co-branding

I found your co-branding skill while evaluating some recent submissions, and I'm curious about the design choice here—you're essentially building a bridge between two brand identities, which is trickier than it sounds at first glance. The 62 score suggests there's solid foundation but some areas where the implementation could be more polished—want to dig into what would make this more production-ready?

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 62/100, solidly in D territory. This is based on Anthropic's skill best practices framework. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (11/15)—the metadata is clean and naming follows conventions. But Utility (11/20) and Ease of Use (14/25) are dragging things down. The core issue is that you've got the structure sketched out, but it feels more descriptive than prescriptive—it tells people what to check, not how to enforce it.

What's Working Well

• Clean YAML frontmatter – Valid structure with required fields, hyphen-case naming is correct
• Consistent terminology – You stick with "co-branding," "assets," and "partner" throughout, which makes it easy to follow
• Appropriate framework scope – Five conceptual areas (Brand Hierarchy, Messaging, Visual Assets, Legal/Compliance, Localization) actually covers the space well

The Big One: Missing Reference Files

Your skill mentions templates—"Co-branding checklist (logos, copy, disclaimers, accessibility, localization)" and "Visual reference guide with approved mockups"—but then doesn't actually provide them. This is a classic PDA layering problem. You should have:

• references/co-branding-checklist.md – Actual runnable checklist with checkboxes
• references/messaging-matrix-template.md – Template showing how to structure audience → message → proof points → CTA
• references/visual-guide.md – Specific constraints (logo clearspace = 1.5x height, partner logo max 80% of primary, etc.)

Right now the framework section says "determine logo lockups" but doesn't show how to validate them. Add a "Validation Workflow" section that walks through: run checklist → document non-compliance → request revisions → re-check. This alone could add +5-7 points by upgrading your Utility and PDA scores.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Add trigger phrases to your description – "Enforce visual, messaging, and legal standards" is vague. Use terms like "co-brand review," "partner asset check," "logo lockup validation." This helps discoverability and hits the spec compliance gap. (+2 points)

2. Make the framework actionable – Instead of "determine logo lockups," give specific checks: "[ ] Primary logo appears left/top? [ ] Logo clearspace adequate? [ ] Partner logo sizing correct?" This converts it from advisory to prescriptive. (+3 points)

3. Remove marketing claims – "Keep editable templates in shared workspaces to reduce iteration time" sounds good but is unsupported. Just say where to keep them (Google Drive, Figma, Confluence). (+1 point)

Quick Wins

• Create references/ folder with 3 actual templates (biggest bang for buck)
• Rewrite description with explicit trigger phrases ("co-brand review", "partner asset check")
• Convert framework steps into checkboxes/validation logic
• Add a "Validation Workflow" section showing the run→check→fix loop

These fixes target your two weakest areas (Utility +8, Ease of Use +4) and could realistically push you to 77-80/100 (C territory, production-viable).

Checkout your skill here: SkillzWave.ai | SpillWave We have an agentic skill installer that install skills in 14+ coding agent platforms. Check out this guide on how to improve your agentic skills.