本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

client-proposal

Write a consulting engagement proposal. Use when a consultant says "write me a proposal", "draft a proposal for [your client]", "I need to send a proposal", "how do I structure a proposal", "client wants a SOW", "write a statement of work", "I need to propose a project", or "help me price and scope this engagement". Also trigger when someone describes a client conversation that ended with "send me something in writing".

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md7.2 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Overview

Based on "The Consulting Bible" by Alan Weiss and "Flawless Consulting" by Peter Block. A proposal is not a scope document - it is a business case. The client must see their problem clearly, understand why your approach solves it, and see the value of solving it before they encounter the investment. Sequence matters: value before price, always.

The fatal mistake is leading with methodology. Clients do not buy methodology - they buy outcomes. Every section of the proposal must connect to business value.

Workflow

Step 1: Confirm the Business Outcomes

Before writing a word, confirm the three levels Weiss calls the "business outcomes hierarchy":

  • Business outcomes - measurable results for the organization (revenue, cost, speed, quality)
  • Personal outcomes - what this means for the sponsor's career, reputation, or goals
  • Relationship outcomes - what a successful engagement means for the client-consultant relationship

If you cannot name at least two business outcomes and one personal outcome, go back and ask. A proposal without clear outcomes is a scope document - it invites line-item negotiation and price pressure.

Step 2: Write the Situation Summary

Open with a 2-3 paragraph summary of the client's situation and the problem being solved. Write it from the client's point of view, not yours.

Template:

[Your client] is facing [situation: current state + relevant context]. This has resulted
in [consequence 1] and [consequence 2]. Left unaddressed, [risk or cost of inaction].

The opportunity is [desired future state]. Achieving it requires [key challenge].

Rules:

  • Mirror the language the client used in conversations, not your consulting vocabulary
  • Name specific consequences, not vague ones ("revenue at risk" not "challenges")
  • Make the cost of inaction visible - this is what justifies the investment

Step 3: Proposed Approach

Describe your methodology in 3-5 phases. Each phase gets: a name, a one-sentence purpose, key activities, and a deliverable.

Template:

Phase 1: [Name]
Purpose: [What this phase accomplishes and why it comes first]
Activities: [2-4 bullet points of what you will do]
Deliverable: [Tangible output the client receives]
Duration: [X weeks]

Phase 2: ...

Keep this section shorter than the outcomes section. The client is hiring you to achieve outcomes, not to run activities. If the approach section is longer than the outcomes section, rebalance.

Step 4: Deliverables and Measures of Success

List what the client will have when the engagement is complete, and how success will be measured.

Template:

Deliverables:
- [Tangible output 1 - be specific: "12-page competitive analysis" not "analysis"]
- [Tangible output 2]
- [Tangible output 3]

Measures of Success:
- [Quantitative metric 1: "Reduce onboarding time from X to Y"]
- [Quantitative metric 2]
- [Qualitative indicator: "Leadership team aligned on 3-year strategy"]

Never promise process deliverables (workshop, meeting, presentation) as the primary value. Process is how you get there. Outcomes are what the client is buying.

Step 5: Investment

Weiss's core principle: present value-based fees, not time-and-materials rates. A value-based fee is anchored to the value of the outcome, not the hours you will spend.

Template:

Investment Options:

Option A - [Name, e.g. "Core Engagement"]: $[X]
Includes: [phases 1-3, primary deliverables]

Option B - [Name, e.g. "Full Partnership"]: $[X]
Includes: [all phases, advisory access, implementation support]

Option C - [Name, e.g. "Accelerated"]: $[X]
Includes: [compressed timeline, senior-only staffing, weekly exec reviews]

Payment: [50% on signing, 50% on delivery] or [monthly installments]

Always offer 3 options. Three options shifts the client's decision from "yes or no" to "which one" - a much better anchoring position. Price Option B at your target. Option A is the floor. Option C is aspirational.

Step 6: Terms and Logistics

Short section. Covers:

  • Engagement start date (proposed)
  • Client responsibilities (what you need from them to succeed)
  • What is explicitly out of scope
  • Validity period ("This proposal is valid for 30 days")
  • Next steps ("Sign and return page 4" or "Schedule kickoff call")

The out-of-scope list is as important as the in-scope list. Scope creep starts in proposals that are vague about boundaries.

Step 7: ROI Framing (Optional but powerful)

For large engagements, add a one-page ROI section before the investment. Show the math:

If this engagement achieves [outcome X], the estimated value is [$ or %].
At the proposed investment of $[Y], the ROI is [Z]x over [timeframe].

Conservative scenario: [assumption + value]
Expected scenario: [assumption + value]

This reframes the investment conversation entirely. The client is no longer asking "is $Y too much?" - they are asking "is $Y a good investment for $Z in return?"

Anti-Patterns

1. Leading with credentials Bad: Opening with "Our firm has 20 years of experience in..." Good: Open with the client's situation. They know who you are - that's why you're writing the proposal. Save credentials for a brief bio section at the end if needed at all.

2. Time-and-materials pricing Bad: "Senior consultant: $250/hr, estimated 120 hours = $30,000" Good: "$30,000 for the engagement." T&M pricing invites the client to audit your hours and question every line. Value-based fees keep focus on outcomes.

3. One option Bad: A single fixed price with no alternatives. Good: Three options at different scopes and prices. One option forces a yes/no. Three options create an anchoring effect that moves the decision to "which level of engagement."

4. Vague deliverables Bad: "Recommendations report" Good: "15-20 page findings report with 3-5 prioritized recommendations, implementation roadmap, and executive presentation deck (12-15 slides)" Vague deliverables create scope disputes. Specific deliverables set clear expectations.

5. Proposal before understanding Bad: Writing a proposal after one exploratory call. Good: Write the proposal only after you can articulate the client's business outcomes, personal outcomes, and cost of inaction. If you can't, schedule another discovery call.

Quality Checklist

  • Situation summary uses the client's language, not your consulting vocabulary
  • At least two specific business outcomes named, with metrics where possible
  • Cost of inaction is named explicitly
  • Approach section is shorter than outcomes section
  • Deliverables are specific and tangible (not process-only)
  • Measures of success are measurable (not "client satisfaction")
  • Three investment options presented
  • Out-of-scope items listed
  • Client responsibilities listed (what you need from them)
  • Next steps are a single, specific action
  • Proposal validity date included

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

Design clean and consistent APIs. Use when the user says "design an API", "API design review", "design these endpoints", "REST API for X", "GraphQL schema", "API contract", "how should this endpoint work", "review my API design", or wants to create or improve an API interface - even if they don't explicitly say "API design".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

qa-aman/claude-skills202026年9月10日 更新

qa-aman のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する