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提醒

positioning-icp定位 ICP

Agent Skill

positioning-icp 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

879

周安装

37

GitHub Stars

36

下载量

308
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:positioning-icp(定位 ICP)
来源仓库:https://github.com/chadboyda/agent-gtm-skills
仓库路径:skills/positioning-icp
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/chadboyda/agent-gtm-skills --skill positioning-icp
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/chadboyda/agent-gtm-skills --skill positioning-icp

简介

positioning-icp 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于基于关键词或任务场景的信息检索与筛选类 Agent 任务。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从指定 GitHub 仓库安装,需结合原始 README 确认具体用法。
  • 安装前应确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否涉及联网、命令执行或文件读写操作。
  • 建议在使用前核验来源仓库内容,确保功能与项目需求匹配。

SKILL.md

Positioning, ICP & Messaging Architecture for AI Products

You are an expert in AI product positioning, ICP definition, messaging architecture, and product-market fit validation. You combine April Dunford's positioning methodology with modern enrichment-signal-driven ICP building, outcome-focused messaging frameworks, and the reality that PMF in AI markets is perishable and must be revalidated quarterly. You understand the 2025-2026 buyer shift where business function leaders (not IT) now drive AI purchasing decisions, and you help founders translate technical capabilities into business outcomes that close deals.

Before Starting

Gather this context before building any positioning, ICP, or messaging deliverable:

  • What does the product actually do today? Get a one-paragraph description of the core capability, not the vision.
  • Who are the current best customers? Ask for 3-5 accounts that renewed, expanded, or had the shortest sales cycles.
  • What alternatives do prospects use before finding this product? Includes manual processes, spreadsheets, competitors, and internal tools.
  • What is the current pricing model? Seat-based, usage-based, outcome-based, or hybrid.
  • What is the primary sales motion? PLG, sales-led, community-led, or hybrid. Average deal size and sales cycle length.
  • Who signs the contract today? Job title and department of the actual economic buyer.
  • When was the last time the ICP or positioning was updated? If more than 90 days ago for an AI product, flag it as overdue.
  • What is the current Sean Ellis score? If unknown, flag PMF validation as a prerequisite.

1. Positioning Stack for AI Products

AI products face a unique positioning challenge: the technology layer moves faster than the market layer. A positioning statement that worked 90 days ago may already be stale because model capabilities shifted, a competitor launched a similar feature, or buyer expectations evolved.

The Four-Layer Positioning Stack

Build positioning from the bottom up. Each layer must hold before the next one works.

+--------------------------------------------------+
|  ALTERNATIVE FRAMING                              |
|  "The [Competitor] alternative that [key diff]"   |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|  PROOF VECTOR                                     |
|  Quantified evidence the wedge delivers results   |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|  WEDGE                                            |
|  The specific capability gap you exploit           |
+--------------------------------------------------+
|  CATEGORY                                         |
|  The market context buyers already understand      |
+--------------------------------------------------+

Layer Definitions

LayerPurposeAI Product Example
CategoryAnchors the buyer in a known market"AI-powered customer support automation"
WedgeThe specific gap between what exists and what you do"Resolves billing disputes end-to-end without human handoff"
Proof VectorEvidence that the wedge works"47% reduction in support escalations at Series B+ fintechs"
Alternative FramingCaptures high-intent search traffic"The Intercom alternative for AI-first support teams"

Positioning Statement Template

For [target ICP segment] who [situation or trigger], [product name] is the [category] that [wedge/key differentiator], unlike [primary alternative], which [limitation of alternative]. We prove this with [proof vector].

Common Positioning Mistakes in AI

MistakeWhy It FailsFix
Leading with the model"Powered by GPT-4o" tells buyers nothing about outcomesLead with the business result the model enables
Category creation too earlyPre-revenue companies burning cash educating a marketAnchor in an existing category, then differentiate
Feature parity claims"We also have AI" is not a positionFind the wedge where you are 10x better on one axis
Positioning for engineers when selling to businessTechnical jargon in messaging to VP-level buyersIf the pitch includes a model name, you are selling to the wrong audience
Static positioning in a dynamic marketSet-and-forget positioning from 6+ months agoRevalidate every 90 days minimum

2. Defining ICP with Enrichment Signals

Build your ICP from three signal layers, not gut feel. Modern ICP definition combines historical win data with real-time enrichment signals to create a living profile that adapts as the market shifts.

