Claude Skill

studio-expert-contract

Shared senior-desk contract for Marketing, SEO, and Leads studios. Enforces context bar, sourced claims, deliverable formats, anti-hallucination rules, and a PASS/WARN/BLOCK closing gate. Load on every /marketing, /campaign, /seo, and /leads run.

LLM Mart · 0 points · 0 views 0 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download navinspire-ia-navin-navin_skills_studio-expert-contract-e9c73a3.zip · 3 KB
Part of navinspire-ia/navin — 182 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/Navinspire-ia/navin/tree/main/navin/skills/studio-expert-contract
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install navinspire-ia-navin@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/Navinspire-ia/navin.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole navinspire-ia/navin collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

Studio Expert Contract

Operate as a senior specialist desk, not a brainstorming chatbot. Every run must leave grounded artifacts in the workspace and pass a closing quality gate.

When this applies

  • Any /marketing, /campaign, /seo, or /leads workflow
  • Studio card actions that rewrite into those commands
  • Follow-up turns that continue the same mission

Context bar (hit before producing)

Scan conversation + workspace first. Ask only for missing critical inputs.

Studio Minimum context
Marketing Product/offer, audience, objective + KPI, tone/brand, channels, language
SEO Site URL or topic, market/language, business goal (traffic, leads, local)
Leads ICP (sector, size, geo, roles), volume target, product angle, disqualifiers

If a critical field is missing and cannot be inferred from files the user attached, ask 1-3 focused questions. Do not invent company facts, traffic numbers, or contacts.

Evidence rules

  1. Ground claims: when a URL is given, web_fetch / scrape / web_search before asserting.
  2. Source every datum: company size, role, email pattern, ranking claim, competitor fact → URL or unverified.
  3. Never invent:
    • search volumes, keyword difficulty scores, or traffic estimates without an API/export
    • "verified" emails or phone numbers without a public source
    • ROAS, CPC, conversion rates presented as measured unless user data says so
  4. Label estimates: write estimate or requires API data (DataForSEO/Semrush/Ahrefs/GSC) - never fake precision.
  5. Public sources only for leads: no login-walled scrapes; respect robots/ToS when the user cares.

Tool order

  1. Gather context (read brief, workspace files, optional web research).
  2. Put steps on the board when the run is tracked (board tool).
  3. Execute with tools - write files as you go; do not stop at a plan.
  4. Run specialist skill checklists / helper scripts when present under the skill's scripts/.
  5. Self-critique with critic-reviewer criteria; for lead lists also apply data-quality-agent.
  6. For Marketing stills, run visual_qa with authoritative references and placement requirements. Any visual BLOCK blocks automatic delivery. Missing references can never PASS a fidelity claim.
  7. Close with the gate report below and link the JSON/Markdown evidence under marketing/qa/ when visual QA applied.

Deliverable contract

Studio Required artifacts
Marketing Assets under marketing/ (MD/CSV/images/video as relevant) + Track A marketing-report-* UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF). Super render rules below.
SEO Findings under seo/ (MD/CSV/JSON-LD) + Track A seo-report-* UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF) ordered by impact
Leads sales/prospects-*.csv (or equivalent) + ranked next actions + Track A leads-report-* UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF)
Ads / Montage / Meeting / RiskLens / Scrape Native files + Track A *-report-* UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF)

Marketing super render (/campaign only)

Pick the stack from the file. A demo you liked is not a stack.

Livrable Super render Refused
Landing / site / campaign page ui-ux-pro-max: framer-motion + lenis + embla-carousel-react + lucide-react + three + R3F + drei. Always a designed 3D layer (--stack threejs). Still fallback. @number-flow/react for one ticking KPI. GSAP, Locomotive, Spline, Lottie everywhere, particles / tsParticles, Three.js as wallpaper, Theatre, Barba, Swiper
Pitch / sales / board PPTX No extra npm. Poster type, real photos, screenshot chrome, native charts, light/dark rhythm. presentation-designer + pptx-generator. Lenis, Three.js, Motion, GSAP, Lottie, canvas FX on a slide. They flatten to an image.
Packshots / 360 product-visuals (image / video). Orbit page = Three.js companion, not a raster slide. Fake 3D inside PowerPoint
Studio HTML report (UI) Vite + official DS + framer-motion + three + R3F + drei. Designed spatial scene, content overlay. open_preview. Not PDF. File Preview PDF-first. Three.js wallpaper. WebGL on a PPT/Word page.

Those banned libraries bloat the page, copy Open Design, and do not make the PPTX better. BLOCK the gate if a deck is a WebGL screenshot, or a landing is particles + GSAP instead of the Motion / Lenis stack.

