[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6QM96RT888BGEAE4T4XTWKT":3,"skill-same:01M6QM96RT888BGEAE4T4XTWKT":78},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":39,"linkOnly":40,"markdownContent":41,"markdownBody":42,"frontMatter":43,"refName":55,"commitSha":56,"skillDirectory":57,"forksCount":14,"repositoryHtmlUrl":58,"repositoryHomepageUrl":59,"ownerHtmlUrl":60,"ownerBlogUrl":61,"ownerDescription":62,"updatedAt":63,"install":64,"resources":77},"01M6QM96RT888BGEAE4T4XTWKT","partnerships-architect",null,"Use when a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner, at what partner tier (referral \u002F reseller \u002F OEM \u002F SI-consulting \u002F strategic alliance), with what joint GTM commitment, and at what revshare. Classifies partner tier from independent-demand evidence vs. preferential-terms hunting, designs a 90-day joint GTM plan, models revshare against direct-sale margin, and surfaces kill criteria for unwinding under-performing partnerships. For Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs doing reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review — not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A.","Tashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6","Tashima-Tarsh","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F269906498?v=4","01M6PBH98X03XERH0HFT4PFB1P","NITISH KUMAR","01M6PBH9DA0M6KM3Z12P848F0K",0,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fpartnerships-architect\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38],"architect","partnerships architect","partnerships","oem","referral","for","at","strategic","models","cost","use","strategic-alliance","reseller","gemini","revshare","joint-gtm","channel-partners","decide","plan","partners","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: partnerships-architect\ndescription: \"Use when a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner, at what partner tier (referral \u002F reseller \u002F OEM \u002F SI-consulting \u002F strategic alliance), with what joint GTM commitment, and at what revshare. Classifies partner tier from independent-demand evidence vs. preferential-terms hunting, designs a 90-day joint GTM plan, models revshare against direct-sale margin, and surfaces kill criteria for unwinding under-performing partnerships. For Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs doing reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review — not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A.\"\nversion: 2.8.0\nauthor: claude-code-skills\nlicense: MIT\ntags: [commercial, partnerships, channel-partners, joint-gtm, revshare, oem, reseller, strategic-alliance]\ncompatible_tools: [claude-code, codex-cli, cursor, antigravity, opencode, gemini-cli]\n---\n\n# partnerships-architect\n\n## Purpose\n\nHelp Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs answer four questions when a\nprospective partner shows up:\n\n1. **Is this a real partner, or someone hunting preferential terms without independent demand?**\n2. **At what tier should we sign them?** (Referral \u002F Reseller \u002F OEM \u002F SI-Consulting \u002F Strategic Alliance)\n3. **What's the 90-day joint GTM plan that proves the partnership works?**\n4. **What revshare makes economic sense — and at what point does the partnership beat direct sale?**\n\nThe skill emits a tier verdict + GTM plan + revshare band with explicit kill criteria. It\ndoes **not** sign the deal. The human, after running this skill, decides.\n\n## When to use\n\n- A prospective partner has approached and asked for reseller \u002F OEM \u002F \"strategic\" terms\n- You're designing a new partner program tier structure\n- You're reviewing an existing partnership that's underperforming and need to decide: re-tier, restructure GTM, or unwind\n- A Big Logo wants a \"strategic alliance\" — and you need to validate it's real, not vendor-lock theatre\n- A consulting firm or SI wants services revshare on your product\n- A platform vendor offers OEM \u002F white-label and you need to model the math\n- You suspect \"partner-sourced\" deals are actually your own pipeline being skimmed for margin\n\n**Do not use for:**\n- Technical demos and POCs → `business-growth\u002Fsales-engineer`\n- Cost-to-serve and ROI math on existing channel → sibling `channel-economics`\n- Whole-company revenue strategy → `c-level-advisor\u002Fcro-advisor`\n- Acquiring a company instead of partnering → `c-level-advisor\u002Fma-playbook`\n- Per-deal discount approval inside a signed partner contract → `deal-desk`\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1 — Intake (≈ 20 min)\n\nFill `assets\u002Fpartnership_intake_template.md`. Capture: partner_name, partner_type, evidence\nof independent demand (named accounts they've sourced, end-customer relationships,\ntheir sales team size), strategic value (geo \u002F product \u002F brand \u002F channel economics),\ncommitments they've offered (joint marketing spend, dedicated headcount, certification,\nsales targets).