Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Write a B2B partnership proposal or business case. Use when asked to write a partnership proposal, draft a partnership brief, structure a co-marketing proposal, or create a business case for a strategic partnership. Produces a structured proposal with value proposition, partnership model, commercial terms, and mutual commitments.
.claude/skills/mohitagw15856-partnership-proposal/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 21% | 0% |
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 48% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 13% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 211% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 95% | 0% |
This skill produces a complete B2B partnership proposal covering the partnership rationale, mutual value, partnership model, commercial terms, governance, and a joint go-to-market plan. Output is ready to share with a prospective partner or use as the basis for a business case to internal stakeholders.
Ask the user for these if not provided:
Prepared by: Name, Role at Your Company] Date: Date] Partnership type: Technology / Co-marketing / Reseller / Referral / Strategic Alliance] Proposal status: Initial proposal / For negotiation / Final]
3–5 sentences. Answer: what are we proposing, why now, and what does each party stand to gain? Write this so a busy executive can understand the proposal in 60 seconds without reading further.]
Headline value for Partner]: > One sentence — the most compelling thing this partnership does for them]
Headline value for Your Company]: > One sentence — the most compelling thing this partnership does for you]
Market context: Why does this partnership make sense now? What's happening in the market that creates a window for this to work?]
Shared customer: Describe the customer both organisations serve — the overlap that makes this logical. Include size of the shared addressable market if you have it.]
Problem neither of us solves alone: What can't either party do for the shared customer independently that the partnership would enable?]
Partnership model:
| Element | Description | |---|---| | Type | Technology integration / Co-marketing / Reseller / Referral / OEM] | | Scope | What specifically are we partnering on? — product features, joint campaigns, distribution, etc.] | | Exclusivity | Exclusive in region/segment] / Non-exclusive / Right of first refusal] | | Duration | Initial term — e.g. 12 months, renewable] | | Geographic scope | UK / EMEA / Global / Specific markets] |
What this looks like in practice:
3–5 bullet points describing what the partnership actually means day-to-day. Make it concrete and operational — not abstract. e.g.:]
| Value | Evidence / Basis | |---|---| | New customer reach] | e.g. Access to Your Company]'s X,000] role] customers — X%] of whom have expressed interest in Partner's category]] | | Product capability] | e.g. Partner]'s product gains capability] that X%] of their customers have requested — based on source]] | | Revenue opportunity] | e.g. Estimated £/$/€ X] in referral revenue in Year 1 based on X%] conversion from shared pipeline] | | Market differentiation] | e.g. The integration creates a meaningful competitive moat vs Competitor] who lacks this capability] |
| Value | Evidence / Basis | |---|---| | Distribution] | e.g. Access to Partner]'s X,000] customers in segment] — a segment where we currently have X] customers] | | Credibility] | e.g. Association with Partner]'s brand accelerates enterprise sales cycles — Partner] is trusted by X] of the Fortune 500] | | Revenue] | e.g. Target X] referral customers in Year 1 at average ACV of £X] = £X ARR]] | | Product] | e.g. Partner]'s data / capability enhances specific part of our product] — improving user outcome]] |
Proposed commercial terms:
| Term | Proposal | Notes | |---|---|---| | Revenue share | e.g. X%] of ARR from customers referred by Partner]] | Standard in this category: X–Y%] range] | | Referral fee | e.g. £X] per qualified lead that converts] | Or: flat fee per introduction vs % of closed deal] | | Licensing / access | e.g. Partner] provides API access at no cost in exchange for integration and co-marketing] | ...] | | Co-marketing investment | e.g. Each party commits £X] to joint marketing activities per quarter] | ...] | | Minimum commitment | e.g. X] qualified referrals per quarter / £X] GMV per year] | Optional — only if there's a meaningful minimum that makes sense] |
Payment terms: Monthly / Quarterly in arrears / Annual true-up]
What we're not proposing: Be explicit about what's off the table — e.g. equity / exclusivity in all markets / upfront payment]
Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1–2)
| Activity | Owner | Timeline | |---|---|---| | Technical integration scoped and resourced | Engineering at both companies] | Month 1] | | Partnership launch announcement drafted | Marketing at both companies] | Month 1] | | Joint customer case study identified | CSM at both companies] | Month 2] | | Partner enablement — each team trained on the other's product | Partnership lead, both sides] | Month 2] |
Phase 2: Launch (Month 3)
| Activity | Owner | Timeline | |---|---|---| | Integration live in both products / marketplace | Engineering] | Month 3] | | Joint press release / blog post / email announcement | Marketing] | Month 3] | | First joint webinar | Both companies] | Month 3] | | First joint pipeline reviewed | Partnership leads] | Month 3] |
Phase 3: Scale (Months 4–12)