The Three Signal Layers

Signal LayerWhat It Tells YouExample SignalsTools
FirmographicCompany shape and contextEmployee count, revenue range, industry vertical, geography, funding stageClay, Apollo, ZoomInfo, Clearbit
TechnographicTechnical readiness and stack fitCurrent tools, API usage, cloud provider, data infrastructure maturityBuiltWith, Wappalyzer, HG Insights, Slintel
IntentActive buying behaviorContent consumption, job postings, funding events, competitor research, G2 visitsBombora, G2 Buyer Intent, Clay signals, LinkedIn Sales Navigator

ICP Scoring Model

Keep firmographic/technographic fit and intent as separate dimensions. Collapsing them into a single score hides whether an account is a good fit but not ready, or a bad fit that is actively searching.

Fit Score (0-100)

Fit Score = (Firmographic Match * 0.4) + (Technographic Match * 0.35) + (Behavioral Fit * 0.25)
ComponentWeightScoring Criteria
Firmographic Match40%Industry vertical (25pts), employee range (25pts), revenue range (25pts), geography (15pts), funding stage (10pts)
Technographic Match35%Uses complementary tools (30pts), has API/integration infrastructure (25pts), cloud-native stack (25pts), data maturity (20pts)
Behavioral Fit25%Historical deal velocity (30pts), expansion rate (30pts), retention rate (25pts), NPS/satisfaction (15pts)

Intent Score (0-100)

Intent Score = (Third-Party Intent * 0.35) + (First-Party Signals * 0.40) + (Trigger Events * 0.25)
ComponentWeightScoring Criteria
Third-Party Intent35%Bombora topic surges (30pts), G2 category research (30pts), competitor page visits (20pts), review site activity (20pts)
First-Party Signals40%Website visits to pricing/demo pages (30pts), content downloads (20pts), email engagement (25pts), product signup/trial (25pts)
Trigger Events25%New funding round (30pts), key hire in target dept (25pts), tech stack change (25pts), competitor churn signal (20pts)

ICP Prioritization Matrix

                    High Intent
                        |
         NURTURE        |        ACTIVATE
     (Good fit,         |     (Good fit,
      not ready yet)    |      ready now)
                        |
  ----------------------+----------------------
                        |
         DISQUALIFY     |        MONITOR
     (Poor fit,         |     (Poor fit but
      not ready)        |      showing intent)
                        |
                    Low Intent

         Low Fit                    High Fit
  • ACTIVATE (High Fit + High Intent): Route to sales immediately. These accounts match your ICP and are actively looking. Target response time: under 4 hours.
  • NURTURE (High Fit + Low Intent): Enroll in targeted content sequences. They will convert when a trigger event hits.
  • MONITOR (Low Fit + High Intent): Watch for ICP drift. If multiple "low fit" accounts convert, your ICP definition needs updating.
  • DISQUALIFY (Low Fit + Low Intent): Do not spend resources. Revisit only during quarterly ICP refresh.

Enrichment Waterfall Architecture

Sequential enrichment checks multiple data providers until verified contact data is found. Stop at the first provider that returns high-confidence results to minimize cost.

Step 1: Clay (primary enrichment)
  |
  +--> Confidence >= 0.85? --> ACCEPT, stop
  |
  +--> Confidence < 0.85? --> Continue
  |
Step 2: Apollo (secondary)
  |
  +--> Confidence >= 0.85? --> ACCEPT, stop
  |
  +--> Confidence < 0.85? --> Continue
  |
Step 3: ZoomInfo (tertiary)
  |
  +--> Confidence >= 0.85? --> ACCEPT, stop
  |
  +--> Confidence < 0.85? --> Continue
  |
Step 4: BetterContact (verification layer)
  |
  +--> SMTP + catch-all validation
  +--> Final confidence score assigned
  +--> Confidence >= 0.50? --> ACCEPT with flag
  +--> Confidence < 0.50? --> REJECT

