Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

case-study-builder案例研究构建者

Agent Skill

case-study-builder 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,738

周安装

71

GitHub Stars

263

下载量

562
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:case-study-builder(案例研究构建者)
来源仓库:https://github.com/brianrwagner/ai-marketing-claude-code-skills
仓库路径:skills/case-study-builder
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/brianrwagner/ai-marketing-claude-code-skills --skill case-study-builder
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/brianrwagner/ai-marketing-claude-code-skills --skill case-study-builder

简介

case-study-builder 将项目成果快速转化为可用的社会证明材料,支持多种输出格式。

  • 适用于在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中为销售提案或品牌建设准备案例素材。
  • 提供段落摘要、引语式证言与销售故事三种格式,适配不同沟通场景。
  • 输入原始项目细节后自动生成内容,保留事实准确性并避免虚构成果。
  • 建议在客户确认关键数据后再使用,防止对外传播不实信息引发法律风险。

SKILL.md

Case Study Builder

Everyone wants social proof. Nobody makes time to create it. You finish a project, the client's happy, you move on — and six months later you're in a sales call with nothing to show.

This skill fixes that. Give me the raw details. I'll produce three formats you can use immediately.


Mode

Detect from context or ask: *"Quick writeup, full case study, or full asset package?"*

ModeWhat you getBest for
quick1 format: paragraph summary for proposalsFast social proof, proposal inserts
standard3 formats: proposal blurb, social proof pull-quote, sales storyActive pitching, LinkedIn, website
deep3 formats + blog-ready case study + FAQ variant + campaign assetsContent marketing, SEO, sales enablement

Default: standard — use quick if they say "just need something fast." Use deep if they want to turn the win into a marketing asset.


Context Loading Gates

Before generating anything, collect all 8 fields:

FieldWhat to Collect
1. ClientIndustry, company size/stage, named or anonymized?
2. BeforeWhat was broken or painful? Any numbers?
3. ActionsWhat did you specifically do? Scope, timeline, role
4. AfterREQUIRED: at least one specific number
5. TimelineHow long to achieve the result?
6. QuoteDirect client quote if available
7. NamingCan we name the client, or must we anonymize?
8. Use caseWhere will this be used? (proposals / website / LinkedIn)

Outcome Extraction Protocol — enforced on Field 4:

If the user says "results were good" or "things improved," stop and ask:

"I need at least one number to make this credible. Pick one: - Revenue change (e.g., 'closed 3 new clients worth $15K') - Time saved (e.g., 'cut from 10 hours to 2 hours/week') - Lead volume (e.g., 'went from 0 to 5 inbound leads/month') - Rough estimate is fine — it doesn't have to be exact."

Do not draft until Field 4 has at least one number.


Phase 1: Situation Analysis

Before drafting, reason through:

  1. Result strength: Is the outcome a Tier 1 (hard metric), Tier 2 (soft metric), or Tier 3 (proxy)? This determines how confident the language should be.
  2. Hero check: Is the story told from the client's perspective, or yours? Client = hero, you = guide.
  3. Tension check: What made this hard? Without a challenge, there's no story — just a list.
  4. Format match: Which use case did they specify? That determines which format to optimize.

Tier system for results language:

TierTypeExampleLanguage
1Hard metric"Revenue +40%"State directly
2Soft metric"Team finally aligned""For the first time in years..."
3Proxy metric"Enabled Series A close""Contributed to..."
4Directional"Noticeable improvement""Significant improvement in..."

Phase 2: The Hero Principle

The client is the hero. You are the guide.

Before writing, flip the framing:

❌ Wrong: "I built a content system that generated leads." ✅ Right: "Sarah went from scrambling to fill her pipeline to getting 3 inbound inquiries per week — all from a content system we built in 6 weeks."

Every format should be written from what the CLIENT experienced, not what YOU delivered.


Phase 3: Generate Three Formats

Format 1: Two-Liner (Proposals & Bios)

Formula: [What was done] + [scale/scope] + [for who] + [result or timeframe]

[Strong action verb] [what was delivered] for [specific client descriptor].
[Outcome metric] in [timeframe].

Example:

Built a full content system for a Series B SaaS founder with no marketing team. 0 to 3 inbound leads/week in 6 weeks.

Format 2: Story Version (LinkedIn & Sales Calls)

Structure — 4 paragraphs, 150–250 words:

**Set the scene:** [Their situation when you arrived — 2-3 sentences with stakes]

**Show the complexity:** [What made this hard — 2-3 sentences]

**What happened:** [Specific actions taken — no feature lists, just moves]

**What changed:** [Outcome — the number + the transformation]

Format 3: Full Case Study (Website & Portfolio)

# Case Study: [Client Name or Descriptor]

## The Challenge
[2-3 paragraphs: situation, stakes, what wasn't working]

## The Approach
[Phases or steps — what happened and in what order]

## The Results
[Metrics, before/after comparison, named outcomes]

## Key Details
- Client: [Named or "A [descriptor] company"]
- Industry: [Sector]
- Timeline: [Duration]
- Scope: [What was delivered]

## What Made This Different
[Unique angle, unexpected obstacle, or pivotal insight]

## Client Quote
> "[Testimonial — or placeholder if not yet collected]"
> — [Name], [Title]

Phase 4: Self-Critique Pass (REQUIRED)

After generating all three formats, evaluate:

Two-liner:

  • Does it have a specific number? (Not "improved results" — a real metric)
  • Is it 2 sentences or fewer?
  • Would someone scanning a proposal stop and read it?

Story version:

  • Is the client the hero (not the author)?
  • Is there genuine tension — something that made this hard?
  • Does the closing paragraph include the key metric?

Full case study:

  • Does the Results section lead with numbers?
  • Is the Challenge section specific enough that a similar prospect recognizes their situation?
  • Is the client quote (or placeholder) present?

Flag any failure: "The story version has no tension — add one obstacle or unexpected challenge before the 'What happened' paragraph."


Phase 5: Distribution Plan

FormatBest locationsWhen to use
Two-linerProposals, email bios, LinkedIn About sectionAny sales context
StoryLinkedIn post, podcast intros, sales call openerWeekly content
Full case studyWebsite portfolio page, PDF download, RFP responseLate-stage buyer research

Output Structure

## Case Study: [Client Descriptor] — [Date]

### Situation Summary
[2-sentence analysis from Phase 1]
Result tier: [1/2/3/4]

---

### Format 1: Two-Liner
[Final copy]

### Format 2: Story Version
[Final copy]

### Format 3: Full Case Study
[Full markdown]

---

### Self-Critique Notes
- Two-liner: [pass/issue]
- Story: [pass/issue]
- Full: [pass/issue]

### Distribution Plan
[Where to use each]

### Next Step
[If no quote collected → run testimonial-collector]
[If strong story → suggest LinkedIn post from story format]

Cross-reference: If a client quote was captured here, run testimonial-collector to properly format and score it for your testimonial library.


*Skill by Brian Wagner | AI Marketing Architect | brianrwagner.com*

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude

34.5%
按下载量换算194

Codex

33.82%
按下载量换算190

Cursor

18.01%
按下载量换算101

Gemini CLI

10.95%
按下载量换算62

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills