Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Simulate a panel of your real prospects and buyers to pressure-test sales and marketing before it goes out — cold emails, pitch decks, landing pages, pricing pages, demo scripts, proposals. Each simulated prospect reacts in character, raises the objection they'd actually raise, and tells you whether they'd reply, book, or ghost. Use to de-risk outbound and messaging without burning real leads.
.claude/skills/onewave-ai-prospect-panel-simulator/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 27% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 341% | 0% |
| case-11 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 48% | 0% |
| case-20 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 61% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 37% | 0% |
Before you send the email, run the deck, or publish the pricing page — run it past the people who'd receive it. This skill simulates a panel of your actual prospects and reacts the way the market will: skeptical, busy, half-reading, comparing you to three other options.
Where customer-panel-of-experts debates a business decision with existing customers, this skill stress-tests a sales or marketing artifact against people who don't know you yet and don't owe you a reply.
icp-deep-scanner output (personas/, icp-profile.md) and seat the buying committee — economic buyer, champion, blocker, and end user — since a cold artifact hits all of them differently.icp-deep-scanner (read-only) to ground the panel in real won/lost-deal data and real objection language.Critically, model cold-state prospects: they have low context, low trust, and an alternative they already use. A simulated prospect who reads charitably is useless.
Read-only connections. No sending, no writing to any tool. No real prospect names/emails in output — these are archetypes. Secrets stay in env vars.
Read exactly what will go out (paste, file, or URL via WebFetch). Note the channel and the moment: a cold email at 7am from an unknown sender is judged differently than a pricing page reached after a demo. Confirm: who is this for, what's the one action it's asking for, and what does the prospect see right before this?
Each panel member reacts in character through the real sequence of a busy buyer:
Let personas disagree: a value prop that excites the end user can spook the economic buyer on price.
markdown# Prospect Panel — {Artifact} Generated: {timestamp} · Panel: {personas} · Channel: {cold email / LP / deck} · Grounding: {data / PROVISIONAL} ## Predicted outcome: {STRONG / MIXED / WEAK} — est. reply/convert signal One-line read on whether to send as-is. ## Reaction by persona | Persona | Opens? | Gets it? | Top objection | Action | ## Where it loses people (ranked, with the exact line) 1. "{quoted line}" — {persona} → {reaction} → {fix} ## AI-tell / trust flags - Phrases or patterns that read as generic, automated, or over-promised. ## Rewrite the weak points - Before → After on the 2–3 highest-leverage lines. ## A/B worth running - The one variable most worth testing live.
Offer to apply the rewrites and re-run the panel on v2, or hand the winning angle to cold-email-sequence-generator / landing-page-copywriter to scale it.
Model cold, skeptical, time-poor prospects — not friendly readers · ground in real won/lost data when available, flag PROVISIONAL otherwise · read-only, no sending · quote the exact lines that fail · no real prospect PII.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 24,692 | 38,888 | +57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 4,000 | 2,733 | -32% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 22,439 | 20,946 | -7% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,603 | 4,578 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | pass→pass | 18,316 | 17,548 | -4% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,111 | 3,973 | +28% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | pass→fail | 16,430 | 16,394 | -0% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,776 | 3,811 | +37% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 15,776 | 12,011 | -24% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,918 | 3,085 | +6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 14,446 | 11,213 | -22% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,349 | 2,920 | +24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | pass→pass | 22,132 | 16,107 | -27% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,721 | 3,736 | +0% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 5,128 | 16,815 | +228% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 875 | 3,862 | +341% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→fail | 21,089 | 8,444 | -60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 3,400 | 2,390 | -30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 10,326 | 10,267 | -1% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,622 | 2,519 | +55% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 13,089 | 14,157 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,233 | 3,294 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 12,539 | 10,731 | -14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,213 | 2,883 | +30% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→fail | 17,110 | 3,613 | -79% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,407 | 1,579 | -34% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→fail | 6,470 | 6,990 | +8% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 988 | 2,034 | +106% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→fail | 7,505 | 3,213 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,257 | 1,566 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | pass→fail | 16,301 | 5,679 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,584 | 1,949 | -25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→fail | 16,520 | 5,774 | -65% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,439 | 1,863 | -24% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | 14,488 | 5,658 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,231 | 1,872 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 9,715 | 3,803 | -61% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,643 | 1,597 | -3% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | fail→pass | 5,142 | 3,239 | -37% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 945 | 1,523 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→fail | 16,373 | 7,115 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,622 | 2,214 | -16% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 13,896 | 21,160 | +52% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,216 | 4,563 | +106% | 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 -25 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 7 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
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.