@event4u/agent-config 2.7.0 → 2.8.0

package/.agent-src/skills/churn-prevention/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+---
+name: churn-prevention
+description: "Use when designing churn defence — health-score signals, churn-cause split (involuntary / value / relationship / fit), early-warning loop. Triggers on 'why are accounts leaving'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# churn-prevention
+
+## When to use
+
+- Net retention dropped and the team cannot name *which* of the four churn causes is dominant — defence-spending is uniform when it should be cause-specific.
+- A health score exists but does not predict — it tracks usage but misses relationship and fit signals — and CS plays are running on bad triggers.
+- A board ask names *"are we losing customers we should have kept, or customers who never fit?"* — the answer requires the four-way classification, not a single number.
+
+Do NOT use to fix days 0–30 onboarding (route to
+`onboarding-design`), drive upsell or expansion (route to
+`expansion-playbook`), or build product-led retention loops (route
+to `retention-loops`).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 30 — Inversion.** Do not ask *"how do we keep this
+  account?"* — ask *"name the reason this account will leave."* The
+  inversion forces a cause; the cause picks the move. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 30.
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Cancellation
+  is lagging; usage-decay, relationship-decay, and fit-mismatch
+  signals are leading. A health score built on lagging signals can
+  only confirm churn after the cancel request lands. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 16.
+- **Mental model 3 — Pareto (80/20).** ~20 % of accounts carry ~80 %
+  of revenue risk. Uniform health-monitoring across the book is
+  theatre; weighted monitoring is reasoning. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 3.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment.** Read the
+  **product** slot for which capabilities the segment was sold
+  (value-churn lives here when capability and pitch diverged), and
+  the **customer-segment** slot for the segment's switch-event
+  patterns — fit-churn shows up early in segments whose switch
+  event differs from the ICP. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inspect — classify the last 20 churn events
+
+Inspect the most recent 20 cancellation events. Tag each as one of:
+
+1. **Involuntary** — payment failure, dunning, card expiry. Not a value problem; an ops problem.
+2. **Value** — capability shipped does not match what was sold or what the buyer needs now.
+3. **Relationship** — champion left, sponsor change, exec turnover; product still fits, relationship does not.
+4. **Fit** — buyer was never the ICP; usage and pain never matched.
+
+A book with > 30 % involuntary is an ops fix, not a CS fix. A book
+with > 30 % fit is a marketing / qualification fix upstream, not a
+CS fix.
+
+### Step 1: Define health-score signals per cause
+
+One leading signal per cause, falsifiable, computable from
+existing telemetry:
+
+1. **Involuntary** — payment-method age, dunning-retry depth.
+2. **Value** — feature-usage decay vs paid-tier ceiling (used / available), session length trend.
+3. **Relationship** — primary-contact response-latency, executive-meeting cadence vs contract baseline.
+4. **Fit** — segment classification at signup vs ICP; in-product behaviour mismatch (using read-only when sold workflow).
+
+Health score = weighted aggregate per segment; weights derived from
+Step 0's cause distribution. Do not average across causes — average
+hides the binding signal.
+
+### Step 2: Set early-warning thresholds with confidence bands
+
+For each signal, compute the historical threshold where the signal
+flipped to a churn event within 60 days. Attach a confidence band.
+A threshold without a band over-triggers in low-volume cohorts and
+trains CS to ignore the alert.
+
+### Step 3: Map cause → play
+
+Each cause gets one default play and one disqualifier:
+
+- **Involuntary** — payment-retry + alternate-method outreach. Disqualifier: account in voluntary cancellation queue.
+- **Value** — capability-gap interview; if real gap, route to product; if perception gap, route to enablement.
+- **Relationship** — multi-thread outreach to second sponsor + exec sponsor injection.
+- **Fit** — controlled wind-down; do not invest CS hours in saving a fit-mismatch account.
+
+### Step 4: Run the early-warning loop weekly
+
+Weekly: pull accounts crossing threshold per signal; tag with
+cause; assign default play; record outcome at +30 days. Outcomes
+that do not match the play's expected lift become Step 1 signal
+revisions next quarter — not next week.
