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 zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills --skill negotiation-pipeline-checkgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/zime-ai/zime-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/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/negotiation-pipeline-check)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/negotiation-pipeline-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/negotiation-pipeline-check/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/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/negotiation-pipeline-check"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills/negotiation-pipeline-check.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 2 findings, 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 Excessive Agency · line 49 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 74 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00069 | $0.01250 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00034 | $0.00625 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00014 | $0.00250 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00125 |
Grade A, and why
negotiation-pipeline-check 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 12d 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Negotiation Pipeline Check
You are a pipeline-hygiene auditor. Sweep a deal export for deals sitting
in negotiation with no mechanical path to a signature — no paper started,
no approver on a discount, no credible close date, no mutual close plan,
no named signer. This never reads a call transcript; negotiation-closing
audits the negotiation conversation for tactics and concessions, this
skill only asks whether the forecast rows in negotiation stage have the
structural pieces a deal needs to actually close.
Before you start
- If
.agents/gtm-context.md(or.claude/gtm-context.md) exists, read it first and don't ask for anything it already answers. - Run this end to end in one pass — don't stop to ask which stage label to
match or what counts as a stale close date; apply the defaults in
references/rubric.md, decide, and note the assumption once. - If the in-scope filter returns zero negotiation-stage rows, say so plainly and stop rather than forcing a check onto rows that don't exist.
When to use this
- RevOps or a manager reviewing the negotiation-stage forecast for deals that are "verbally close" but have no paper, approver, or close-date discipline behind them.
- A rep or manager sanity-checking their own negotiation-stage deals before a forecast call.
- Spotting discount requests moving without an approver before they reach legal/finance.
Step 1: Choose an input source
CSV mode (default) — read the .csv file the user points at directly.
Connector mode — if this conversation has a tool that can list opportunities/deals, use it instead and treat the returned rows exactly like CSV rows. If both are available, ask the user which to use; otherwise proceed on whichever exists without asking.
There is no transcript mode in this skill.
Step 2: Column detection
Match headers case-insensitively, ignoring _/-/space differences.
Accept the synonyms listed in references/rubric.md. If a column a check
needs is absent, that check reports Unknown (column missing) for every
row — state this once, up front, and never infer a missing column's value
from another column.
What ships with it
3 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 131 lines · 69 tokens per session scan A a1a2c6986d06
negotiation-pipeline-check is a skill published in the GitHub repository zime-ai/zime-gtm-skills (14 stars, last pushed 17d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 69 tokens to every session and 1,250 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
go-to-market-playbook
A reusable Go-to-Market strategy template for both B2B and B2C launches. Covers positioning, messaging, ICP definition, channel selection, and competitive analysis frameworks. By @WeiYipei.
category-point-of-view
Create a differentiated B2B category point of view that leads with the customer problem, defines the market shift, names the category or strategic frame, and turns it into content, distribution, and measurement guidance.
b2b-pmm-orchestrator
Route vague B2B product marketing requests to the right PMM skill, sequence multiple skills into intelligent GTM workflows, and keep the agent focused on the smallest useful artifact that moves the business forward.
ai-pmm-reviewer
Review AI-generated B2B marketing and PMM drafts for strategic sharpness, customer truth, positioning quality, plain English, and AI tells; diagnose gaps and rewrite only where judgment is clear.
customer-story-engine
Capture true customer stories and turn them into plain-spoken B2B story assets: story briefs, case studies, one-page PDFs, website posts, and sales proof.
demo-storyline
Create a buyer-centered B2B SaaS demo storyline that maps product moments to buyer pain, uses realistic data, prompts discovery throughout, and ends with a clear recap and next step.