[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M71MC35X84BWM2B97G5G9WTD":3,"skill-same:01M71MC35X84BWM2B97G5G9WTD":79},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":15,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":39,"linkOnly":40,"markdownContent":41,"markdownBody":42,"frontMatter":43,"refName":51,"commitSha":52,"skillDirectory":53,"forksCount":54,"repositoryHtmlUrl":55,"repositoryHomepageUrl":56,"ownerHtmlUrl":57,"ownerBlogUrl":58,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":59,"install":60,"resources":73},"01M71MC35X84BWM2B97G5G9WTD","benchmark-methodology",null,"Use when scoring a scoped competitor set on nine weighted dimensions with 1-5 rubrics and a strategic-tension plot, producing profile cards. Second step of the competitive pipeline, after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure.","monoes\u002Fmonomind","monoes","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F276744696?v=4","01M71KWF37AJ2NJBP3KWBVSDGT","01M71KWF4CSF8ADH0M6HA09VD2",23,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fbenchmark-methodology\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fbenchmark-methodology\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38],"benchmark","methodology","benchmark methodology","use","strategic","scoped","competitor","second","platform","competitive","marketing","cards","structure","dimensions","scoring","plot","analysis","when","pipeline","SET","2026-11-10 10:56:23",false,"---\nname: benchmark-methodology\ndescription: \"Use when scoring a scoped competitor set on nine weighted dimensions with 1-5 rubrics and a strategic-tension plot, producing profile cards. Second step of the competitive pipeline, after competitive-platform-analysis and before competitive-report-structure.\"\ntags: [\"research\",\"marketing\",\"competitive-analysis\"]\ntools: []\nlicense: MIT\nsource: https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Faffaan-m\u002FECC\nsource_path: \"skills\u002Fbenchmark-methodology\"\nsource_commit: bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735\n---\n# Benchmark Methodology\n\nUse this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible\nscores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with\nexplicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is\nthe point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same\nnumber for any competitor.\n\n## When to Activate\n\n- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.\n- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.\n- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.\n- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.\n\n## Client positioning brief (establish first)\n\nBefore scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:\n\n- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose\n  intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always\n  the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.\n- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which\n  dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.\n- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic\n  recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.\n\n## Why these dimensions\n\nThe client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on\nservice breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two\ndimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged\ntogether**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival\nachieves both simultaneously.\n\n## The nine dimensions (with weights)\n\nWeights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false\ncomposite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.\n\n1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position\n   sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?\n2. **Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an\n   ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?\n3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual\n   system; site as proof-of-craft.\n4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named\n   sprints\u002Faudits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.\n5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,\n   case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.\n6. **Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land\n   and hold SaaS\u002Ffintech\u002FB2B\u002Fenterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).\n7. **Thought leadership \u002F content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,\n   newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.\n8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing\u002Fengagement\n   legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.\n9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,\n   report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the\n   client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's\n   target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already\n   there?\n\n## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)\n\nAnchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the\nspecifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.\n\n- **1 — Absent \u002F generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable\n  from a template. Active liability.\n- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.\n  Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.