commercial/skills/partnerships-architect/SKILL.md
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 / reseller / OEM / SI-consulting / 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.
npx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills partnerships-architectInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Help Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs answer four questions when a prospective partner shows up:
The skill emits a tier verdict + GTM plan + revshare band with explicit kill criteria. It does not sign the deal. The human, after running this skill, decides.
Do not use for:
business-growth/sales-engineerchannel-economicsc-level-advisor/cro-advisorc-level-advisor/ma-playbookdeal-deskFill assets/partnership_intake_template.md. Capture: partner_name, partner_type, evidence
of independent demand (named accounts they've sourced, end-customer relationships,
their sales team size), strategic value (geo / product / brand / channel economics),
commitments they've offered (joint marketing spend, dedicated headcount, certification,
sales targets).
If the intake template can't be honestly filled out, the prospective partner has not demonstrated enough substance to evaluate. Stop. Go back to them.
Run scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown.
Output ranks the partner into 1 of 5 tiers — REFERRAL / RESELLER / OEM / SI-CONSULTING /
STRATEGIC — with deterministic floors. STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND
multi-year commit AND dedicated resources. Skill emits rationale + kill criteria.
Run scripts/joint_gtm_planner.py --input gtm.json --profile saas --output markdown.
Output: 90-day plan with pre-launch milestones (training, certification, materials),
launch motion (target accounts, sales play, MDF allocation), mid-quarter checkpoint, and
90-day success criteria. Validates: cannot plan channel-led GTM for REFERRAL tier; cannot
plan white-label for non-OEM tier.
Run scripts/revshare_modeler.py --input revshare.json --output markdown. Computes
margin per deal direct vs. via partner, recommended revshare % band based on partner
contribution depth (sourced > influenced > delivered), break-even partner ROI, and
long-term economics — at projected scale, does partner economics beat direct?
Take tier + GTM plan + revshare band into the partnership committee. Skill does not sign the partner — you do. Document kill criteria in the contract so the unwind is mechanical when triggered.
scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py — 5-tier classifier with deterministic floors per tierscripts/joint_gtm_planner.py — 90-day joint GTM plan generator with tier-validated motionscripts/revshare_modeler.py — revshare band + break-even ROI + long-term economicsAll scripts: stdlib only. --help and --sample work on all three.
references/channel_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 partnershipsreferences/joint_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 datareferences/partnership_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--profile) tune defaults — they don't override your data.deal-desk.Walked one at a time by /cs:grill-commercial or the orchestrator. Recommended answer +
canon citation per question. Never bundled. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-6.
"Name 5 end customers this partner has already sold to in the last 12 months — at companies you would target yourself." Recommended: if they cannot, they have no independent demand. Sign at REFERRAL tier only, if at all. Reseller/OEM/Strategic floors require demonstrated end-customer relationships. Canon: Joe Hessling — partner-program failure analyses identify "no independent demand" as the #1 root cause of dead partner tiers.
"Is this partner asking for preferential commercial terms, or asking how to bring you customers?" Recommended: discount hunters lead with terms; real partners lead with accounts. Listen to the first 30 minutes of the first meeting. Canon: Forrester channel research — 60%+ of "partner inquiries" at early-stage SaaS are discount hunting, not channel investment.
"What's the joint value proposition in one sentence, and who is the named end-customer it serves?" Recommended: if there is no joint value prop distinct from either party's solo offering, there is no partnership — there is co-marketing at best. Canon: Geoffrey Moore (Crossing the Chasm) — whole-product partnerships exist when neither party alone delivers the customer outcome.
"At what % discount / revshare does this partnership beat the direct-sale economics, and at what scale?" Recommended: model break-even pipeline volume. If partner-sourced deals must exceed 30% of channel volume to beat direct, and partner can plausibly deliver 5%, you have built a losing program. Canon: Pradeep Chintagunta (Chicago Booth) on channel economics — channel partnerships without volume floor break even in theory and lose money in practice.
"What are the named kill criteria for unwinding this partnership, and are they in the contract?" Recommended: minimum pipeline floor by quarter, minimum certified resources, minimum joint deals closed, 90-day cure period. Unwinding without pre-agreed criteria becomes a 2-year legal battle. Canon: IBM channel-conflict case studies (1990s post-divestiture) — undocumented kill criteria converted bad partners into permanent obligations.
"If this partner sells to one of YOUR direct accounts, who wins — your rep or them?" Recommended: Rules of Engagement in writing, signed before kickoff. Territory by named account, by segment, or by geo. Conflict resolution at named human, not committee. Canon: Jay McBain (Canalys) — channel conflict is the #1 partner program killer; written ROE published before partner signs prevents 80% of disputes.
"Is this a partnership, or should this be an acquisition?"
Recommended: if the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate AND the
partnership requires multi-year exclusivity AND the partnership requires equity-like
alignment, you're describing an acquisition. Re-route to ma-playbook.
Canon: HP channel post-mortems (Indigo, EDS partial integrations) — partnerships
structured as acquisitions-without-equity destroy more value than either pure path.
Walk depth-first. Lock 1-3 (is this a real partner?) before opening 4-7 (is the structure
right?). After all 7 are answered, invoke partner_tier_classifier.py →
joint_gtm_planner.py → revshare_modeler.py in sequence.
tools
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
tools
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
development
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
development
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.