| Activity | Owner | Cadence | |---|---|---| | Co-sell on named accounts | AE at both companies] | Monthly] | | Joint content (blog, webinar, case study) | Marketing] | Quarterly] | | Pipeline and revenue review | Partnership leads] | Monthly] | | Partnership QBR | VP level, both companies] | Quarterly] |
How we'll know the partnership is working:
| Metric | Year 1 target | Measurement | |---|---|---| | Customers referred (each direction) | X] | CRM tracking — tagged as partner-sourced] | | Revenue from partnership | £/$/€ X ARR] | CRM + finance reporting] | | Integration adoption | X% of mutual customers using integration] | Product analytics] | | Customer satisfaction with integration | NPS ≥ X] | Post-integration survey] | | Joint pipeline generated | £X] | Quarterly pipeline review] |
Review cadence: Monthly partnership lead check-in + Quarterly business review at VP level
Partnership contacts:
| Role | Your Company] | Partner] | |---|---|---| | Partnership lead (day-to-day) | Name, email] | TBC] | | Executive sponsor | Name, title] | TBC] | | Technical lead | Name] | TBC] | | Marketing lead | Name] | TBC] |
Decision-making:
Legal framework:
| Risk | Likelihood | Mitigation | |---|---|---| | Partnership champion leaves Partner] | M | Ensure VP-level sponsorship; build multiple relationships | | Integration takes longer than planned | M | Scope technical work in Phase 1; set realistic launch commitment | | Low adoption of the integration | M | Include in onboarding for both products; co-market to existing customers not just new | | Partner signs with our competitor | L | Discuss exclusivity options; prioritise quick launch to create switching costs | | Commercial model becomes imbalanced | L | Quarterly review with clear exit terms if targets are consistently missed |
| # | Action | Owner | By when | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Partner] reviews this proposal and provides feedback | Partner name]] | Date] | | 2 | Both parties sign NDA (if not already in place) | Legal, both sides] | Before next meeting] | | 3 | Technical discovery call — assess integration feasibility | Engineering leads] | Date] | | 4 | Commercial terms negotiation | Partnership leads / VP] | Date] | | 5 | MOU / partnership agreement drafted and signed | Legal] | Date] | | 6 | Integration and launch planning begins | Both teams] | Date] |
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 31,975 | 23,294 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,006 | 7,270 | +21% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 27,598 | 25,417 | -8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,105 | 7,578 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 34,687 | 20,111 | -42% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,836 | 6,566 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→pass | 15,188 | 17,992 | +18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,978 | 6,128 | +106% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 13,067 | 13,243 | +1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,258 | 5,083 | +125% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 11,982 | 14,279 | +19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,136 | 5,377 | +152% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 11,630 | 17,505 | +51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,896 | 5,894 | +211% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 17,385 | 18,103 | +4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,124 | 6,084 | +95% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 18,754 | 20,738 | +11% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,136 | 6,275 | +100% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 16,196 | 22,609 | +40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,474 | 6,608 | +167% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 15,202 | 13,097 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,507 | 4,908 | +96% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 11,447 | 12,483 | +9% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,960 | 4,826 | +146% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→fail | 13,476 | 9,668 | -28% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,380 | 4,274 | +80% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 11,525 | 8,176 | -29% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,950 | 4,083 | +109% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 17,809 | 8,244 | -54% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,829 | 4,027 | +42% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 17,725 | 10,861 | -39% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,937 | 4,378 | +49% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | pass→pass | 16,041 | 13,570 | -15% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,501 | 5,023 | +101% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | 15,390 | 9,050 | -41% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,467 | 4,179 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 10,928 | 6,538 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,833 | 3,766 | +105% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 18,756 | 20,175 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,238 | 6,112 | +89% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 10,657 | 8,725 | -18% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,894 | 4,252 | +124% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | fail→pass | 15,507 | 21,426 | +38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,561 | 6,649 | +160% | 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. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +64 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 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.