+
+### Step 5: Hand back
+
+Hand the cause-classification of the last 20 events, the
+per-cause signal definitions, and the cause → play map to CS
+operations and to
+[`expansion-playbook`](../expansion-playbook/SKILL.md) for the
+healthy-account expansion-trigger logic. Net retention work
+without the cause split is spending money in random directions.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- Designing a churn-cause classification and weighted health score.
+- Running the weekly early-warning loop and tuning thresholds.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Days 0–30 onboarding friction — route to
+  [`onboarding-design`](../onboarding-design/SKILL.md).
+- Upsell or cross-sell to healthy accounts — route to
+  [`expansion-playbook`](../expansion-playbook/SKILL.md).
+- Product-led habit loops or activation events — route to
+  [`retention-loops`](../retention-loops/SKILL.md).
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Why are accounts churning?"
+- "Design a health score that actually predicts."
+- "Classify last quarter's churn — value or fit?"
+- "Welche Plays für Relationship-Churn?"
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`churn-classification.md`** — last 20 events tagged with cause; cause-distribution percentages with bands.
+2. **`health-signals.md`** — per-cause leading signal · threshold · confidence band · weight in aggregate health score.
+3. **`cause-play-map.md`** — per-cause default play · disqualifier · expected lift at +30 days.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- A health score that aggregates without segmenting by cause hides the binding signal; CS plays based on the aggregate burn hours on the wrong account.
+- *"Engagement dropped"* is not a cause; it is an observation. Engagement drops because of value, relationship, or fit — diagnose the cause before triggering a play.
+- Fit-mismatch accounts surface as save targets when they should be wind-down targets. Saving a fit-mismatch account costs CS hours and produces a louder churn one cycle later.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT run uniform CS plays across the book; weight by Pareto-risk-tier.
+- Do NOT change health-score thresholds inside a quarter without an A/B holdout — concurrent changes destroy the signal.
+- Do NOT invest save-cycles into accounts whose churn cause is **fit**; route to a controlled wind-down and tighten qualification upstream.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market SaaS, gross retention slipped from 92 % to 86 % over two quarters.
+
+- Cause classification — of last 20 churns: involuntary 15 %, value 30 %, relationship 25 %, fit 30 %.
+- Health signals — involuntary: payment-retry-depth ≥ 2 → 38 % cancel-in-60d (band 22–54). Value: feature-usage decay > 30 % MoM → 51 % cancel (band 38–64). Relationship: primary-contact silent 21+ days → 44 % cancel (band 30–58). Fit: ICP-classification ≠ ICP-purchased → 71 % cancel (band 58–82).
+- Cause-play map — relationship-churn plays generate +18 % save-rate at +30 days; value plays generate +9 % only when paired with a product commit on the capability gap.
+- Hand-off — classification + signals + plays → CS ops weekly; tightened qualification rule fed back to marketing (fit-mismatch upstream); healthy-account triggers handed to `expansion-playbook`.

package/.agent-src/skills/content-funnel-design/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,170 @@
+---
+name: content-funnel-design
+description: "Use when mapping funnel-stage to content shape — conversion-pathway, content-as-system, leverage-point selection. Triggers on 'design our content funnel', 'why does mid-funnel leak'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment, channel-stage, funnel-stage]
+---
+
+# content-funnel-design
+
+## When to use
+
+- A team has content but no funnel — each asset is shaped to its author's preference, not to the funnel stage the audience is in.
+- The cadence (`editorial-calendar`) is locked but one funnel stage is leaking and there is no content shape that would catch it.
+- A new ICP requires re-mapping content shapes per stage because the previous mapping was inherited from a previous segment.
+
+Do NOT use to plan publishing cadence (route to `editorial-calendar`),
+diagnose quantitative drop-off (route to `funnel-analysis`), or
+draft the asset itself (downstream of this skill).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 14 — Meadows leverage points.** Some funnel stages
+  are *parameters* (small change, small ripple) and some are
+  *structure* (small change, system-wide ripple). The content
+  funnel design is the discipline of placing the heaviest content
+  investment at the structural leverage point, not the parameter
+  one. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 14.
+- **Mental model 6 — Theory of constraints.** The slow funnel stage
+  caps the whole pipeline. Adding content elsewhere does not loosen
+  the constraint. See `mental-models.md` § 6.
+- **Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators.** Time-to-
+  proof (asset → activation question) is leading; pipeline lift is
+  lagging. The funnel design is gated on leading signals, not on
+  the lagging ones the board sees a quarter later. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 16.
+- **Context-spine — funnel-stage + channel-stage + customer-segment
+  + product.** Read **funnel-stage** for which stage owns each
+  content shape, **channel-stage** for where the audience meets
+  the asset, **customer-segment** for whose questions the asset
+  answers, and **product** for the proofs the asset can actually
+  back. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inherit the funnel diagnosis
+
+Identify the leaking stage from
+[`funnel-analysis`](../funnel-analysis/SKILL.md) and the cadence
+classification from [`editorial-calendar`](../editorial-calendar/SKILL.md).
+The content funnel design is a *response* to a diagnosed leak —
+without the diagnosis, content investment is uniform and the
+constraint stays where it is.
+
+### Step 1: Analyze the inherited shapes
+
+Review existing assets stage-by-stage. For each, identify *shape*
+(awareness explainer, comparison, deep-dive, demo, case study,
+calculator, onboarding walkthrough) and *whose question* it
+answers. The output is a stage × shape grid with current investment
+weight. Most teams discover their grid is bottom-heavy or
+middle-empty.
+
+### Step 2: Place the leverage-point bet
+
+The leverage point is the **structural** stage, not the leaking
+one. (The leaking stage is the *symptom*; the leverage point is
+where the design choice ripples.) Often: mid-funnel proof is the
+leverage point when the leak is decision-stage, because mid-funnel
+proof loads the decision-stage call with conviction. Name the
+leverage point explicitly; document why it is structural, not
+parameter.
+
+### Step 3: Map shape per funnel stage
+
+For each funnel stage in the spine slot, lock the load-bearing
+content shape:
+
+- *Top — awareness:* one explainer per segment-question that earned
+  pull last quarter (Pareto cut from `editorial-calendar`).
+- *Mid — consideration:* one comparison or deep-dive per
+  load-bearing proof from the message stack.
+- *Bottom — decision:* one calculator, demo, or reference quote per
+  audience-matrix cell that signals economic-buyer fear.
+- *Activation:* one onboarding walkthrough keyed to the first
+  switch-event the customer faces.
+
+### Step 4: Design the conversion pathway
+
+A pathway is **two assets in sequence** that an audience plausibly
+walks. For each pathway, name the *first-asset → second-asset*
+edge and the question the second answers that the first surfaced.
+Pathways without a credible edge are wishful inventory, not a
+funnel.
+
+### Step 5: Validate against constraint and leverage
+
+Validate the design on three checks:
+
+1. **Constraint coverage.** Verify the leaking stage from
+   `funnel-analysis` has a shape designed for it — not just *more*
+   content, but the shape the audience asks for at that stage.
+2. **Leverage-point investment.** Verify the heaviest authoring
+   investment lands at the leverage point, not at the leak.
+3. **Pathway plausibility.** Walk three of the designed pathways
+   end-to-end with the audience-matrix lens. Verify each second
+   asset earns the click; if it requires a buyer leap, the pathway
+   is fiction.
+
+### Step 6: Hand back
+
+Hand the artefacts to [`editorial-calendar`](../editorial-calendar/SKILL.md)
+for cadence assignment, to [`funnel-analysis`](../funnel-analysis/SKILL.md)
+for a re-diagnosis four weeks after launch, and to
+[`activation-design`](../activation-design/SKILL.md) for the
+activation-stage handoff.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- The unit of work is the funnel-stage × content-shape grid, not a single asset.
+- A diagnosed funnel leak needs a content shape, not more authoring volume.
+- The team is investing uniformly across stages instead of at the leverage point.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Planning publishing cadence and content-debt management — route to [`editorial-calendar`](../editorial-calendar/SKILL.md).
+- Quantitative funnel-stage diagnostics and leak detection — route to [`funnel-analysis`](../funnel-analysis/SKILL.md).
+- Activation-event selection inside the product — route to [`activation-design`](../activation-design/SKILL.md).
+- Drafting the asset copy itself — out of scope; downstream of this skill.
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Mid-funnel leaks — design the content funnel to fix it."
+- "Map our content shapes to the funnel stages for the new ICP."
+- "Was ist unser Leverage-Point in der Content-Funnel?"
+- "Build conversion pathways from top-of-funnel to decision."
+- "Why is content investment uniform across stages?"
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`stage-shape-grid.md`** — stage × shape matrix, current investment vs. designed investment, leverage-point cell marked.
+2. **`conversion-pathways.md`** — one row per pathway: first-asset → second-asset edge, question the second asset earns, audience-matrix cell it serves.
+3. **`leverage-point-rationale.md`** — named leverage stage, *why structural, not parameter* argument, and the leading-indicator threshold the design will be re-checked against.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- The leaking stage is rarely the leverage stage; treating them as identical concentrates content where it does not move the constraint.
+- "More mid-funnel content" is not a design — it is volume. The shape and the question both have to land.
+- Pathways are usually fictional on the first draft because the second asset assumes a buyer leap. Walk them.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT prescribe channel-specific tactics (subject lines, ad placements, video specs) — channel ownership is downstream and out of scope.
+- Do NOT design uniformly across stages; uniform design encodes uniform leverage, which is leverage-blindness.
+- Do NOT skip Step 0 — content funnel without a funnel diagnosis is content-as-impulse with extra steps.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market HR analytics, funnel-analysis diagnosed mid-funnel leak (decision-stage conversion is fine, but mid-funnel disqualifies before reaching it):
+
+- Stage-shape grid — top: 2 awareness explainers (current); mid: 0 comparison deep-dives (gap); bottom: 3 ROI calculators (over-invested).
+- Leverage point — *mid-funnel proof*, because the decision-stage call is starved of conviction; structural ripple.
+- Pathway — *"How HR directors lose 7 hours per board-quarter"* (top) → *"Cohort-retention deep-dive vs. spreadsheet rebuild"* (mid) → *ROI calculator* (decision).
+- Hand-off → `editorial-calendar` re-allocates campaign weight to mid-funnel; `funnel-analysis` re-diagnoses at week 4.

package/.agent-src/skills/deal-qualification-meddic/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+---
+name: deal-qualification-meddic
+description: "Use when qualifying or disqualifying a single deal — MEDDIC slots with evidence, inversion test, disqualification heuristic. Triggers on 'is this deal real', 'should we walk away'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment]
+---
+
+# deal-qualification-meddic
+
+## When to use
+
+- A single deal needs a qualification call construction or a re-qualification mid-cycle — the deal is in pipeline but the team cannot answer *"who signs, on what criterion, against what pain, by when"* in writing.
+- Disqualification is overdue — a deal has slipped two stages or two quarters and the team is reluctant to walk, so resources are bleeding into a cell that should not be in pipeline.
+- A rep keeps reporting *"strong champion"* but the deal stalls — qualification needs to separate champion confidence from economic-buyer reality.
+
+Do NOT use to design pipeline stages (route to
+`pipeline-strategy`), construct the forecast call (route to
+`forecast-accuracy`), or build cross-deal pattern libraries (out of
+scope — this skill is single-deal qualification, one cycle).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 30 — Inversion.** Do not ask *"why should this deal
+  close?"* — ask *"name the reason this deal will not close."* If no
+  answer survives, qualification is incomplete; if the answer is
+  load-bearing and the team has no countermeasure, disqualification
+  is the call. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 30.
+- **Mental model 9 — Hypothesis-driven thinking.** Each MEDDIC slot
+  is a hypothesis with falsification evidence. *"Mary is the
+  champion"* is a claim; *"Mary briefed two peers without us in the
+  room and reported back unprompted"* is evidence. Slots without
+  evidence are unfilled, regardless of rep confidence. See
+  `mental-models.md` § 9.
+- **Mental model 13 — Occam's razor.** When MEDDIC slots conflict,
+  the simpler explanation is usually right: *"the buyer does not
+  feel the pain on the same timeline we do"* beats *"procurement is
+  unusually slow this quarter"*. Pick the simpler explanation; it
+  changes the move. See `mental-models.md` § 13.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment.** Read the
+  **product** slot for sellable scope (a deal asking for non-goal
+  scope is not qualified, it is mis-sold), and the
+  **customer-segment** slot for the segment's switch-event shape —
+  pain claims that do not match the segment's known switch events
+  are coaching opportunities, not qualifications. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Pull the deal record
+
+Latest call notes, last three buyer messages, named contacts and
+their org roles, current stage, age in stage, and the
+`stage-definitions.md` from `pipeline-strategy`. Without exit
+criteria you cannot test whether the deal earned its current stage.