\n\nIf the intake template can't be honestly filled out, the prospective partner has not\ndemonstrated enough substance to evaluate. Stop. Go back to them.\n\n### Step 2 — Tier classify\n\nRun `scripts\u002Fpartner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown`.\nOutput ranks the partner into 1 of 5 tiers — REFERRAL \u002F RESELLER \u002F OEM \u002F SI-CONSULTING \u002F\nSTRATEGIC — with deterministic floors. STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND\nmulti-year commit AND dedicated resources. Skill emits rationale + kill criteria.\n\n### Step 3 — Joint GTM plan\n\nRun `scripts\u002Fjoint_gtm_planner.py --input gtm.json --profile saas --output markdown`.\nOutput: 90-day plan with pre-launch milestones (training, certification, materials),\nlaunch motion (target accounts, sales play, MDF allocation), mid-quarter checkpoint, and\n90-day success criteria. Validates: cannot plan channel-led GTM for REFERRAL tier; cannot\nplan white-label for non-OEM tier.\n\n### Step 4 — Revshare model\n\nRun `scripts\u002Frevshare_modeler.py --input revshare.json --output markdown`. Computes\nmargin per deal direct vs. via partner, recommended revshare % band based on partner\ncontribution depth (sourced > influenced > delivered), break-even partner ROI, and\nlong-term economics — at projected scale, does partner economics beat direct?\n\n### Step 5 — Decide\n\nTake tier + GTM plan + revshare band into the partnership committee. Skill does not sign\nthe partner — you do. Document kill criteria in the contract so the unwind is mechanical\nwhen triggered.\n\n## Scripts\n\n- `scripts\u002Fpartner_tier_classifier.py` — 5-tier classifier with deterministic floors per tier\n- `scripts\u002Fjoint_gtm_planner.py` — 90-day joint GTM plan generator with tier-validated motion\n- `scripts\u002Frevshare_modeler.py` — revshare band + break-even ROI + long-term economics\n\nAll scripts: stdlib only. `--help` and `--sample` work on all three.\n\n## Quick example\n\n```bash\n# Emits a 5-tier partner classification with deterministic floors per tier for the built-in sample partner\ncd commercial\u002Fskills\u002Fpartnerships-architect && python3 scripts\u002Fpartner_tier_classifier.py --sample\n```\n\n## References\n\n- `references\u002Fchannel_partner_canon.md` — Caro on HP indirect channels, Chintagunta on channel economics, Hessling on partner programs, Forrester channel software stack, IDC channel research, Tien Tzuo subscription-channel models, Geoffrey Moore whole-product partnerships\n- `references\u002Fjoint_gtm_canon.md` — Aaron Ross *Predictable Revenue* (cold-source vs partner), Winning by Design, Jay McBain on co-sell, Microsoft Partner Network playbook, AWS Partner Network research, SiriusDecisions partner benchmarks, Bridge Group SaaS partner data\n- `references\u002Fpartnership_anti_patterns.md` — Forrester partner-led-from-your-pipeline research, Tom Tunguz on channel conflict, Hessling failure analyses, MIT Sloan on disproportionate strategic revshare, HP channel post-mortems, IBM channel-conflict cases, Salesforce AppExchange research\n\n## Assumptions\n\n- A partner who cannot produce evidence of independent demand (named accounts, end-customer\n  relationships, their own sales team) is hunting preferential terms, not a partner.\n- Industry profiles (`--profile`) tune defaults — they don't override your data.\n- Revshare % bands are recommendations; the contract negotiation, MDF policy, and\n  exclusivity terms are human commercial decisions outside this skill.\n- \"Partner-sourced\" requires the partner to have introduced the deal AND owned the\n  primary relationship. \"Partner-influenced\" pays at a lower band. Pay attribution\n  matters more than slide-deck claims.