-decision-record).
product-requirements-doc
Writes a PRD that states the problem with evidence, an explicit and enforced non-goals list, the decisions already made with their rationale, the open questions with owners and due dates, and the launch and rollback criteria. Use when a feature or product change needs a written requirements document before build; trigger on 'write a PRD', 'spec this feature', 'product requirements for X', 'what are we actually building', 'we need a one-pager before engineering starts'. Not for breaking an agreed PRD into implementable stories (use product-user-story-acceptance-criteria), not for communicating timeline commitments outward (use product-roadmap-communication), and not for system or interface design decisions (use engineering-decision-record).
product-roadmap-communication
Communicates a roadmap with commitment level attached to every item — committed, planned, or exploratory — using date precision that matches actual confidence, and a change-notification rule for when an item slips or is dropped. Use when preparing a roadmap update, a stakeholder or customer-facing plan, or an internal delivery outlook; trigger on 'roadmap update', 'what are we shipping this quarter', 'share the plan with the customer', 'stakeholders want dates', 'when will X be delivered'. Not for defining what a specific item is (use product-requirements-doc), not for breaking items into stories (use product-user-story-acceptance-criteria), and not for a commercial promise inside a contract or bid (use sales-proposal-assembly with your legal owner).
product-user-story-acceptance-criteria
Splits requirements into vertically sliced user stories and writes acceptance criteria a tester could execute without asking the author a question — observable, bounded, and covering the negative and edge paths, not just the happy path. Use when turning a PRD, epic, or feature request into backlog items, or when a story is rejected as unclear or untestable; trigger on 'write user stories', 'break this epic down', 'acceptance criteria for X', 'this ticket isn't clear enough', 'refine the backlog'. Not for authoring the requirements document itself (use product-requirements-doc), not for stakeholder-facing timelines (use product-roadmap-communication), and not for writing the test automation (that is an engineering task).
sales-discovery-preparation
Prepares a discovery call from real account research: builds an evidence-backed account picture, forms falsifiable hypotheses about the buyer's problem, writes a question plan that tests them, and sets the qualification and next-step criteria before the call. Use when preparing for a first or follow-up discovery meeting with a prospect or existing customer; trigger on 'prep me for this call', 'discovery call with X', 'research this account', 'what should I ask them', 'meeting with a prospect tomorrow'. Not for building the proposal or RFP response after discovery (use sales-proposal-assembly), not for market-level campaign audience work (use marketing-campaign-brief), and not for writing the standing sales process itself (use operations-sop-authoring).
sales-proposal-assembly
Assembles a proposal or RFP response around explicit win themes tied to the buyer's stated evaluation criteria, with a compliance matrix, an evidence-sourced claim register, a named answer owner per requirement, and a go/no-go decision before writing starts. Use when responding to an RFP, RFI, ITT, or tender, or when writing a solution proposal after discovery; trigger on 'respond to this RFP', 'write the proposal', 'bid/no-bid', 'tender response', 'put together a quote and scope for X'. Not for preparing the discovery meeting that produces the inputs (use sales-discovery-preparation), not for evaluating an incoming vendor's bid — that is the buy side (use operations-vendor-evaluation) — and not for substantiating individual claims in isolation (use marketing-claim-substantiation).
Bio shown is the top-scored skill's repo description as a fallback — real GitHub bios land in a future update.