Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Design strategic partnerships — technology, channel, co-marketing — and the programs that scale them. Use when evaluating a partner, picking a partnership type, designing a partner program, structuring a deal, or modeling ROI.
.claude/skills/borghei-partnerships-architect/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 108% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 136% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 205% | 0% |
| case-09 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 169% | 0% |
| case-18 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 302% | 0% |
End-to-end strategic partnership design and scaling: partnership type selection (tech integration vs channel vs OEM vs strategic), deal structures, partner program design (tiers, benefits, requirements), partner evaluation, and ROI modeling that justifies (or kills) a partnership investment.
This skill is provider-agnostic and works across SaaS, infrastructure, marketplace, and platform companies.
| Situation | Skill applies | |-----------|---------------| | Evaluating a potential partner | Yes — use scripts/partner_evaluation_scorer.py + evaluation framework | | Picking partnership type for a specific opportunity | Yes — see partnership type decision tree | | Designing a partner program from scratch | Yes — see partner program design + scripts/partner_program_designer.py | | Structuring a specific partnership deal | Yes — see partnership deal structures | | Modeling partnership ROI | Yes — scripts/partnership_roi_modeler.py | | Auditing existing partner portfolio | Yes — use evaluation scorer across all partners | | Per-deal partner economics | Use business-growth/channel-economics | | Per-deal partner approval | Use business-growth/deal-desk | | Writing the partner contract | Use business-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer |
Five primary partnership types. Different goals; different structures; different success metrics.
What's the primary goal of this partnership?
Grow our distribution reach
├── Customer-pays-them, they-pay-us → Reseller / Distributor / VAR
├── Customer-pays-us, we-pay-them → Affiliate / Referral
└── Joint sale to mutual customer → Co-sell
Embed our product in their offering
├── Customer doesn't see us (white-label) → OEM
├── Customer sees us as embedded → Embedded ISV / Powered-by
└── We're an option in their marketplace → Marketplace listing
Combine our product with theirs (better together)
├── Pre-integrated, certified → Tech / Integration Partner
├── Bundled offering → Solution Partner
└── Joint product (rare) → Joint Venture
Build market presence together
├── Joint events, content, PR → Co-marketing Partner
├── Industry positioning → Strategic Alliance
└── Standards / consortium → Standards Partner
Achieve a specific strategic goal
├── Block a competitor → Defensive partnership
├── Enter a new market → Market entry partnership
└── Acquire capability → Strategic alliance (often pre-acquisition)See references/partnership-types.md for each type in depth: economic structure, contract patterns, KPIs, when each works / fails.
Not every potential partner is worth the investment. Use this framework before committing.
| Dimension | What to assess | Score (1-5) | |-----------|----------------|-------------| | Strategic fit | Does this partnership advance our strategy? Customer base overlap / vertical / region? | | | Economic potential | Realistic pipeline / revenue contribution over 24 months? | | | Partner credibility | Brand, financial stability, technical capability, customer references | | | Mutual commitment | Are they investing equally? Senior sponsor on their side? Resources committed? | | | Operational fit | Can our systems / processes / culture work together? | | | Exit-ability | If it doesn't work, can we wind down cleanly? Are we creating dependencies we can't reverse? |
Total 25-30: green-light; invest with confidence Total 18-24: yellow; structure carefully; small pilot first Total < 18: red; decline or substantially restructure
Use scripts/partner_evaluation_scorer.py --partner partner.yaml to score a specific potential partner.
Before signing any significant partnership:
If you can't get clear answers, the partnership is wishful thinking.
Different deal types call for different structures. Standard patterns:
See references/partnership-deal-structures.md for the full deal-structure templates with negotiation guides.
When you scale beyond a few partners, you need a program.
| Pillar | Components | |--------|------------| | Recruitment | Target partner profile; outreach motion; intake / qualification; onboarding | | Enablement | Training; certification; technical resources; sandbox; partner portal; marketing materials | | Activation | Deal registration; lead sharing; MDF / co-marketing; co-selling motion; quarterly business reviews |
See references/partner-program-design.md for the full program template including tier definitions, benefit / requirement matrices, and the "Year 1 / Year 2 / Year 3" maturity model.