\n- This skill is for partnership design, not signed-partner deal management — once\n  signed, per-deal commercial review routes to `deal-desk`.\n- Kill criteria are mandatory. A partnership without a written unwind trigger compounds\n  the bad-partner problem over years.\n\n## Anti-patterns\n\n- **\"Partner = anyone who asked.\"** A partner with no independent demand is a discount hunter.\n  Run the tier classifier — REFERRAL tier exists precisely to absorb these without giving\n  away reseller margin.\n- **Granting OEM \u002F white-label terms without margin sufficient to fund support.** OEM means\n  you support a customer you don't own. If the revshare doesn't fund Tier-2 support cost,\n  the OEM deal is a losing trade.\n- **Paying sourced-tier revshare on influenced-only deals.** Influenced ≠ sourced. The deal\n  was going to close anyway. Pay the influenced rate.\n- **No kill criteria for under-performing partner.** \"Strategic alliances\" without sunset\n  clauses become permanent obligations after the executive sponsor leaves.\n- **Channel conflict ignored until reps quit.** When your direct rep and your partner both\n  show up at the same account, you lose either the rep or the partner. Decide the rules of\n  engagement before, not after.\n- **Exclusive territory granted to a weak partner.** This locks out the strong partner who\n  would have actually sourced the deals.\n- **MDF without ROI accountability.** Market Development Funds without named pipeline,\n  reported ROI, and a quarterly true-up are subsidy, not investment.\n- **No offboarding plan when partnership ends.** Customer continuity, data hand-back, IP\n  cleanup, and brand take-down must be pre-negotiated. They're impossible to negotiate after\n  the relationship has soured.\n\n## Distinct from\n\n- **business-growth\u002Fsales-engineer** — technical sale: demos, POCs, integration scoping.\n  Operates after the partnership decision is made and a deal is in flight.\n- **channel-economics** (sibling) — cost-to-serve and ROI math on an existing channel.\n  Quantifies whether a signed partner is profitable. partnerships-architect decides\n  whether to sign in the first place and at what tier.\n- **c-level-advisor\u002Fcro-advisor** — strategic CRO judgment (when to hire a VP Channel,\n  whole-company revenue mix decisions). partnerships-architect is per-partnership.\n- **c-level-advisor\u002Fma-playbook** — when the answer is \"acquire them\" not \"partner with\n  them.\" Trigger: the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate, or the\n  partnership requires equity to align incentives. Re-route to ma-playbook.\n- **deal-desk** — per-deal discount approval on signed partner contracts.\n\n## Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline)\n\nWalked one at a time by `\u002Fcs:grill-commercial` or the orchestrator. Recommended answer +\ncanon citation per question. Never bundled. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-6.\n\n1. **\"Name 5 end customers this partner has already sold to in the last 12 months — at companies you would target yourself.\"**\n   Recommended: if they cannot, they have no independent demand. Sign at REFERRAL tier only,\n   if at all. Reseller\u002FOEM\u002FStrategic floors require demonstrated end-customer relationships.\n   Canon: Joe Hessling — partner-program failure analyses identify \"no independent demand\"\n   as the #1 root cause of dead partner tiers.\n\n2. **\"Is this partner asking for preferential commercial terms, or asking how to bring you customers?\"**\n   Recommended: discount hunters lead with terms; real partners lead with accounts. Listen\n   to the first 30 minutes of the first meeting.\n   Canon: Forrester channel research — 60%+ of \"partner inquiries\" at early-stage SaaS are\n   discount hunting, not channel investment.\n\n3. **\"What's the joint value proposition in one sentence, and who is the named end-customer it serves?\"**\n   Recommended: if there is no joint value prop distinct from either party's solo offering,\n   there is no partnership — there is co-marketing at best.\n   Canon: Geoffrey Moore (*Crossing the Chasm*) — whole-product partnerships exist when\n   neither party alone delivers the customer outcome.\n\n4. **\"At what % discount \u002F revshare does this partnership beat the direct-sale economics, and at what scale?\"**\n   Recommended: model break-even pipeline volume. If partner-sourced deals must exceed\n   30% of channel volume to beat direct, and partner can plausibly deliver 5%, you have\n   built a losing program.\n   Canon: Pradeep Chintagunta (Chicago Booth) on channel economics — channel partnerships\n   without volume floor break even in theory and lose money in practice.\n\n5. **\"What are the named kill criteria for unwinding this partnership, and are they in the contract?\"**\n   Recommended: minimum pipeline floor by quarter, minimum certified resources, minimum\n   joint deals closed, 90-day cure period. Unwinding without pre-agreed criteria becomes\n   a 2-year legal battle.\n   Canon: IBM channel-conflict case studies (1990s post-divestiture) — undocumented kill\n   criteria converted bad partners into permanent obligations.\n\n6. **\"If this partner sells to one of YOUR direct accounts, who wins — your rep or them?\"**\n   Recommended: Rules of Engagement in writing, signed before kickoff. Territory by named\n   account, by segment, or by geo. Conflict resolution at named human, not committee.\n   Canon: Jay McBain (Canalys) — channel conflict is the #1 partner program killer; written\n   ROE published before partner signs prevents 80% of disputes.\n\n7. **\"Is this a partnership, or should this be an acquisition?\"**\n   Recommended: if the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate AND the\n   partnership requires multi-year exclusivity AND the partnership requires equity-like\n   alignment, you're describing an acquisition. Re-route to `ma-playbook`.\n   Canon: HP channel post-mortems (Indigo, EDS partial integrations) — partnerships\n   structured as acquisitions-without-equity destroy more value than either pure path.\n\nWalk depth-first. Lock 1-3 (is this a real partner?) before opening 4-7 (is the structure\nright?). After all 7 are answered, invoke `partner_tier_classifier.py` →\n`joint_gtm_planner.py` → `revshare_modeler.py` in sequence.\n","# partnerships-architect\n\n## Purpose\n\nHelp Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs answer four questions when a\nprospective partner shows up:\n\n1. **Is this a real partner, or someone hunting preferential terms without independent demand?**\n2. **At what tier should we sign them?** (Referral \u002F Reseller \u002F OEM \u002F SI-Consulting \u002F Strategic Alliance)\n3. **What's the 90-day joint GTM plan that proves the partnership works?**\n4. **What revshare makes economic sense — and at what point does the partnership beat direct sale?**\n\nThe skill emits a tier verdict + GTM plan + revshare band with explicit kill criteria. It\ndoes **not** sign the deal. The human, after running this skill, decides.\n\n## When to use\n\n- A prospective partner has approached and asked for reseller \u002F OEM \u002F \"strategic\" terms\n- You're designing a new partner program tier structure\n- You're reviewing an existing partnership that's underperforming and need to decide: re-tier, restructure GTM, or unwind\n- A Big Logo wants a \"strategic alliance\" — and you need to validate it's real, not vendor-lock theatre\n- A consulting firm or SI wants services revshare on your product\n- A platform vendor offers OEM \u002F white-label and you need to model the math\n- You suspect \"partner-sourced\" deals are actually your own pipeline being skimmed for margin\n\n**Do not use for:**\n- Technical demos and POCs → `business-growth\u002Fsales-engineer`\n- Cost-to-serve and ROI math on existing channel → sibling `channel-economics`\n- Whole-company revenue strategy → `c-level-advisor\u002Fcro-advisor`\n- Acquiring a company instead of partnering → `c-level-advisor\u002Fma-playbook`\n- Per-deal discount approval inside a signed partner contract → `deal-desk`\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1 — Intake (≈ 20 min)\n\nFill `assets\u002Fpartnership_intake_template.md`. Capture: partner_name, partner_type, evidence\nof independent demand (named accounts they've sourced, end-customer relationships,\ntheir sales team size), strategic value (geo \u002F product \u002F brand \u002F channel economics),\ncommitments they've offered (joint marketing spend, dedicated headcount, certification,\nsales targets).\n\nIf the intake template can't be honestly filled out, the prospective partner has not\ndemonstrated enough substance to evaluate. Stop. Go back to them.\n\n### Step 2 — Tier classify\n\nRun `scripts\u002Fpartner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown`.