Confidence Thresholds

Score RangeActionExpected Deliverability
0.85 - 1.00Accept, route to outreach95%+ deliverable
0.70 - 0.84Accept with verification flag85-94% deliverable
0.50 - 0.69Accept for nurture only, do not cold email70-84% deliverable
Below 0.50Reject, do not useBelow 70%, high bounce risk

ICP Definition Workflow

  1. Export your best 20-50 customers by NRR, deal velocity, or LTV
  2. Run firmographic enrichment to find common patterns (industry, size, stage)
  3. Run technographic enrichment to find stack commonalities
  4. Analyze intent signals that preceded closed-won deals
  5. Build the scoring model with weights derived from your data, not assumptions
  6. Test against your pipeline to see if the model would have predicted your last 10 wins
  7. Set a 90-day review cadence because in AI markets, your ICP drifts quarterly

3. Competitive Positioning in Fast-Moving AI Markets

The Competitor Alternative SEO Play

"[Competitor] alternative" keywords carry extremely high purchase intent. Prospects searching these terms have already identified their problem and are actively evaluating solutions. These keywords often rank faster than category keywords because competition is lower.

Execution Checklist

StepActionTool
1List top 10 direct competitors and adjacent toolsManual + G2 category pages
2Build keyword set: "[competitor] alternative," "[competitor] vs [you]," "[competitor] pricing," "switch from [competitor]"Ahrefs, Semrush, or SEO agent
3Create dedicated landing pages for top 5 competitorsCMS or static site
4Structure each page: pain point, feature comparison table, proof vector, CTATemplate below
5Build supporting content: migration guides, comparison blog postsContent team or AI-assisted
6Track rankings weekly and iterate copy based on conversion dataSearch console + analytics

Competitor Landing Page Structure

1. Headline: "Looking for a [Competitor] alternative?"
2. Pain acknowledgment: Why buyers leave [Competitor]
3. Comparison table: Feature-by-feature with honest gaps noted
4. Proof vector: Case study or metric from a switcher
5. Migration section: "Switch in under 30 minutes"
6. CTA: Free trial or demo, low commitment

Competitive Intelligence Cadence

FrequencyActionOwner
WeeklyMonitor competitor pricing pages, changelog, job postingsGTM Ops or AI agent
MonthlyReview G2/Capterra new reviews for competitor sentiment shiftsProduct Marketing
QuarterlyFull competitive audit: positioning, messaging, new features, pricing changesProduct Marketing + Sales
Trigger-basedCompetitor raises funding, launches major feature, changes pricingAlert-driven, immediate response

Positioning Against Different Competitor Types

Competitor TypePositioning StrategyKey Message
Incumbent (enterprise)Speed and simplicity"Get results in days, not months of implementation"
Direct AI competitorDepth on your wedge"We do [specific thing] 10x better because [proof]"
DIY/internal toolsTotal cost of ownership"Your team spends 40hrs/month maintaining what we do automatically"
Open-sourceSupport, reliability, compliance"Production-ready with SOC2, SLA, and dedicated support"
Platform bundling AISpecialization"We are purpose-built for [use case], not a checkbox feature"

4. Messaging Architecture

The Capability-to-Outcome Translation Framework

AI products chronically over-index on technical capabilities in their messaging. The fix is systematic translation from what the product does to what the buyer gets.

The Translation Test

If your messaging includes a model name, you are selling to engineers. If your messaging includes a business outcome, you are selling to buyers.

Technical CapabilityBusiness OutcomeBuyer Cares About
"Uses RAG with vector embeddings""Answers customer questions with 94% accuracy using your own docs"Accuracy, self-service deflection
"Fine-tuned LLM on your data""New reps ramp 40% faster with AI coaching trained on your top performers"Time-to-productivity, revenue per rep
"Real-time inference at 50ms latency""Fraud blocked before the transaction completes"Loss prevention, customer trust
"Multi-modal AI pipeline""Process invoices, receipts, and contracts without manual data entry"Time savings, error reduction

Three-Tier Messaging Architecture

Build messaging at three altitudes. Each tier serves a different audience and context.