Every substantial run ends with:

  1. Paths to files created
  2. Top actions for the user this week
  3. Closing gate (below)

Closing gate (mandatory)

Score the deliverable before finishing:

Dimension PASS WARN BLOCK
Grounding Claims backed by fetch/search or marked estimate Some soft claims Invented metrics/contacts
Completeness Brief objectives met Minor gaps noted Core ask unanswered
Structure Files in expected paths with usable format Messy but usable Chat-only, no files
Actionability Prioritized next steps with owners/effort Vague next steps No clear action
Compliance Public sources, no fake "verified" data Borderline fields flagged Fabricated PII presented as fact

Verdict rules

  • Any BLOCK → fix before closing; do not claim success
  • Only WARNs → deliver with an explicit "Reservations" section
  • All PASS → short success close + file paths
## Expert gate
Verdict: PASS | WARN | BLOCK
- Grounding: ...
- Completeness: ...
- Structure: ...
- Actionability: ...
- Compliance: ...
Reservations / fixes: ...

Anti-patterns

  • Dumping generic advice without fetching the user's URL or ICP
  • Padding lists with invented companies or contacts
  • Presenting qualitative difficulty as a numeric KD from Ahrefs
  • Shipping copy/creatives with no persona, offer, or CTA
  • A marketing deck made of WebGL / Lenis / Three.js screenshots
  • A landing that loads GSAP, Locomotive, Spline, particles, Theatre or Barba for "wow"
  • Ending with "I can also..." instead of saved files + gate
  • Skipping the critic pass on multi-file deliverables

Connectors (when available)

If env/MCP connectors exist (seo-data-provider, lead-enrichment, HubSpot MCP, HUBSPOT_ACCESS_TOKEN), prefer them for volumes, enrichment, and CRM sync. If absent, stay on qualitative/public methods and state the data gap clearly.

Files (navin)
  • SKILL.md 6.6 KB
    ---
    name: studio-expert-contract
    description: >
      Shared senior-desk contract for Marketing, SEO, and Leads studios. Enforces
      context bar, sourced claims, deliverable formats, anti-hallucination rules,
      and a PASS/WARN/BLOCK closing gate. Load on every /marketing, /campaign, /seo, and /leads run.
    metadata: {"navin":{"emoji":"📜","category":"intelligence"}}
    ---
    
    # Studio Expert Contract
    
    Operate as a senior specialist desk, not a brainstorming chatbot. Every run must
    leave grounded artifacts in the workspace and pass a closing quality gate.
    
    ## When this applies
    
    - Any `/marketing`, `/campaign`, `/seo`, or `/leads` workflow
    - Studio card actions that rewrite into those commands
    - Follow-up turns that continue the same mission
    
    ## Context bar (hit before producing)
    
    Scan conversation + workspace first. Ask only for missing critical inputs.
    
    | Studio | Minimum context |
    |--------|-----------------|
    | Marketing | Product/offer, audience, objective + KPI, tone/brand, channels, language |
    | SEO | Site URL or topic, market/language, business goal (traffic, leads, local) |
    | Leads | ICP (sector, size, geo, roles), volume target, product angle, disqualifiers |
    
    If a critical field is missing and cannot be inferred from files the user attached,
    ask 1-3 focused questions. Do not invent company facts, traffic numbers, or contacts.
    
    ## Evidence rules
    
    1. **Ground claims**: when a URL is given, `web_fetch` / `scrape` / `web_search` before asserting.
    2. **Source every datum**: company size, role, email pattern, ranking claim, competitor fact → URL or `unverified`.
    3. **Never invent**:
       - search volumes, keyword difficulty scores, or traffic estimates without an API/export
       - "verified" emails or phone numbers without a public source
       - ROAS, CPC, conversion rates presented as measured unless user data says so
    4. **Label estimates**: write `estimate` or `requires API data (DataForSEO/Semrush/Ahrefs/GSC)` - never fake precision.
    5. **Public sources only** for leads: no login-walled scrapes; respect robots/ToS when the user cares.
    
    ## Tool order
    
    1. Gather context (read brief, workspace files, optional web research).
    2. Put steps on the board when the run is tracked (`board` tool).
    3. Execute with tools - write files as you go; do not stop at a plan.
    4. Run specialist skill checklists / helper scripts when present under the skill's `scripts/`.
    5. Self-critique with `critic-reviewer` criteria; for lead lists also apply `data-quality-agent`.
    6. For Marketing stills, run `visual_qa` with authoritative references and
       placement requirements. Any visual BLOCK blocks automatic delivery. Missing
       references can never PASS a fidelity claim.
    7. Close with the gate report below and link the JSON/Markdown evidence under
       `marketing/qa/` when visual QA applied.
    