\nOutput ranks the partner into 1 of 5 tiers — REFERRAL \u002F RESELLER \u002F OEM \u002F SI-CONSULTING \u002F\nSTRATEGIC — with deterministic floors. STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND\nmulti-year commit AND dedicated resources. Skill emits rationale + kill criteria.\n\n### Step 3 — Joint GTM plan\n\nRun `scripts\u002Fjoint_gtm_planner.py --input gtm.json --profile saas --output markdown`.\nOutput: 90-day plan with pre-launch milestones (training, certification, materials),\nlaunch motion (target accounts, sales play, MDF allocation), mid-quarter checkpoint, and\n90-day success criteria. Validates: cannot plan channel-led GTM for REFERRAL tier; cannot\nplan white-label for non-OEM tier.\n\n### Step 4 — Revshare model\n\nRun `scripts\u002Frevshare_modeler.py --input revshare.json --output markdown`. Computes\nmargin per deal direct vs. via partner, recommended revshare % band based on partner\ncontribution depth (sourced > influenced > delivered), break-even partner ROI, and\nlong-term economics — at projected scale, does partner economics beat direct?\n\n### Step 5 — Decide\n\nTake tier + GTM plan + revshare band into the partnership committee. Skill does not sign\nthe partner — you do. Document kill criteria in the contract so the unwind is mechanical\nwhen triggered.\n\n## Scripts\n\n- `scripts\u002Fpartner_tier_classifier.py` — 5-tier classifier with deterministic floors per tier\n- `scripts\u002Fjoint_gtm_planner.py` — 90-day joint GTM plan generator with tier-validated motion\n- `scripts\u002Frevshare_modeler.py` — revshare band + break-even ROI + long-term economics\n\nAll scripts: stdlib only. `--help` and `--sample` work on all three.\n\n## Quick example\n\n```bash\n# Emits a 5-tier partner classification with deterministic floors per tier for the built-in sample partner\ncd commercial\u002Fskills\u002Fpartnerships-architect && python3 scripts\u002Fpartner_tier_classifier.py --sample\n```\n\n## References\n\n- `references\u002Fchannel_partner_canon.md` — Caro on HP indirect channels, Chintagunta on channel economics, Hessling on partner programs, Forrester channel software stack, IDC channel research, Tien Tzuo subscription-channel models, Geoffrey Moore whole-product partnerships\n- `references\u002Fjoint_gtm_canon.md` — Aaron Ross *Predictable Revenue* (cold-source vs partner), Winning by Design, Jay McBain on co-sell, Microsoft Partner Network playbook, AWS Partner Network research, SiriusDecisions partner benchmarks, Bridge Group SaaS partner data\n- `references\u002Fpartnership_anti_patterns.md` — Forrester partner-led-from-your-pipeline research, Tom Tunguz on channel conflict, Hessling failure analyses, MIT Sloan on disproportionate strategic revshare, HP channel post-mortems, IBM channel-conflict cases, Salesforce AppExchange research\n\n## Assumptions\n\n- A partner who cannot produce evidence of independent demand (named accounts, end-customer\n  relationships, their own sales team) is hunting preferential terms, not a partner.\n- Industry profiles (`--profile`) tune defaults — they don't override your data.\n- Revshare % bands are recommendations; the contract negotiation, MDF policy, and\n  exclusivity terms are human commercial decisions outside this skill.\n- \"Partner-sourced\" requires the partner to have introduced the deal AND owned the\n  primary relationship. \"Partner-influenced\" pays at a lower band. Pay attribution\n  matters more than slide-deck claims.\n- This skill is for partnership design, not signed-partner deal management — once\n  signed, per-deal commercial review routes to `deal-desk`.\n- Kill criteria are mandatory. A partnership without a written unwind trigger compounds\n  the bad-partner problem over years.\n\n## Anti-patterns\n\n- **\"Partner = anyone who asked.\"** A partner with no independent demand is a discount hunter.\n  Run the tier classifier — REFERRAL tier exists precisely to absorb these without giving\n  away reseller margin.\n- **Granting OEM \u002F white-label terms without margin sufficient to fund support.** OEM means\n  you support a customer you don't own. If the revshare doesn't fund Tier-2 support cost,\n  the OEM deal is a losing trade.\n- **Paying sourced-tier revshare on influenced-only deals.** Influenced ≠ sourced. The deal\n  was going to close anyway. Pay the influenced rate.