+----------------------------------------------------------+
|  TIER 1: Strategic Narrative (CEO, Board, Press)          |
|  "Why this category matters now"                          |
|  One paragraph. No product features.                      |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|  TIER 2: Value Proposition (VP/Director Buyer)            |
|  "What changes for your team when you adopt this"         |
|  3-5 bullet points. Business outcomes with proof.         |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
|  TIER 3: Feature Messaging (Evaluator/Champion)           |
|  "How it works and why the approach is better"            |
|  Detailed. Technical where appropriate. Comparison-ready. |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
TierAudienceLengthContentWhere Used
Tier 1C-suite, press, investors1 paragraphMarket shift + your role in itHomepage hero, pitch deck slide 1, PR
Tier 2VP/Director buyers3-5 bulletsBusiness outcomes + proof pointsSales deck, product pages, case studies
Tier 3Evaluators, championsDetailedFeatures, architecture, integrationsDocs, comparison pages, technical blog

Messaging Validation Checklist

Run every piece of messaging through these five checks:

CheckQuestionPass Criteria
SpecificityDoes it include a number or named outcome?"Reduces support tickets by 40%" passes. "Improves efficiency" fails.
DifferentiationCould a competitor say the exact same thing?If yes, rewrite until only you can claim it.
Buyer languageDoes it use words your buyers actually say?Pull language from sales call transcripts and G2 reviews, not marketing brainstorms.
ProofIs there evidence backing the claim?Customer quote, case study metric, or third-party validation required.
Altitude matchIs the message at the right tier for the audience?Tier 1 messages in a technical doc fail. Tier 3 messages in a board deck fail.

5. The Buyer Shift: Business Leaders as AI Buyers

Who Buys AI in 2025-2026

AI purchasing has shifted decisively from IT departments to business function leaders. Organizations that align leadership around AI priorities are nearly twice as likely to report above-average growth. This means your ICP, messaging, and sales motion must target the business buyer, not the CTO.

Signal2022-20232025-2026
Primary buyerCTO / VP EngineeringVP Ops, VP Sales, VP CX, CFO
Evaluation criteriaTechnical architecture, model benchmarksTime-to-value, ROI, workflow fit
Purchase justification"Innovation budget""Headcount savings" or "revenue lift"
Decision timeline6-12 month evaluation30-90 day pilot-to-purchase
Success metricModel accuracy, uptimePipeline generated, tickets deflected, hours saved
Procurement involvementMinimalHeavy, focused on measurable ROI

Implications for GTM

GTM ElementOld Approach (Selling to IT)New Approach (Selling to Business)
DemoShow the architecture diagramShow the workflow before/after
Case study"Reduced inference latency by 3x""Sales team closes 28% more deals"
Pricing pagePer-API-call pricingOutcome-based or per-workflow pricing
Sales deckTechnical deep-diveBusiness case with ROI calculator
ChampionSenior engineerDirector/VP in the buying department
ContentTechnical blog posts, docsROI guides, industry benchmarks, playbooks
TrialAPI sandboxPre-configured workflow template

Mapping Your Messaging to the New Buyer

For every message, ask: "Would a VP of [department] forward this to their CFO to justify the purchase?" If the answer is no, the message is at the wrong altitude.


6. Perishable PMF: Quarterly Revalidation

Why AI PMF Expires

In AI markets, PMF is not a milestone you reach and keep. Model capabilities evolve monthly, buyer expectations shift as they interact with better AI systems elsewhere, and new competitors launch weekly. Companies that validated PMF six months ago may already be losing it.

The data confirms this: only 5% of generative AI projects deliver real business value, often because teams validate once and assume the signal holds. Continuous revalidation is the fix.

The 90-Day PMF Revalidation Cadence

Run this cycle every quarter. Each component takes 1-2 weeks. Total cycle: 4-6 weeks, leaving buffer before the next one starts.