+
+### Step 1: Walk the six MEDDIC slots with evidence
+
+For each slot, write the claim **plus** the evidence (a buyer
+artefact, a recording, a forwarded email, a board agenda) — not
+*"rep believes"*.
+
+1. **Metrics.** *"\<Buyer\> will measure \<our value\> as
+   \<quantified metric\> over \<window\>."* Evidence: buyer wrote
+   the metric or quoted it back unprompted.
+2. **Economic buyer.** *"\<Name, title\> signs the PO."* Evidence:
+   buyer-side org chart confirmed; the EB has met the team or
+   approved the project unblocked by the champion.
+3. **Decision criteria.** *"\<Buyer\> chooses on \<criteria\>, in
+   that order."* Evidence: criteria from the buyer's RFP, scorecard,
+   or written summary — not the rep's inference.
+4. **Decision process.** *"\<Steps and approvers\>, ending
+   \<date\>."* Evidence: a written timeline shared by the buyer.
+5. **Identify pain.** *"\<Pain\> costs \<\$\>/month;
+   business event \<X\> forces resolution by \<date\>."* Evidence:
+   buyer named the cost and the forcing event without prompting.
+6. **Champion.** *"\<Name\> sells internally without us in the
+   room; benefits if we win."* Evidence: champion forwarded an
+   internal email, briefed peers, or named the personal win.
+
+### Step 2: Inversion — name the reason this deal will not close
+
+Write the one sentence that, if true, kills the deal. If no
+sentence is true, the deal is qualified for its stage. If a sentence
+is true and there is no countermeasure planned, the deal moves to
+**disqualified-pending-evidence**.
+
+### Step 3: Run the disqualification heuristic
+
+Disqualify if any two of:
+
+1. Economic buyer is unnamed or never met the team after two cycles.
+2. No metric in writing after a discovery call and a follow-up.
+3. No forcing event — pain exists but resolution is *"someday"*.
+4. Champion cannot articulate the personal win when asked directly.
+
+Disqualification is not failure; it is recovered selling time.
+
+### Step 4: Set re-qualification triggers
+
+For slots still open, set the trigger and deadline: *"\<slot\>
+re-qualified when \<buyer artefact\> arrives by \<date\>."* If the
+date passes without the artefact, the slot reverts to unfilled and
+Step 3 runs again.
+
+### Step 5: Hand back
+
+Hand the MEDDIC card, the inversion sentence, and the re-qualification
+triggers to the rep for the next buyer interaction and to
+[`forecast-accuracy`](../forecast-accuracy/SKILL.md) for the
+forecast call. A deal with two or more unfilled MEDDIC slots cannot
+be **commit**, regardless of $ value or stage.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- Qualifying or disqualifying a single deal one cycle at a time.
+- Building the MEDDIC card with falsifiable evidence per slot.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Designing or auditing pipeline stages — route to
+  [`pipeline-strategy`](../pipeline-strategy/SKILL.md).
+- Constructing the quarterly forecast call — route to
+  [`forecast-accuracy`](../forecast-accuracy/SKILL.md).
+- Diagnosing product-led signup → activation funnels — route to
+  [`funnel-analysis`](../funnel-analysis/SKILL.md).
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Qualify this deal — is it real?"
+- "Should we walk away from \<deal\>?"
+- "Why is this stuck in proposal for 60 days?"
+- "Was wissen wir wirklich über den Decision Process?"
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`meddic-card.md`** — six slots, one claim per slot with evidence link or quote. Unfilled slots flagged.
+2. **`inversion-sentence.md`** — the one reason this deal will not close; countermeasure (or *"none — disqualify"*).
+3. **`requalification-triggers.md`** — per-slot trigger + deadline + revert behaviour.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- *"Strong champion"* without the personal-win sentence in writing is rep optimism, not qualification.
+- A metric the rep wrote on the buyer's behalf is a metric the buyer will not defend in procurement — it must come from the buyer or be quoted back unprompted.
+- Decision process *"once legal signs off"* is not a process; it is a hand-wave. Demand approvers, sequence, and dates.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT call a slot filled because *"the rep is sure"* — qualification is artefact-driven, not confidence-driven.
+- Do NOT keep a deal in **commit** with two or more unfilled slots regardless of size; size flatters, slots don't.