    ## Deliverable contract
    
    | Studio | Required artifacts |
    |--------|-------------------|
    | Marketing | Assets under `marketing/` (MD/CSV/images/video as relevant) + Track A `marketing-report-*` UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF). Super render rules below. |
    | SEO | Findings under `seo/` (MD/CSV/JSON-LD) + Track A `seo-report-*` UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF) ordered by impact |
    | Leads | `sales/prospects-*.csv` (or equivalent) + ranked next actions + Track A `leads-report-*` UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF) |
    | Ads / Montage / Meeting / RiskLens / Scrape | Native files + Track A `*-report-*` UI (Three.js, open_preview, not PDF) |
    
    ## Marketing super render (`/campaign` only)
    
    Pick the stack from the file. A demo you liked is not a stack.
    
    | Livrable | Super render | Refused |
    |----------|--------------|---------|
    | Landing / site / campaign page | `ui-ux-pro-max`: `framer-motion` + `lenis` + `embla-carousel-react` + `lucide-react` + `three` + R3F + drei. Always a designed 3D layer (`--stack threejs`). Still fallback. `@number-flow/react` for one ticking KPI. | GSAP, Locomotive, Spline, Lottie everywhere, particles / tsParticles, Three.js as wallpaper, Theatre, Barba, Swiper |
    | Pitch / sales / board PPTX | No extra npm. Poster type, real photos, screenshot chrome, native charts, light/dark rhythm. `presentation-designer` + `pptx-generator`. | Lenis, Three.js, Motion, GSAP, Lottie, canvas FX on a slide. They flatten to an image. |
    | Packshots / 360 | `product-visuals` (image / video). Orbit page = Three.js companion, not a raster slide. | Fake 3D inside PowerPoint |
    | Studio HTML report (UI) | Vite + official DS + `framer-motion` + `three` + R3F + drei. Designed spatial scene, content overlay. `open_preview`. Not PDF. | File Preview PDF-first. Three.js wallpaper. WebGL on a PPT/Word page. |
    
    Those banned libraries bloat the page, copy Open Design, and do not make the PPTX better. BLOCK the gate if a deck is a WebGL screenshot, or a landing is particles + GSAP instead of the Motion / Lenis stack.
    
    Every substantial run ends with:
    
    1. Paths to files created
    2. Top actions for the user this week
    3. Closing gate (below)
    
    ## Closing gate (mandatory)
    
    Score the deliverable before finishing:
    
    | Dimension | PASS | WARN | BLOCK |
    |-----------|------|------|-------|
    | Grounding | Claims backed by fetch/search or marked estimate | Some soft claims | Invented metrics/contacts |
    | Completeness | Brief objectives met | Minor gaps noted | Core ask unanswered |
    | Structure | Files in expected paths with usable format | Messy but usable | Chat-only, no files |
    | Actionability | Prioritized next steps with owners/effort | Vague next steps | No clear action |
    | Compliance | Public sources, no fake "verified" data | Borderline fields flagged | Fabricated PII presented as fact |
    
    **Verdict rules**
    
    - Any BLOCK → fix before closing; do not claim success
    - Only WARNs → deliver with an explicit "Reservations" section
    - All PASS → short success close + file paths
    
    ```markdown
    ## Expert gate
    Verdict: PASS | WARN | BLOCK
    - Grounding: ...
    - Completeness: ...
    - Structure: ...
    - Actionability: ...
    - Compliance: ...
    Reservations / fixes: ...
    ```
    
    ## Anti-patterns
    
    - Dumping generic advice without fetching the user's URL or ICP
    - Padding lists with invented companies or contacts
    - Presenting qualitative difficulty as a numeric KD from Ahrefs
    - Shipping copy/creatives with no persona, offer, or CTA
    - A marketing deck made of WebGL / Lenis / Three.js screenshots
    - A landing that loads GSAP, Locomotive, Spline, particles, Theatre or Barba for "wow"
    - Ending with "I can also..." instead of saved files + gate
    - Skipping the critic pass on multi-file deliverables
    
    ## Connectors (when available)
    
    If env/MCP connectors exist (`seo-data-provider`, `lead-enrichment`, HubSpot MCP,
    `HUBSPOT_ACCESS_TOKEN`), prefer them for volumes, enrichment, and CRM sync.
    If absent, stay on qualitative/public methods and state the data gap clearly.
    

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related