\n- **3 — Competent \u002F table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets\n  expectation, ownable by nobody.\n- **4 — Strong \u002F distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer\n  would notice and cite.\n- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the\n  bar others react to.\n\n### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5\n\nRead the axis labels and their 1\u002F3\u002F5 anchors from the client's positioning\nbrief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:\n\n- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·\n  5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.\n- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky\u002Famateur · 3: safe, competent,\n  unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.\n\nPlot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in\nthe positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most\nimportant finding of the benchmark.\n\n## How to collect the data\n\nFor each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):\n\n1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing\n   posture, named clients, manifesto\u002FPOV. Screenshot the homepage + one case\n   study.\n2. **Case studies \u002F work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.\n   Distinguish *asserted* (\"we delivered X\") from *proven* (metrics, named,\n   verifiable).\n3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model\n   → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).\n4. **LinkedIn** — team size\u002Fmodel, founder narrative, content cadence →\n   thought leadership, model.\n5. **Portfolio \u002F craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to\n   the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).\n6. **Content channels** — newsletter\u002Ftalks\u002Fwriting → thought-leadership depth.\n\n**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the\nsource link\u002Fscreenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.\n\n## Bias controls\n\n- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot\n  separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.\n- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility\u002Fevidence scores for\n  self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.\n- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic\n  they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and\n  credibility independently; a \"boring\" site may be winning bigger clients.\n- **Recency \u002F flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may\n  lack commercial depth — verify with directories\u002Fclients before scoring\n  credibility.\n- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;\n  note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories\u002Freviews.\n- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read\n  scores side-by-side — a \"4\" must mean the same thing for every competitor.\n  Adjust outliers.\n\n## Competitor profile card (output format)\n\nProduce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles\nfrom:\n\n```\n## \u003CCompetitor name>\n- **Profile \u002F Tier:** \u003Cpositioning stance · specialization · size band> \u002F \u003CDirect | Adjacent | Aspirational>\n- **One-liner:** \u003Chow they position themselves, in their words>\n- **Model \u002F size \u002F geography:** \u003Csolo|micro|boutique> · \u003Cregion> · \u003Cpricing\u002Fengagement model>\n- **Notable clients \u002F evidence:** \u003Cnamed, with proven\u002Fasserted tag>\n\n### Dimension scores\n| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |\n| Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness | | | |\n| Visual identity & site craft | | | |\n| Service offer & packaging | | | |\n| Evidence & credibility | | | |\n| Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity | | | |\n| Thought leadership \u002F content presence | | | |\n| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |\n\n### Tension plot\n- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **Quadrant:** \u003Chigh\u002Fhigh | high-1\u002Flow-2 | low-1\u002Fhigh-2 | low\u002Flow>\n\n### Read for [client]\n- **Strength to learn from:** \u003C…>\n- **Weakness to exploit \u002F white-space it exposes:** \u003C…>\n- **Threat to [client]:** \u003C…>\n```\n\nHand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.\n- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.\n- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.\n- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.\n- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.\n- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.\n","# Benchmark Methodology\n\nUse this skill to turn a scoped competitor set into **comparable, defensible\nscores**. Each competitor is assessed on the same nine dimensions, with\nexplicit 1–5 rubrics, then captured in a uniform profile card. Consistency is\nthe point: scores are only useful if the same evidence would earn the same\nnumber for any competitor.\n\n## When to Activate\n\n- A scoped, tiered competitor set from competitive-platform-analysis is ready to score.\n- Need comparable, evidence-anchored scores across competitors — not gut-feel rankings.\n- Client's strategic tension (the paired axes defining their target white-space) has been established.\n- Preparing to produce profile cards for assembly in competitive-report-structure.