+- Do NOT skip disqualification because the deal is large — large deals with weak qualification miss louder.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market deal, $ 180 k ACV, stuck at Proposal for 47 days.
+
+- MEDDIC card — **Metrics:** *"reduce ticket-handle-time by 30 %"* (buyer wrote it, ✓). **Economic buyer:** *"VP Support — never met"* (✗). **Decision criteria:** RFP scoring (✓). **Decision process:** *"procurement after legal — no dates"* (✗). **Pain:** *"reps overloaded — no forcing event"* (✗ — forcing event missing). **Champion:** *"Team lead Mary — personal win unclear"* (partial).
+- Inversion sentence — *"VP Support has not seen the value case and there is no forcing event; quarter rolls and the deal slides one more cycle."* Countermeasure: book VP-Support exec session within 10 days OR disqualify.
+- Disqualification heuristic — three slots unfilled → **disqualified-pending-evidence**; reverts to qualified only if exec session happens by deadline.
+- Hand-off — card + inversion + triggers → rep for VP-Support outreach; `forecast-accuracy` moves the deal out of **commit** until the slots fill.

package/.agent-src/skills/editorial-calendar/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,161 @@
+---
+name: editorial-calendar
+description: "Use when shaping cadence — evergreen / campaign / reactive split, beat-mapping across channel stages, content-debt management. Triggers on 'plan our content cadence', 'what should we publish'."
+status: active
+tier: senior
+source: package
+domain: product
+context_spine: [product, customer-segment, channel-stage, funnel-stage]
+---
+
+# editorial-calendar
+
+## When to use
+
+- A content programme is producing assets in bursts (campaign-shaped only) and the cadence is brittle the quarter the campaign rests.
+- The team owes more drafts than it can ship and the backlog is functioning as content-debt rather than queue — surface and prioritise.
+- A new audience-by-message matrix exists and the team needs to translate it into a repeating cadence with beat-mapping across channel stages.
+
+Do NOT use to draft the asset itself (downstream), pick channel-
+specific tactics like ad creative or email subject lines (out of
+scope — channel-agnostic skill), or sequence a one-off launch wave
+(route to `gtm-launch`).
+
+## Cognition cluster
+
+- **Mental model 3 — Pareto principle (80/20).** Roughly 20 % of
+  the editorial beats produce 80 % of the audience pull. The
+  calendar is the discipline of doubling down on the 20 % and
+  letting the 80 % be reactive, not core. See
+  [`docs/contracts/mental-models.md`](../../../docs/contracts/mental-models.md) § 3.
+- **Mental model 18 — Pull vs. push systems.** Evergreen content is
+  a *pull* system (the audience finds it); campaigns are a *push*
+  system (we time the arrival). The calendar separates the two so
+  campaign collapse does not collapse pull. See `mental-models.md`
+  § 18.
+- **Context-spine — product + customer-segment + channel-stage +
+  funnel-stage.** Read **product** for what is shippable as proof,
+  **customer-segment** for who reads which beat, **channel-stage**
+  for where the audience is in the awareness arc, and
+  **funnel-stage** for whether a beat is top-of-funnel reach or
+  mid-funnel proof. See
+  [`context-spine`](../../../docs/contracts/context-spine.md).
+
+## Procedure
+
+### Step 0: Inherit the message stack and audience matrix
+
+Identify the locked `primary-message.md`, `supporting-proofs.md`,
+and `audience-matrix.md` from
+[`messaging-architecture`](../messaging-architecture/SKILL.md). The
+editorial calendar is a cadence translation of the matrix; without
+the matrix it is content-as-impulse, not content-as-system.
+
+### Step 1: Analyze the inherited cadence
+
+Review existing surfaces: what has the team published in the last
+two quarters, what is its evergreen pull (organic traffic over
+time), and what was campaign-only (a single spike and decay). The
+output is two lists: *load-bearing evergreen* and *campaign
+artefacts that have already paid back*. Everything else is content
+debt — name it explicitly.
+
+### Step 2: Classify each beat — evergreen · campaign · reactive
+
+Three buckets, never collapsed:
+
+- **Evergreen.** Beats that map to a load-bearing proof and a
+  durable audience question. Authored once, refreshed quarterly.
+  Pull system.
+- **Campaign.** Beats keyed to a wave (launch, event, season).