\n- **No kill criteria for under-performing partner.** \"Strategic alliances\" without sunset\n  clauses become permanent obligations after the executive sponsor leaves.\n- **Channel conflict ignored until reps quit.** When your direct rep and your partner both\n  show up at the same account, you lose either the rep or the partner. Decide the rules of\n  engagement before, not after.\n- **Exclusive territory granted to a weak partner.** This locks out the strong partner who\n  would have actually sourced the deals.\n- **MDF without ROI accountability.** Market Development Funds without named pipeline,\n  reported ROI, and a quarterly true-up are subsidy, not investment.\n- **No offboarding plan when partnership ends.** Customer continuity, data hand-back, IP\n  cleanup, and brand take-down must be pre-negotiated. They're impossible to negotiate after\n  the relationship has soured.\n\n## Distinct from\n\n- **business-growth\u002Fsales-engineer** — technical sale: demos, POCs, integration scoping.\n  Operates after the partnership decision is made and a deal is in flight.\n- **channel-economics** (sibling) — cost-to-serve and ROI math on an existing channel.\n  Quantifies whether a signed partner is profitable. partnerships-architect decides\n  whether to sign in the first place and at what tier.\n- **c-level-advisor\u002Fcro-advisor** — strategic CRO judgment (when to hire a VP Channel,\n  whole-company revenue mix decisions). partnerships-architect is per-partnership.\n- **c-level-advisor\u002Fma-playbook** — when the answer is \"acquire them\" not \"partner with\n  them.\" Trigger: the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate, or the\n  partnership requires equity to align incentives. Re-route to ma-playbook.\n- **deal-desk** — per-deal discount approval on signed partner contracts.\n\n## Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline)\n\nWalked one at a time by `\u002Fcs:grill-commercial` or the orchestrator. Recommended answer +\ncanon citation per question. Never bundled. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-6.\n\n1. **\"Name 5 end customers this partner has already sold to in the last 12 months — at companies you would target yourself.\"**\n   Recommended: if they cannot, they have no independent demand. Sign at REFERRAL tier only,\n   if at all. Reseller\u002FOEM\u002FStrategic floors require demonstrated end-customer relationships.\n   Canon: Joe Hessling — partner-program failure analyses identify \"no independent demand\"\n   as the #1 root cause of dead partner tiers.\n\n2. **\"Is this partner asking for preferential commercial terms, or asking how to bring you customers?\"**\n   Recommended: discount hunters lead with terms; real partners lead with accounts. Listen\n   to the first 30 minutes of the first meeting.\n   Canon: Forrester channel research — 60%+ of \"partner inquiries\" at early-stage SaaS are\n   discount hunting, not channel investment.\n\n3. **\"What's the joint value proposition in one sentence, and who is the named end-customer it serves?\"**\n   Recommended: if there is no joint value prop distinct from either party's solo offering,\n   there is no partnership — there is co-marketing at best.\n   Canon: Geoffrey Moore (*Crossing the Chasm*) — whole-product partnerships exist when\n   neither party alone delivers the customer outcome.\n\n4. **\"At what % discount \u002F revshare does this partnership beat the direct-sale economics, and at what scale?\"**\n   Recommended: model break-even pipeline volume. If partner-sourced deals must exceed\n   30% of channel volume to beat direct, and partner can plausibly deliver 5%, you have\n   built a losing program.\n   Canon: Pradeep Chintagunta (Chicago Booth) on channel economics — channel partnerships\n   without volume floor break even in theory and lose money in practice.\n\n5. **\"What are the named kill criteria for unwinding this partnership, and are they in the contract?\"**\n   Recommended: minimum pipeline floor by quarter, minimum certified resources, minimum\n   joint deals closed, 90-day cure period. Unwinding without pre-agreed criteria becomes\n   a 2-year legal battle.\n   Canon: IBM channel-conflict case studies (1990s post-divestiture) — undocumented kill\n   criteria converted bad partners into permanent obligations.\n\n6. **\"If this partner sells to one of YOUR direct accounts, who wins — your rep or them?