Use scripts/partner_program_designer.py --org-spec org.yaml to generate a baseline program design based on company stage + ICP + target partner volume.
Partnerships consume real investment. Headcount, MDF, technology, executive time. Model the ROI before committing.
3-year cumulative partnership P&L
Year 1 (investment year):
Revenue from partnership: $X
Costs:
Partnership manager headcount: $200k
Engineering integration (one-time): $300k
Marketing / co-launch: $50k
Partner enablement (content, training): $50k
Travel / events: $30k
TOTAL Y1 cost: $630k
Y1 net: $X - $630k
Year 2:
Revenue from partnership: $Y (growth)
Costs:
Partnership manager: $200k
Engineering ongoing: $100k
Marketing: $80k
Enablement: $30k
Travel / events: $40k
TOTAL Y2 cost: $450k
Y2 net: $Y - $450k
Year 3:
Revenue: $Z (mature)
Costs: $400k (stable)
Y3 net: $Z - $400k
3-year cumulative net: ($X + $Y + $Z) - $1,480kIf 3-year cumulative net is negative, the partnership doesn't pay back. Common reasons:
Use scripts/partnership_roi_modeler.py --partnership partnership.yaml for the full model.
Before designing the partnership, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the deliverable.
scripts/partner_evaluation_scorer.pyscripts/partner_program_designer.pyscripts/partner_evaluation_scorer.pyscripts/partnership_roi_modeler.pybusiness-growth/contract-and-proposal-writerscripts/partner_evaluation_scorer.py| Script | Input | Output | |--------|-------|--------| | scripts/partner_evaluation_scorer.py | Partner spec YAML | 6-dimension score (1-5 each), total, recommendation (green-light / yellow / red) | | scripts/partnership_roi_modeler.py | Partnership spec YAML | 3-year P&L, payback period, sensitivity analysis | | scripts/partner_program_designer.py | Org spec YAML | Recommended program structure: tiers, benefits, requirements, headcount needed |
All scripts: stdlib only, argparse CLI, JSON or markdown output.
business-growth/channel-economics — per-deal financial mechanics underneath partnership structurebusiness-growth/deal-desk — per-deal approval mechanics for partner-mediated dealsbusiness-growth/pricing-strategy — pricing flexibility / floor for partner dealsbusiness-growth/contract-and-proposal-writer — partner contracts (MSA, partner agreement, OEM agreement)c-level-advisor/cs-cro-advisor — strategic-level partnership decisionsc-level-advisor/cs-ceo-advisor — board-level alliance decisions| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 18,595 | 18,007 | -3% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,028 | 6,295 | +108% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 22,612 | 26,574 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,561 | 7,699 | +116% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 20,020 | 27,406 | +37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,515 | 8,301 | +136% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 8,199 | 9,080 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,279 | 4,558 | +256% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 7,755 | 9,598 | +24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,167 | 5,014 | +330% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 6,476 | 8,075 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 898 | 4,743 | +428% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 9,476 | 10,892 | +15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,430 | 5,227 | +266% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 11,836 | 11,646 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,737 | 5,306 | +205% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | pass→pass | 14,363 | 13,721 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,063 | 5,524 | +168% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 15,065 | 15,726 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,232 | 6,015 | +169% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→fail | 7,930 | 13,166 | +66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,266 | 5,522 | +336% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 12,652 | 20,332 | +61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,839 | 6,565 | +257% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 10,358 | 14,866 | +44% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,476 | 5,806 | +293% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→pass | 9,271 | 11,038 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,288 | 5,179 | +302% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 12,942 | 13,875 | +7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,930 | 5,658 | +193% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | pass→pass | 7,484 | 4,234 | -43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,068 | 4,302 | +303% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 8,563 | 9,410 | +10% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,196 | 4,917 | +311% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 8,959 | 8,746 | -2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,195 | 4,801 | +302% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 7,420 | 8,273 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,034 | 4,804 | +365% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 10,210 | 5,208 | -49% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,433 | 4,347 | +203% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | fail→fail | 22,961 | 28,408 | +24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,861 | 8,310 | +115% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→fail | 12,653 | 15,197 | +20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,118 | 6,337 | +199% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-23 | fail→fail | 12,105 | 19,833 | +64% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,692 | 6,514 | +285% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 23 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +26 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 23 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.