offer-testing

I spent some time with your skill and noticed the grading came in at 64/100 — there's solid foundation here, but the structure feels like it's fighting against itself a bit. The core idea of offer testing is useful, but I'm curious about the choices you made around when and how to surface those options to users.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 64/100, solid D territory. This is based on Anthropic's progressive disclosure architecture principles and skill utility standards. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (12/15) — the YAML frontmatter is clean and technically sound. But Utility is dragging you down hard at 9/20, which makes sense because the skill reads like an outline instead of a guide users can actually execute.

What's Working Well

• Valid frontmatter structure — Your metadata follows conventions correctly with proper hyphen-case naming
• Clear 5-step framework — The progression from hypothesis through analysis shows you've thought about the testing flow
• Objective tone — No marketing fluff, just instructional content that gets to the point
• Grep-friendly formatting — Clean enough that reference tools could parse it without breaking a sweat

The Big One: Missing Actual Templates and Examples

Here's what's killing your utility score: you mention templates and examples but don't provide them. You say "Experiment brief (variable, control, variant, KPI, sample size, duration)" but there's no actual markdown template users can copy-paste. Same with results reporting.

Why this matters: A marketer reading your skill has the framework, sure, but when they sit down to actually run a test, they're googling for a template anyway. You've created demand but not fulfilled it.

**...