\"**\n   Recommended: Rules of Engagement in writing, signed before kickoff. Territory by named\n   account, by segment, or by geo. Conflict resolution at named human, not committee.\n   Canon: Jay McBain (Canalys) — channel conflict is the #1 partner program killer; written\n   ROE published before partner signs prevents 80% of disputes.\n\n7. **\"Is this a partnership, or should this be an acquisition?\"**\n   Recommended: if the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate AND the\n   partnership requires multi-year exclusivity AND the partnership requires equity-like\n   alignment, you're describing an acquisition. Re-route to `ma-playbook`.\n   Canon: HP channel post-mortems (Indigo, EDS partial integrations) — partnerships\n   structured as acquisitions-without-equity destroy more value than either pure path.\n\nWalk depth-first. Lock 1-3 (is this a real partner?) before opening 4-7 (is the structure\nright?). After all 7 are answered, invoke `partner_tier_classifier.py` →\n`joint_gtm_planner.py` → `revshare_modeler.py` in sequence.\n",{"name":5,"tags":44,"author":46,"license":15,"version":47,"description":7,"compatible_tools":48},[45,21,35,34,33,22,31,30],"commercial","claude-code-skills","2.8.0",[49,50,51,52,53,54],"claude-code","codex-cli","cursor","antigravity","opencode","gemini-cli","main","0da4485785ee599388900be50db1635489d53056",".agents\u002Fskills\u002Fpartnerships-architect","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6","https:\u002F\u002Fdisha6.6.thenitishkr.in\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh","www.thenitishkr","thenitishkr | AI • Cyber-security • Research\r\n","2026-11-08 03:33:25",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":65,"prompt":75,"zipAvailable":76},[66,69,72],{"tool":67,"command":68},"npx","npx skills add Tashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6 --skill partnerships-architect",{"tool":70,"command":71},"bunx","bunx skills add Tashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6 --skill partnerships-architect",{"tool":73,"command":74},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add Tashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6 --skill partnerships-architect","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fpartnerships-architect\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[79,110,133,160,184,208],{"skillNo":80,"name":81,"nameZh":6,"description":82,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":83,"categories":84,"keywords":90,"publishedAt":39},"01M6QRD07D4TGNDK6VJ4EHF8BV","youtube-full","Use when the user needs YouTube transcripts, video search, channel browsing, playlist extraction, or content monitoring. Trigger phrases: 'get the transcript for', 'search YouTube for', 'what are the latest videos on', 'list this playlist', 'monitor this channel', or any request involving a YouTube URL, video ID, or @handle. Do NOT use for downloading video or audio files, YouTube engagement data (likes, comments), or private\u002Fage-restricted videos.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fyoutube-full\u002FSKILL.md",[85],{"categoryNo":86,"categoryName":87,"taxonomyType":88,"taxonomyTypeDesc":89},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000016","图像与多媒体","SCENARIO","使用场景",[91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,24,107,108,109],"youtube full","youtube","full","transcript","search","monitoring","data","Video","Audio","list","files","do","get","age","trigger","URL","browsing","request","youtube transcripts",{"skillNo":111,"name":112,"nameZh":6,"description":113,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":114,"categories":115,"keywords":116,"publishedAt":39},"01M6QRCJ3112VYPA97YG7KGMC2","x-twitter-growth","X\u002FTwitter growth engine for building audience, crafting viral content, and analyzing engagement. Use when the user wants to grow on X\u002FTwitter, write tweets or threads, analyze their X profile, research competitors on X, plan a posting strategy, or optimize engagement. Complements social-content (generic multi-platform) with X-specific depth: algorithm mechanics, thread engineering, reply strategy, profile optimization, and competitive intelligence via web search.