Structured persuasion for tech leads, PMs, and founders—not activity logs. Five scenarios (kickoff, status update, wrap-up, investor pitch, solution selling) on one 5-part framework (Hook→Context→Proposal→Evidence→Ask). AI prompts for missing materials and audience context; pre-submit checklist. Claude Code plugin; Cursor, Codex, and chat via prompts.
npx skills add https://github.com/moshuying/pitchcraft --skill pitchcraft
Languages: English (this file) · 简体中文 → SKILL.zh-CN.md
This is not report writing—it is persuasion. In every scenario you do the same thing:
> In limited time, help a specific audience understand context, trust your judgment, and provide the support you need.
| Role | Scenarios | Audience |
|---|---|---|
| Tech lead / engineering manager | Kickoff, milestone review, wrap-up | Business leaders, CTO, PMO |
| PM / product lead | Quarterly review, annual summary, requirements review | Director, VP |
| Founder / business owner | Investor pitch | Investors, partners |
| Pre-sales / solutions | Solution selling | Customer execs, technical evaluators |
All briefing types share one backbone; section emphasis differs.
Part 1 · Hook
→ Why should they keep listening?
→ Opportunity / pain / urgency
Part 2 · Context
→ What is the situation?
→ What we have done and what we have
Part 3 · Proposal
→ What we will do / did?
→ Scope, path, pace
Part 4 · Evidence
→ Why we can succeed / succeeded?
→ Data, moat, team, cases
Part 5 · Ask
→ What do we need from them?
→ Decision / resources / partnership / investment
Each type is an instance of the 5-part framework.
Goal: Get leadership to approve start and allocate people and budget.
| Part | Section | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Hook | Background & opportunity | Market, pain, competition, why now |
| Context | What we already have | Team, tech, data, prior assets |
| Proposal | Goals & scope | In/out of scope, milestones |
| Evidence | Why us | Differentiation, moat |
| Ask | Resources & risks | Support needed, top risks and mitigation |
# {Project} · Kickoff
## Background & opportunity
{Why now: market, pain, competition—2–4 sentences.
This is the persuasion entry—create “we should do this.”}
## What we already have
{Team, tech, data, business assets—not bragging, but trust.
Pattern: “We already have X, so this is not from zero.”}
## Goals & scope
**In scope**: {capabilities}
**Out of scope**: {explicit exclusions—prevent scope creep}
{Milestones and timeline}
## Why us
{Core difference vs alternatives. Moat: why others can’t or won’t match.}
## Resources & risks
{People / budget / cross-team needs
Top risk and mitigation}
Goal: Convince leaders and stakeholders the work is on track and worth continued investment.
| Part | Section | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Hook | One-line summary | 1–2 most important facts this period |
| Context | Period context | Position vs last period |
| Proposal | Key progress | By milestone or module |
| Evidence | Key metrics | Progress, quality, efficiency |
| Ask | Risks & decisions | Decisions and coordination needed |
# {Project} · Status update
## One-line summary
{1–2 facts; audience grasps core in 10 seconds}
## Key progress
{Completed items and metrics by milestone or module}
## Risks & response
Formula per item: {symptom} → {root cause} → {mitigation} → {status}
Decisions: options + recommendation—no open homework:
❌ "Dependency X uncertain—please advise"
✅ "Dependency X slipped 2 weeks. Option A (add people) vs B (move milestone). Recommend A; need Team Y support."
## Next phase
| Item | ETA | Dependencies | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|
Goal: Show delivered value and assets retained.
| Part | Section | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Hook | Goal attainment overview | Did we succeed overall? |
| Context | Original goals | What we committed to |
| Evidence | Quantified outcomes | Data-led |
| Proposal | Lessons & assets | What remains |
| Ask | Next phase or handoff | What happens next |
# {Project} · Wrap-up / {Year} annual review
## Goal attainment
| Goal | Target | Actual | % | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Underperformance: root cause and improvement—say it before they ask.
## Core deliverables
3–5 items, each: {what} + {metric} + {business impact}
## Lessons
- **What worked**: reusable methods / architecture / process
- **What failed**: root cause + prevention
- **Assets left**: code / data / docs / team capability
## Next
If continuing → direction, goals, key results, resources
If ending → handoff so nothing is left unsupported
Goal: Spark interest for a deeper conversation.
| Part | Section | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Hook | One-liner | Elevator pitch |
| Context | Market opportunity | Size, pain, why now |
| Proposal | Product | Solution, core features, stage |
| Evidence | Moat & traction | Tech, data, growth, team |
| Ask | Funding / partnership | Amount, use, milestones |
# {Project} · Pitch
## One-liner
{What we do, for whom, what value}
## Market opportunity
{Size, persona, pain, why now}
## Product
{How we solve, core features, architecture (brief), stage}
## Moat & traction
**Moat**: {tech / data / network / team—why others can’t}
**Metrics**: {users, growth, retention, revenue}
**Team**: {why this team can execute}
## Funding ask
{Amount, use of funds, milestones, next round goal}
Goal: Convince customer executives your solution is the best fit.
| Part | Section | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Hook | Pain alignment | Their problem in their words |
| Context | Current state | Gaps in status quo |
| Proposal | Solution | How we solve |
| Evidence | Cases & data | Proof |
| Ask | Partnership | How to start |
# {Project} · Proposal
## Pain alignment
{Customer language for the problem—accuracy builds trust fast}
## Current state
{Why status quo fails: features, cost, efficiency, risk}
## Our solution
{How we solve; capabilities and differentiation}
## Proof
{Same-industry cases with metrics}
{If no case: POC plan or demo roadmap}
## Partnership
{Engagement model, timeline, what we need from them}
❌ Five minutes on how hard the team worked and how clever the architecture is
✅ First sentence answers “why should I care?”
