messaging-framework

I've been looking at how you structured the messaging framework layer, and I'm curious about the trade-offs you made between keeping it abstract enough for different segments while still providing enough concrete guidance—at a 67/100, there's solid foundational work here, but the skill could punch harder with some tightening up around how templates and procedures actually get executed.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 67/100, D territory. This is graded against Anthropic's skill quality standards. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (11/15)—the YAML structure is clean and the terminology is consistent. Weakest is Progressive Disclosure Architecture (18/30)—mostly because the templates you mention aren't actually provided as separate reference files, which kills both discoverability and token efficiency.

What's Working Well

• Consistent terminology across the entire skill (value pillars, proof points, objection handling)—makes it easy to follow your mental model
• Clear "When to Use" section that actually tells people when to invoke this (structure value props, handle objections, build talk tracks)
• Solid YAML frontmatter with valid metadata and proper naming conventions (hyphen-case, appropriate description length)
• Logical flow from audience definition through objection mapping—the conceptual arc makes sense

The Big One: Templates Aren't Templated

You mention three critical templates—"Message house worksheet", "Objection/response matrix", "Story library index"—but they only exist as bullet points. This is a missed opportunity. Create actual reference files (references/message-house-worksheet.md, references/objection-response-matrix.md, `references/story-...