Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add boshi-xixixi/TraeSkill --skill gtm-enterprise-onboardinggit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/boshi-xixixi/TraeSkillWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/boshi-xixixi/traeskill/gtm-enterprise-onboarding)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/boshi-xixixi/traeskill/gtm-enterprise-onboarding"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boshi-xixixi/traeskill/gtm-enterprise-onboarding/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/boshi-xixixi/traeskill/gtm-enterprise-onboarding"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/boshi-xixixi/traeskill/gtm-enterprise-onboarding.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00053 | $0.03321 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00026 | $0.01661 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00011 | $0.00664 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00332 |
Grade A, and why
gtm-enterprise-onboarding scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- enterprise-onboarding — 98% identical, 5 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 458 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Enterprise Onboarding
Four-phase framework for onboarding enterprise customers from contract to value realization. The goal isn't just go-live — it's sustained adoption that doesn't cliff at Week 12.
When to Use
Triggers:
- "How do we onboard this enterprise customer?"
- "Customer went live but adoption is weak"
- "We keep losing customers 3 months after go-live"
- "POC to production transition"
- "How do I prevent Week 4 ghosting?"
- "Customer success onboarding framework"
Context:
- Enterprise or mid-market deals
- Complex technical requirements
- Multiple stakeholders involved
- 30-90 day implementation timelines
- Risk of churn during first year
Core Frameworks
1. The Week 4 Ghosting Problem (And How to Prevent It)
The Pattern:
Week 1: Kickoff call goes great. Everyone's excited. Week 2-3: Technical discovery, requirements gathering. Still good. Week 4: Customer stops responding. Meetings get cancelled. "Too busy."
What Happened?
You started customer onboarding before internal alignment on their side.
Who Owns This Project Internally?
- Sales rep? (Already moved to next deal)
- Technical champion? (Day job took over)
- Executive sponsor? (Delegates, doesn't drive)
- Nobody? (This is why they're ghosting)
The Framework: Internal Owner Validation
Before kickoff call, answer:
Who on customer side will:
- Attend weekly project meetings? (Not "invited" — will actually show up)
- Unblock issues with procurement/legal/security? (Has authority)
- Drive adoption with end users? (Has influence)
- Escalate when things stall? (Has executive access)
If you can't name a specific person for each, you don't have a project owner. You have a signed contract with nobody driving it.
How to Fix It:
During sales → CS handoff (before customer kickoff):
Sales rep must identify:
- Primary project owner (name, not role)
- Their capacity (dedicated or side project?)
- Their authority (can they unblock?)
- Their motivation (what's in it for them?)
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 8d ago First seen · 458 lines · 53 tokens per session scan A d70746655ff0
gtm-enterprise-onboarding is a skill published in the GitHub repository boshi-xixixi/TraeSkill (263 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 53 tokens to every session and 3,321 once invoked, about $0.0003 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
to-issues
A planning aid that breaks a PRD or technical specification into small implementation issues, each covering a complete, demonstrable piece of work.
fable-orchestrate
Use when the user wants a task decomposed and driven by a Fable 5.1 orchestrator delegating implementation to Sonnet 5 workers. Fable decomposes into self-contained specs, dispatches Sonnet workers (Agents for 1–2 pieces, a Workflow for fan-out), reviews each result, merges into one branch, and takes a binding verdict…
fable-validate-loop
Use when the user asks to validate a GitHub issue with Fable 5.1 and then autonomously drive it to a reviewed PR in one shot — "fable-validate-loop", "fable validate and work on.
fable-validate-fableplan-loop
Use when the user asks to validate a GitHub issue with Fable 5.1, always plan it with Fable 5.1, and autonomously drive it to a reviewed PR in one shot — "fable-validate-fableplan-loop", "fable validate, fable plan, and work on.
milestoneplan
Use when the user wants a milestone's execution plan shown as a table — "milestoneplan v1", "/milestoneplan", "show the plan for v1". Read-only - reads every issue in the milestone and renders one table of issue number, description, complexity, dependencies, validate/build model and effort, fableplan, plan effort, and…
new-issue
Use when the user says "new issue", "create an issue", "file an issue", "/new-issue", or asks to turn a bug, idea, or discussion into a GitHub issue. Takes an optional description of what the issue should cover; with no input, derives the issue from what was discussed in the current conversation. Verifies claims…