❌ "Servers occasionally timeout—please monitor"
✅ "Connection pool exhaustion; scaling in progress; expected recovery tomorrow"
❌ "We filled a gap no one else addressed"
✅ "Team X has a mature Y; we extend with Z"
❌ "Conversion improved 20%"
✅ "Conversion +20% (June vs May, same account pool)"
❌ Wins first, then buried "but we slipped"
✅ Lead with material risks, then progress
❌ "Next: keep pushing forward"
✅ "Integration Wed; risk is dependency Y—owner aligned"
Step 1 — Load memory
Read leader context, business positioning, format prefs.
Missing → ask user to supply.
Step 2 — Scenario & audience
User picks type (kickoff / status / wrap-up·annual / pitch / solution selling).
Probe audience:
□ Role and level?
□ How much do they already know?
□ Top concerns (tech / business / cost / time)?
Step 3 — Material intake
Check completeness by type; ask for gaps:
Kickoff:
□ Background / market analysis
□ Competitive landscape
□ Team capabilities
□ Goals and KPIs
□ Resources and budget
□ Timeline
Status:
□ Completed work this period
□ Key metrics (progress / quality / efficiency)
□ Risk list with judgment and mitigation
□ Next-phase plan
□ Decisions needed from leadership
Wrap-up / annual:
□ Original goals
□ Quantified outcomes
□ Lessons learned
□ Next plan or handoff
Pitch:
□ Market data and reports
□ Product demo or MVP status
□ Competition
□ Team intro
□ Financials and forecast
□ Funding ask and use of funds
Solution selling:
□ Customer background and pain
□ Alternative solutions
□ Our solution and capabilities
□ Cases or POC plan
□ Pricing or engagement model
If user says "you know everything—just write":
→ Pull from memory and prior context
→ Open with "Based on available info; may be missing XX"
Step 4 — Draft to template
Pick template; apply writing rules.
After each part, ask: "Does this answer what they care about?"
Step 5 — Final check
□ First 10 seconds feel relevant?
□ Every number sourced and defined?
□ Every risk has root cause + response?
□ No vague "needs attention" without judgment?
□ Cross-team mentions acknowledge others first?
Step 6 — User confirmation
Present → "What should we adjust?"
Format issues → add to format memory
| From → To | Change | Keep |
|---|---|---|
| Kickoff → Pitch | Hook: business pain → market opportunity; Evidence: tech moat → traction | 5-part structure, risk logic |
| Status → Kickoff (next phase) | Progress becomes Context; accumulated risks feed Risk | Metric definitions, team narrative |
| Wrap-up → Case study | De-identify internals; emphasize customer value | Quant methods, acceptance criteria |
| Solution selling → Kickoff | Customer pain → market opportunity; cases → evidence | Structure, risk foresight |
Complete development kit for Microsoft 365 Copilot declarative agents with three comprehensive workflows (basic, advanced, validation), TypeSpec support, and Microsoft 365 Agents Toolkit integration
Format and structurally validate local treatment-plan documentation after clinical decisions have already been supplied and verified by authorized licensed professionals. Use for source traceability, clinician-authored intervention records, goals and checkpoints, shared-decision records, reconciliation handoffs, and release gates—not for clinical decision-making.
> provider/change budget/修改卖家/修改预算/draft/草稿/我的任务/my tasks/what am I working on/关闭/取消任务/决策列表/decision list/指定服务商/browse (sender.role = COUNTERPARTY, not you); (3) literal "Read the okx-ai skill" (or legacy "Read the okx-agent-task skill") in the envelope.
Automate payer review of prior authorization (PA) requests. This skill should be used when users say "Review this PA request", "Process prior authorization for [procedure]", "Assess medical necessity", "Generate PA decision", or when processing clinical documentation for coverage policy validation and authorization decisions.
Expert in designing and building autonomous AI agents. Masters tool use, memory systems, planning strategies, and multi-agent orchestration.
Autonomous agents are AI systems that can independently decompose goals, plan actions, execute tools, and self-correct without constant human guidance. The challenge isn't making them capable - it's making them reliable. Every extra decision multiplies failure probability.
Orchestrates design workflows by routing work through brainstorming, multi-agent review, and execution readiness in the correct order.
Route gh-aw workflow design/create/debug/upgrade requests to the right prompts.
Take moshuying/pitchcraft from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.