\n\n## Client positioning brief (establish first)\n\nBefore scoring, establish the client's positioning brief. It supplies:\n\n- **Strategic tension** — the two axes (e.g., memorability × hireability) whose\n  intersection marks the client's target white-space. Dimension 9 is always\n  the client's named tension; report both poles separately, never averaged.\n- **Differentiator** — what makes the client's moat. This informs which\n  dimensions matter most for the client's positioning argument.\n- **Brand balance** — the intended mix of distinct strategic emphases. Strategic\n  recommendations must not break this balance without flagging it.\n\n## Why these dimensions\n\nThe client competes on a **specific tension held across two poles**, not on\nservice breadth. The dimensions are weighted to reflect that moat. Two\ndimensions — the tension poles — are scored **separately and never averaged\ntogether**, because the client's strategic question is precisely whether a rival\nachieves both simultaneously.\n\n## The nine dimensions (with weights)\n\nWeights guide synthesis emphasis, not a single blended score (avoid a false\ncomposite — see Bias controls). Sum = 100%.\n\n1. **Positioning clarity & distinctiveness** (18%) — Is the studio's position\n   sharp, ownable, and instantly legible? Or generic?\n2. **Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness** (15%) — Does the copy have an\n   ownable register, or is it interchangeable agency-speak?\n3. **Visual identity & site craft** (15%) — Quality and ownership of the visual\n   system; site as proof-of-craft.\n4. **Service offer & packaging** (12%) — Productized and legible (named\n   sprints\u002Faudits) vs vague. Packaging maturity.\n5. **Evidence & credibility** (12%) — Named clients, quantified outcomes,\n   case-study depth. Proof beyond assertion.\n6. **Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity** (10%) — Signals they can land\n   and hold SaaS\u002Ffintech\u002FB2B\u002Fenterprise work (process, logos, scale, contracts).\n7. **Thought leadership \u002F content presence** (8%) — Owned POV: writing, talks,\n   newsletters, frameworks. Depth over volume.\n8. **Pricing transparency & engagement model** (5%) — Is pricing\u002Fengagement\n   legible? Productized vs bespoke vs opaque.\n9. **[Client's strategic tension]** (5% as a flag; **score BOTH poles,\n   report separately**) — Read the tension name and axis descriptions from the\n   client's positioning brief. Plot both; the gap is the insight. The client's\n   target quadrant is the single most important finding: who else is already\n   there?\n\n## Scoring rubric (1–5, applies to dimensions 1–8)\n\nAnchor every score to observable evidence. Generic descriptors below; adapt the\nspecifics per dimension but keep the level meaning constant.\n\n- **1 — Absent \u002F generic.** No discernible position or craft; indistinguishable\n  from a template. Active liability.\n- **2 — Below par.** Some intent but inconsistent, derivative, or unconvincing.\n  Wouldn't survive a side-by-side.\n- **3 — Competent \u002F table-stakes.** Solid, professional, unremarkable. Meets\n  expectation, ownable by nobody.\n- **4 — Strong \u002F distinctive.** Clearly above peers; a real strength a buyer\n  would notice and cite.\n- **5 — Category-defining.** Best-in-class, ownable, hard to imitate. Sets the\n  bar others react to.\n\n### Tension axes (dimension 9) — score each 1–5\n\nRead the axis labels and their 1\u002F3\u002F5 anchors from the client's positioning\nbrief. Example anchors for a memorability × credibility tension:\n\n- **Memorability** — 1: forgotten instantly · 3: recognizable in context ·\n  5: unforgettable, talked-about, distinctively owned.\n- **Credibility** — 1: feels risky\u002Famateur · 3: safe, competent,\n  unexciting · 5: enterprise-trusted, obvious safe choice.\n\nPlot competitors on the tension 2×2. The client's target quadrant is named in\nthe positioning brief. Who else occupies that quadrant is the single most\nimportant finding of the benchmark.\n\n## How to collect the data\n\nFor each competitor, work the dimensions in this order (cheapest signal first):\n\n1. **Competitor's own site** — positioning, voice, offer packaging, pricing\n   posture, named clients, manifesto\u002FPOV. Screenshot the homepage + one case\n   study.\n2. **Case studies \u002F work** — evidence depth, quantified outcomes, client names.\n   Distinguish *asserted* (\"we delivered X\") from *proven* (metrics, named,\n   verifiable).\n3. **Review directories** — corroborate clients, project size, engagement model\n   → credibility & enterprise-readiness (e.g. Clutch.co or the niche equivalent).\n4. **LinkedIn** — team size\u002Fmodel, founder narrative, content cadence →\n   thought leadership, model.\n5. **Portfolio \u002F craft platforms** — craft register (use the showcase native to\n   the niche: design boards, showreels, published samples, etc.).\n6. **Content channels** — newsletter\u002Ftalks\u002Fwriting → thought-leadership depth.\n\n**What to record per dimension:** the score, one-line justification, and the\nsource link\u002Fscreenshot that earned it. No score without evidence.\n\n## Bias controls\n\n- **No single composite score.** Report dimension scores and the tension plot\n  separately. A weighted average hides the asymmetry that matters.\n- **Asserted vs proven.** Downgrade credibility\u002Fevidence scores for\n  self-reported claims with no corroboration. Site copy is marketing, not fact.\n- **Aesthetic affinity bias.