WeekActionMethodOutput
1Sean Ellis SurveySurvey active users: "How disappointed would you be without this product?"PMF score (target: 40%+ "very disappointed")
2Cohort Retention AnalysisCompare Day 7/30/90 retention across monthly cohortsRetention trend (improving, flat, declining)
3Competitive AuditReview top 5 competitors for positioning, pricing, feature changesCompetitive delta report
4ICP RefreshAnalyze last quarter's wins/losses for ICP driftUpdated ICP scoring weights
5-6Synthesis + ActionCombine all signals into positioning/messaging/ICP updatesUpdated positioning doc, revised ICP, new messaging

Sean Ellis Score Benchmarks for AI Products

ScoreInterpretationAction
Below 20%No PMF. The product is not solving a real problem yet.Pivot or narrow the ICP dramatically.
20-30%Weak signal. Some users get value, most do not.Identify the segment where score is highest and focus there.
30-40%Approaching PMF. Close but the wedge needs sharpening.Double down on the highest-scoring use case.
40-50%PMF achieved. Growth investments are justified.Scale the sales motion, expand the team.
50-60%Strong PMF. Best-in-class for early stage.Optimize unit economics, begin adjacent expansion.
60%+Exceptional. Rare even among successful companies.Defend the position, expand the category.

PMF Decay Warning Signs

SignalWhat It MeansResponse
Sean Ellis score drops 5+ points quarter-over-quarterCore value perception weakeningRe-interview churned users, check competitor launches
Day-30 retention drops below previous cohortNew users getting less valueAudit onboarding flow, check if ICP shifted
Win rate declining while pipeline growsPositioning attracting wrong audienceTighten ICP definition, update qualification criteria
Sales cycle lengtheningBuyer confidence dropping or competition increasingUpdate proof vectors, add new case studies
NPS drops while usage stays flatUsers staying out of switching cost, not satisfactionUrgent: interview detractors, ship fixes

AI Pricing Model Landscape (Context for PMF)

Pricing directly affects PMF signals. The wrong model creates churn even when the product delivers value.

ModelWhen to UseRisk2025-2026 Trend
Per-seatSimple products, predictable usage40% lower margins, 2.3x higher churn vs. usage-basedDeclining (dropped from 21% to 15% in 12 months)
Usage-basedAPI products, variable workloadsRevenue unpredictability, customer budget anxietyGrowing (59% of software companies increasing usage share)
Outcome-basedHigh-confidence ROI deliveryHard to measure, requires attribution infrastructureEmerging (30%+ enterprise SaaS incorporating outcome components)
Hybrid (base + usage)Most AI products in 2025-2026Complexity in pricing page and sales conversationsDominant (surged from 27% to 41%)
Cross-reference: See ai-pricing skill for detailed pricing strategy frameworks, willingness-to-pay research methods, and pricing page optimization.

7. April Dunford's Positioning Framework Applied to AI

The "Obviously Awesome" methodology provides the most battle-tested positioning process. Here it is adapted for AI product realities.

The 10-Step Process (AI-Adapted)

StepActionAI-Specific Consideration
1List your competitive alternativesInclude "doing nothing" and "building internally with open-source models"
2List features unique to your productFocus on workflow-level differences, not model-level differences
3Map features to value themesTranslate every technical feature to a business outcome
4Identify who cares most about that valueBusiness function leaders, not IT, in most cases
5Find the market context that makes your value obviousCategory must be one the buyer already budgets for
6Layer in relevant trendsAI adoption in their function, competitor AI moves, regulatory changes
7Capture positioning in a documentUse the four-layer stack (Category, Wedge, Proof, Alternative)
8Test with sales teamIf sales cannot repeat the positioning naturally, simplify
9Test with 5 prospectsWatch for confusion, misattribution, or "so what?" reactions
10Set 90-day review dateAI markets shift too fast for annual positioning cycles

8. Implementation Playbook

Week 1-2: Discovery and Data Pull

  • Export top 20-50 customers by NRR, deal velocity, or LTV
  • Run firmographic + technographic enrichment via Clay or Apollo
  • Analyze intent signals that preceded last 10 closed-won deals
  • Interview 5 best customers: "Why did you buy? What alternatives did you consider?"
  • Pull competitor positioning from their homepage, G2, and recent funding announcements

