← ClaudeAtlas

giveaway-random-drawlisted

Run or plan a provably fair random draw for a giveaway: commit to the Entrant list and rules before the seed exists, take the seed from a public randomness beacon (drand or NIST) or a published value, pick Winners from a list, CSV, spreadsheet or comment export with deduplication, exclusions, entry weights, tiers and backups, and produce an audit record anyone can verify. Use when the user asks 'pick a Winner', 'draw the Winner', 'random Winner from this list', 'choose 3 Winners from these comments', 'how do I prove the draw was fair', 'redraw', 'backup Winners', 'weighted draw', or pastes a list of Entrants. Platform-neutral. For deciding how many Winners and the terms see giveaway-winner-structure.
Crowd9/giveaway-skills · ★ 2 · Web & Frontend · score 78
Install: claude install-skill Crowd9/giveaway-skills
# Giveaway Random Draw Pick Winners in a way the organizer can prove: a commitment to the list and rules published before the seed exists, a seed nobody controls, a hash-ranked draw anyone can recompute, and a written record. Cost is zero and it needs no account with any service. ## What to ask first <!-- generated:asking --> Answer first, ask second. A message that names a task is a request for the work, so do the work. "Walk me through it", "give me ideas", "how long should it run" and a three-word request are all asking you to deliver. Build the best version the message supports, then put the questions that would change it at the end, each one saying what it would change. A reader who wanted an interview would have asked for one. Missing facts narrow the answer, they never cancel it. When you do not know the budget, give the shape of the recommendation and the typical figures for a campaign like theirs, and say the pricing waits on their number. When you do not know the country, give everything that does not turn on it. A reader who cannot get the whole answer should still leave holding the yardstick: what a typical campaign looks like, what the default is, and what would move them off it. Handing back only questions is the one outcome to avoid, because the reader came with a question of their own and leaves with nothing. The only facts worth stopping for are the ones that would make you actively wrong: a legal or platform rule that turns on a country nobody has named