** Reviewers may over-score studios whose aesthetic\n  they share and under-score rivals' commercial strength. Score craft and\n  credibility independently; a \"boring\" site may be winning bigger clients.\n- **Recency \u002F flashiness bias.** Award-winning, showpiece work dazzles but may\n  lack commercial depth — verify with directories\u002Fclients before scoring\n  credibility.\n- **Survivorship.** The visible, well-marketed studios aren't the whole market;\n  note strong-but-quiet operators found via directories\u002Freviews.\n- **Calibrate across the set, not in isolation.** Before finalizing, re-read\n  scores side-by-side — a \"4\" must mean the same thing for every competitor.\n  Adjust outliers.\n\n## Competitor profile card (output format)\n\nProduce one card per profiled competitor — the atomic unit the report assembles\nfrom:\n\n```\n## \u003CCompetitor name>\n- **Profile \u002F Tier:** \u003Cpositioning stance · specialization · size band> \u002F \u003CDirect | Adjacent | Aspirational>\n- **One-liner:** \u003Chow they position themselves, in their words>\n- **Model \u002F size \u002F geography:** \u003Csolo|micro|boutique> · \u003Cregion> · \u003Cpricing\u002Fengagement model>\n- **Notable clients \u002F evidence:** \u003Cnamed, with proven\u002Fasserted tag>\n\n### Dimension scores\n| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Justification (1 line) | Source |\n|---|---|---|---|\n| Positioning clarity & distinctiveness | | | |\n| Brand voice \u002F verbal distinctiveness | | | |\n| Visual identity & site craft | | | |\n| Service offer & packaging | | | |\n| Evidence & credibility | | | |\n| Enterprise-readiness \u002F commercial maturity | | | |\n| Thought leadership \u002F content presence | | | |\n| Pricing transparency & engagement model | | | |\n\n### Tension plot\n- **[Axis 1 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **[Axis 2 from positioning brief]:** \u003C1–5> — \u003Cwhy>\n- **Quadrant:** \u003Chigh\u002Fhigh | high-1\u002Flow-2 | low-1\u002Fhigh-2 | low\u002Flow>\n\n### Read for [client]\n- **Strength to learn from:** \u003C…>\n- **Weakness to exploit \u002F white-space it exposes:** \u003C…>\n- **Threat to [client]:** \u003C…>\n```\n\nHand the completed cards plus the tension plot to `competitive-report-structure`.\n\n## Anti-Patterns\n\n- **Averaging the tension axes.** The two poles of the client's strategic tension must be scored and reported separately. Averaging destroys the insight — the gap between poles is the finding.\n- **Scoring without evidence.** Every score requires a one-line justification and a source link. A score without evidence is an opinion, not a benchmark.\n- **Creating a single composite score.** Report dimension scores individually. A weighted average hides the asymmetric strengths that matter for positioning.\n- **Applying generic rubric anchors without adapting.** The 1–5 anchors must be calibrated to the specific dimension and competitor set. The generic descriptions are a starting point, not a fixed standard.\n- **Running before the competitor set is scoped.** Use competitive-platform-analysis first to produce a tiered, pruned set. Scoring an unscoped list wastes effort on irrelevant competitors.\n\n## Related Skills\n\n- `competitive-platform-analysis` — the prerequisite; produces the tiered competitor set this skill scores.\n- `competitive-report-structure` — the next step; assembles the scored profile cards into a client-deliverable report.\n",{"name":5,"tags":44,"tools":47,"source":48,"license":14,"description":7,"source_path":49,"source_commit":50},[45,29,46],"research","competitive-analysis",[],"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Faffaan-m\u002FECC","skills\u002Fbenchmark-methodology","bf70150eb2df8070024e5bdf08e4aa08959e2735","main","f7cd4595d0f8959822163e14f9787117765c931a","packages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fbenchmark-methodology",2,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind","https:\u002F\u002Fmonoes.github.io\u002Fmonomind\u002F","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes","https:\u002F\u002Fmonoes.me","2026-11-14 03:30:52",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":61,"prompt":71,"zipAvailable":72},[62,65,68],{"tool":63,"command":64},"npx","npx skills add monoes\u002Fmonomind --skill benchmark-methodology",{"tool":66,"command":67},"bunx","bunx skills add monoes\u002Fmonomind --skill benchmark-methodology",{"tool":69,"command":70},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add monoes\u002Fmonomind --skill benchmark-methodology","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fbenchmark-methodology\u002FSKILL.md",true,[74],{"path":75,"resourceType":76,"resourceTypeDesc":77,"sizeBytes":78,"sourceHtmlUrl":15},"LICENSE.txt","LICENSE","许可证",1071,[80,89,118,153,179,204],{"skillNo":81,"name":82,"nameZh":6,"description":83,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":84,"sourceHtmlUrl":85,"categories":86,"keywords":87,"publishedAt":88},"01M73XSJQRX4V23Y0R0NWWZ8PB","article-writing","Use when drafting long-form content (blog posts, guides, tutorials, essays, newsletters) in a distinctive voice from examples or brand guidance. Leads with proof, bans AI filler; for short social posts use content-engine.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Farticle-writing\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Farticle-writing\u002FSKILL.md",[],[],"2026-11-11 15:11:14",{"skillNo":90,"name":91,"nameZh":6,"description":92,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":93,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":94,"categories":95,"keywords":96,"publishedAt":117},"01M71PB3SHWKMNJM6MD65VX8D6","zk-steward","Org role guidance for a ZK steward: engineer zero-knowledge proof systems with circuit design, SNARK vs STARK choice and security review. This is zero-knowledge cryptography, not Zettelkasten note-taking.","Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fzk-steward\u002FSKILL.md",[],[97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116],"zk","zk steward","steward","blockchain","impact","org","security","cryptography","zettelkasten","stark","security review","monomind","review","snark","query","knowledge","design","choice","engineer","zero-knowledge","2026-11-10 13:02:02",{"skillNo":119,"name":120,"nameZh":6,"description":121,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":14,"licenseFileUrl":122,"sourceHtmlUrl":123,"categories":124,"keywords":135,"publishedAt":117},"01M71PB18SDG28WBKPKJNB814K","writing-plans","Use when you have a spec or requirements for a multi-step coding task and must write an implementation plan before touching code. Produces bite-sized TDD tasks with exact file paths, code and commands for an engineer with zero context.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fwriting-plans\u002FSKILL.md",[125,130],{"categoryNo":126,"categoryName":127,"taxonomyType":128,"taxonomyTypeDesc":129},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000018","写作与文案","SCENARIO","使用场景",{"categoryNo":131,"categoryName":132,"taxonomyType":133,"taxonomyTypeDesc":134},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000036","内容创作者","PROFESSION","适用职业",[136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,111,144,36,145,146,115,147,148,149,150,151,152],"plans","writing","writing plans","write","product","plan","tasks","code","you","implementation plan","superpowers","commands","ZeRO","context","coding","suggest","paths",{"skillNo":154,"name":155,"nameZh":6,"description":156,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":93,"licenseFileUrl":157,"sourceHtmlUrl":158,"categories":159,"keywords":163,"publishedAt":117},"01M71PAXFM488X9ARXK0T04TF5","write-spec","Write a feature spec or PRD from a problem statement or feature idea. Use when turning a vague idea or user request into a structured document, scoping a feature with goals and non-goals, defining success metrics and acceptance criteria, or breaking a big ask into a phased spec.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fwrite-spec\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fwrite-spec\u002FSKILL.md",[160],{"categoryNo":161,"categoryName":162,"taxonomyType":133,"taxonomyTypeDesc":134},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000031","产品经理",[139,164,165,166,167,168,22,169,170,171,140,172,173,174,36,175,112,176,177,178],"write spec","spec","feature","metrics","problem statement","document","scoping","request","work","vague","ask","acceptance","problem","user request","idea",{"skillNo":180,"name":181,"nameZh":6,"description":182,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":93,"licenseFileUrl":183,"sourceHtmlUrl":184,"categories":185,"keywords":189,"publishedAt":117},"01M71PASSZY800C0RPEARBS918","write-query","Write optimized SQL for your dialect with best practices. Use when translating a natural-language data need into SQL, building a multi-CTE query with joins and aggregations, optimizing a query against a large partitioned table, or getting dialect-specific syntax for Snowflake, BigQuery, Postgres, etc.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fwrite-query\u002FLICENSE.txt","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fwrite-query\u002FSKILL.md",[186],{"categoryNo":187,"categoryName":188,"taxonomyType":133,"taxonomyTypeDesc":134},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000033","数据分析师",[190,139,111,22,112,191,192,193,36,194,195,196,197,198,199,172,200,201,202,203],"write query","snowflake","for","postgres","data","plugins","syntax","https","sql","github","multi","with","natural-language","best practices",{"skillNo":205,"name":206,"nameZh":6,"description":207,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":9,"repositoryNo":12,"starsCount":13,"licenseSpdxId":93,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":208,"categories":209,"keywords":216,"publishedAt":117},"01M71PAPTX0T3PF6ETFVR96SJJ","workflow-automation","Org role guidance for workflow automation: build and maintain CI\u002FCD definitions in GitHub Actions or equivalent: triggers, jobs, matrices, caching. Covers path filters, dependency caching, parallel jobs, timeouts and fail-fast ordering.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fmonoes\u002Fmonomind\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fpackages\u002F@monomind\u002Fcli\u002Forg-skills\u002Fworkflow-automation\u002FSKILL.md",[210,213],{"categoryNo":211,"categoryName":212,"taxonomyType":128,"taxonomyTypeDesc":129},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发",{"categoryNo":214,"categoryName":215,"taxonomyType":128,"taxonomyTypeDesc":129},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000011","运维与部署",[217,218,219,111,197,220,221,222,199,108,223,224,225,101,226,227,228,229,192,230],"automation","workflow","Workflow Automation","devops","dependency","build","caching","filters","maintain","github actions","triggers","ci","actions","parallel"]