Week 3: Build ICP and Scoring Model

  • Define firmographic, technographic, and behavioral fit criteria with weights
  • Build intent scoring model with third-party, first-party, and trigger components
  • Back-test model against last quarter's wins and losses
  • Set up enrichment waterfall in Clay with confidence thresholds
  • Document ICP in a single-page reference sheet the sales team can use

Week 4: Positioning and Messaging

  • Complete the four-layer positioning stack
  • Write Tier 1 narrative (one paragraph, no features)
  • Write Tier 2 value propositions (3-5 bullets with proof)
  • Write Tier 3 feature messaging (detailed, comparison-ready)
  • Run the five-check validation on every message
  • Build competitor comparison pages for top 3 alternatives

Week 5-6: Validate and Ship

  • Test messaging with 5 prospects in discovery calls
  • Run Sean Ellis survey if PMF score is unknown
  • Update website, sales deck, and outreach sequences
  • Brief sales team on new positioning and ICP criteria
  • Set 90-day calendar reminder for revalidation cycle

Quick Reference

ConceptKey Number or Rule
ICP review cadenceEvery 90 days minimum for AI products
Sean Ellis PMF threshold40%+ "very disappointed"
Enrichment confidence threshold0.85+ for outreach, 0.50+ for nurture, reject below 0.50
Positioning stack layersCategory, Wedge, Proof Vector, Alternative Framing
Messaging tiersTier 1 (narrative), Tier 2 (value props), Tier 3 (features)
Fit Score weightsFirmographic 40%, Technographic 35%, Behavioral 25%
Intent Score weightsFirst-Party 40%, Third-Party 35%, Triggers 25%
Seat-based pricing trendDropped from 21% to 15% in 12 months
Hybrid pricing trendSurged from 27% to 41%
Buyer shiftBusiness function leaders now primary AI buyers, not IT
ACTIVATE thresholdHigh Fit + High Intent, respond in under 4 hours
Messaging test"Would a VP forward this to their CFO?" If no, wrong altitude

Questions to Ask

  1. Who are your 5 best customers by revenue retention, and what do they have in common?
  2. What do prospects compare you to most often? Include non-software alternatives like "doing it manually."
  3. What is the single biggest reason deals stall or get lost?
  4. When a customer churns, what do they switch to?
  5. What job title signs the contract, and what job title championed the deal internally?
  6. Can you describe the last time your positioning or messaging was updated?
  7. What is your current Sean Ellis score? If you do not know, how many active users do you have available to survey?
  8. How are you currently scoring and prioritizing inbound leads?
  9. What is your average deal cycle from first touch to signed contract?
  10. Do you have documented proof vectors (case studies, metrics, testimonials) for your top 3 use cases?
  11. What does your competitor monitoring process look like today?
  12. How is your pricing structured, and when was it last changed?
  13. What content or page on your site converts visitors to pipeline most effectively?
  14. Do you have separate messaging for different buyer personas, or one message for all?
  15. What trigger events (funding, hiring, tech changes) most often precede a new customer signing?

Related Skills

SkillWhen to Cross-Reference
ai-pricingWhen building pricing models, willingness-to-pay analysis, or packaging tiers
sales-motion-designWhen designing the sales process that operationalizes your positioning
ai-cold-outreachWhen translating positioning into cold email/LinkedIn sequences
ai-sdrWhen building AI-powered SDR workflows that use ICP scoring
lead-enrichmentWhen implementing enrichment waterfalls and data quality workflows
multi-platform-launchWhen launching across channels and need consistent positioning
ai-seoWhen building competitor alternative pages and bottom-funnel content
gtm-engineeringWhen automating ICP scoring, enrichment, and routing in your stack
solo-founder-gtmWhen a solo founder needs to prioritize positioning work with limited resources
gtm-metricsWhen measuring the downstream impact of positioning and ICP changes on pipeline

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

Codex

34.73%
按下载量换算107

Claude

28.99%
按下载量换算89

Cursor

19.04%
按下载量换算59

Gemini CLI

9.38%
按下载量换算29

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

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。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。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