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 swan-gtm/gtm-skills --skill mutual-action-plan-buildergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/swan-gtm/gtm-skillsWrote 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/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/mutual-action-plan-builder)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/mutual-action-plan-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/mutual-action-plan-builder/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/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/mutual-action-plan-builder"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/swan-gtm/gtm-skills/mutual-action-plan-builder.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 1 finding, up to medium
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- medium Rogue Agent · line 138 Skill establishes unauthorized persistence across sessions via cron jobs, startup scripts, or state files. Session persistence allows an attacker to maintain access beyond the current interaction.Fix: Remove any persistence mechanisms (cron jobs, startup scripts, state files). Skills should not maintain state across sessions without explicit user consent.
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 | $0.00178 | $0.02814 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00089 | $0.01407 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00563 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00018 | $0.00281 |
Grade A, and why
mutual-action-plan-builder 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 9d 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 221 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Purpose & When to Use
A Mutual Action Plan is not a close plan. A close plan is one-sided — it tracks what the seller does to push the deal to signature — and buyers have zero interest in it. A MAP is the opposite: a shared, co-created roadmap that helps the buyer navigate their own internal buying process toward value. Done right, it turns skepticism into partnership and it forces one honest question at every step: what has the buyer actually achieved? — not what did we send them?
Run this skill when any of these are true on a live deal:
- The champion asks "what are the next steps" or "how do we get this over the line."
- You are entering scoping, POC, security review, legal, or procurement.
- The deal has slipped once, or stalled with no mutual, written timeline.
- You cannot name who on the buyer side owns each decision gate.
- The buying committee is unclear or larger than your single champion.
- You are about to push a "next steps" email and want to replace it with a plan the buyer co-owns.
Do not run this if the need and value are not yet validated. Gal's rule: a MAP only lands when there is clear, agreed value you are both working toward. Drafting one on an unqualified deal produces a document nobody believes.
Procedure
Inputs you need
Collect these before drafting. Where something is missing, do not fabricate it —
mark it [CONFIRM WITH BUYER] and make confirming it the very first buyer task.
- Deal context: company, your champion (name + role), deal stage, expected/contracted close date, deal value if known.
- The business problem and desired outcome the buyer stated — in their words, ideally a direct quote or paraphrase from a call.
- Who else is involved: every stakeholder you know of (security, legal, procurement, finance, exec sponsor, end users, IT/RevOps) with name, role, and sentiment if known.
- The buyer's timeline and why — what's driving it (board commitment, fiscal year, launch date, a cost pressure).
- The buyer's internal process: security/procurement/approval steps they must run, and any board or signature gates.
- Your own seller-side steps: what you (and your team: SE, legal, CS, exec sponsor) must do to support them.
- Success criteria / ROI the buyer expects post-close (e.g. onboarding time cut, cost saved, revenue enabled).
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.
- 9d ago First seen · 221 lines · 178 tokens per session scan A 6feb596a5a6d
mutual-action-plan-builder is a skill published in the GitHub repository swan-gtm/gtm-skills (150 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 178 tokens to every session and 2,814 once invoked, about $0.0009 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
Pipedrive Automation
Automate Pipedrive CRM workflows including deal management, pipeline tracking, and sales reporting.
fs-electric-studio
OpenDesign as an enterprise design platform: a buyer-forwardable proposal for a design-org's economic buyer — pain, value, ROI, rollout. Built as a decision-grade B2B sales deck for economic buyer, design VP, procurement.
huashu-bento-insight
OpenDesign vs closed cloud design tools: a side-by-side displacement case on control, cost (BYOK), and lock-in. Built as a decision-grade B2B sales deck for evaluation committee.
html-ppt-product-launch
OpenDesign Teams: a launch-and-adoption proposal for a mid-market design team weighing a switch from closed cloud tools. Built as a decision-grade B2B sales deck for design team lead, IT.
afrexai-lead-hunter
Enterprise-grade B2B lead generation, enrichment, scoring, and outreach sequencing for AI agents. Find ideal prospects, enrich with verified data, score against your ICP, and generate personalized outreach — all autonomously.
deliverability-monitoring
Monitor outbound deliverability health across domains, inboxes, DNS, bounces, spam placement, reply rates, and reputation signals. Produces alert thresholds, dashboard spec, weekly QA checklist, and remediation playbook. Use when inboxing drops, bounce rates rise, campaigns underperform, or new infrastructure launches.