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fx-twitter-growth\u002FSKILL.md",[],[117,118,119,120,95,121,122,37,123,124,125,126,127,128,29,129,130,131,132,24],"twitter","x twitter growth","growth","research","content","engineering","web search","competitors","analyze","engine","write","strategy","platform","grow","posting","competitive",{"skillNo":134,"name":135,"nameZh":6,"description":136,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":137,"categories":138,"keywords":142,"publishedAt":39},"01M6QRBN3EHQNJY42RERP7A149","write-a-skill","Create new agent skills with proper structure, progressive disclosure, and bundled resources. Use when user wants to create, write, build, or author a new skill.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwrite-a-skill\u002FSKILL.md",[139],{"categoryNo":140,"categoryName":141,"taxonomyType":88,"taxonomyTypeDesc":89},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",[143,127,144,145,146,147,148,149,29,150,151,55,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159],"write a skill","github","create","https","productivity","matt pocock","direct","example","build","new skill","structure","new agent","resources","with","tree","progressive disclosure","author",{"skillNo":161,"name":162,"nameZh":6,"description":163,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":164,"categories":165,"keywords":166,"publishedAt":39},"01M6QRB6G8P33PNGAF9Y69EJ9T","wrap-up","Close out a launched Claude Managed Agent — recap every primitive the founder now owns, regenerate the single-file overview page, and suggest the next 1-2 upgrades. Use when the user says \"wrap up\", \"close this out\", \"what do I own now\", \"give me the summary\", \"recap the agent\", or when the orchestrator routes phase=wrap-up. primitives_inventory.py tables everything owned (agent, environment, session, memory, outcome, deployment); overview_page.py regenerates a self-contained .\u002Fmy-agent\u002Fagent-overview.html; upgrade_suggester.py ranks the next moves from recorded deferrals plus standing hardening steps. Companion to run-without-you; the last stop before phase=done.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fwrap-up\u002FSKILL.md",[],[167,168,169,32,170,171,172,173,174,29,175,102,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183],"wrap up","up","wrap","deployment","run","file","hardening","closeout","stop","upgrade","founder","close","companion","you","tables","directions","phase",{"skillNo":185,"name":186,"nameZh":6,"description":187,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":188,"categories":189,"keywords":191,"publishedAt":39},"01M6QRA5AYC1RBFZ39GTWGS3N8","workflow-builder","Design and write deterministic multi-agent workflow scripts (.js files in .claude\u002Fworkflows\u002F) for Claude Code's Workflow tool. Use when a user wants to build, create, author, scaffold, or run a custom Claude Code workflow, orchestrate sub-agents (fan-out, pipeline, loop, judge-panel), or automate a repeatable multi-step task across fresh-context agents.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fworkflow-builder\u002FSKILL.md",[190],{"categoryNo":140,"categoryName":141,"taxonomyType":88,"taxonomyTypeDesc":89},[192,193,194,195,196,145,171,197,198,199,200,201,127,202,101,203,204,205,206,207],"workflow","workflow builder","builder","design","workflows","code","orchestrate","pipeline","loop","multi-agent","context","across","fresh","scripts","judge","claude code workflow",{"skillNo":209,"name":210,"nameZh":6,"description":211,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":212,"categories":213,"keywords":214,"publishedAt":39},"01M6QR7QMCZESKQA0ERW1E657M","weekly-review","Use when someone wants to run a weekly review, close open loops, audit stalled projects and commitments, get their system back to trusted, restart a lapsed review habit, or says \"\u002Fcs:weekly-review\". Walks David Allen's three-phase loop — GET CLEAR, GET CURRENT, GET CREATIVE — with deterministic scripts that inventory open loops, gate the checklist with named gaps, and score commitment health 0-100.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002FTashima-Tarsh\u002FDisha6.6\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002F.agents\u002Fskills\u002Fweekly-review\u002FSKILL.md",[],[215,216,217,218,219,220,221,222,223,200,224,225,226,227,228,229,103,230,231,183],"review","weekly review","weekly","deterministic scripts","reflect","feeds","inventory","open","team","projects","project-management","scanner","conversation","back","project","sprint","cadence"]