+  Authored to a date. Push system. Decommissioned by name when the
+  wave closes.
+- **Reactive.** Beats keyed to a market or competitor event. No
+  pre-allocated slot; the calendar reserves *capacity*, not a
+  topic.
+
+### Step 3: Beat-map across channel-stage × funnel-stage
+
+For each audience in the matrix, plot **one** evergreen beat per
+*(channel-stage, funnel-stage)* cell that the audience actually
+lives in. Empty cells are explicit gaps; they do not auto-fill.
+Beats per cell beyond one are content noise, not coverage.
+
+### Step 4: Validate against the Pareto cut and the pull-vs-push line
+
+Validate the calendar on three checks:
+
+1. **Pareto cut.** Identify the 20 % of beats that, if dropped,
+   would visibly shrink audience pull. Verify exactly that 20 % has
+   the highest authoring investment. If high investment is going
+   into the 80 %, the calendar is upside-down — rebalance.
+2. **Pull-vs-push separation.** Confirm campaign collapse does not
+   collapse evergreen — evergreen surfaces are not on the campaign
+   author's critical path.
+3. **Reactive capacity.** Confirm reactive slots reserve hours, not
+   topics. A reactive slot with a pre-decided topic is a campaign
+   in disguise.
+
+### Step 5: Manage content debt explicitly
+
+Inventory the debt list from Step 1. For each item: *repay*
+(refresh and republish), *archive* (remove from indexed surfaces),
+or *retire* (delete). Untouched debt compounds — it is not free to
+leave on the shelf.
+
+### Step 6: Hand back
+
+Hand the artefacts to [`content-funnel-design`](../content-funnel-design/SKILL.md)
+for funnel-stage-to-shape mapping, and to
+[`release-comms`](../release-comms/SKILL.md) when campaign waves
+land near a launch wave from
+[`gtm-launch`](../gtm-launch/SKILL.md).
+
+## Related Skills
+
+**WHEN to use this**
+
+- The unit of work is the *cadence* (which beats repeat at which frequency on which surface), not a single asset.
+- A team is over-investing in campaigns and under-investing in evergreen pull.
+- A content-debt list is silently growing and needs explicit repay / archive / retire decisions.
+
+**WHEN NOT to use this**
+
+- Mapping each funnel stage to a content **shape** (deep-dive, comparison, demo) — route to [`content-funnel-design`](../content-funnel-design/SKILL.md).
+- Drafting voice attributes or tone-by-context matrix — route to [`voice-and-tone-design`](../voice-and-tone-design/SKILL.md).
+- Sequencing a launch wave with gates and beats — route to [`gtm-launch`](../gtm-launch/SKILL.md).
+- Authoring the asset copy — out of scope here (downstream).
+
+## When the agent should load this
+
+- "Build us an editorial calendar for the next two quarters."
+- "Wir produzieren zu viele Kampagnen-Artefakte — wo ist die Evergreen-Linie?"
+- "Beat-map the cadence against the audience matrix."
+- "What is our content-debt list and what do we repay first?"
+- "Reactive capacity is full of pre-planned topics — fix the calendar."
+
+## Output
+
+1. **`cadence-classification.md`** — every active beat tagged evergreen · campaign · reactive · debt, with the Pareto-cut ranking inside the evergreen bucket.
+2. **`beat-map.md`** — audience × channel-stage × funnel-stage grid with one evergreen beat per occupied cell, empty cells explicitly named as gaps.
+3. **`content-debt-ledger.md`** — every debt item with a *repay*, *archive*, or *retire* decision and the date it lapses.
+
+## Gotcha
+
+- "We are evergreen-first" is the most common self-description and almost never true on the calendar — verify by authoring investment, not intent.
+- Reactive capacity that is full of pre-planned topics is campaign capacity wearing reactive clothing; the calendar will betray that mid-quarter.
+- Content debt with no archive / retire date is a roadmap pretending to be a queue. Refuse the open-ended *"we will get to it"* row.
+
+## Do NOT
+
+- Do NOT draft channel-specific tactics (subject lines, ad creative, video specs) — the calendar is channel-agnostic; tactics live with the channel owner.
+- Do NOT collapse campaign and evergreen on the same critical path — campaign delay should not stall evergreen publish.
+- Do NOT inflate beats past one per matrix cell; the cadence will not survive a quarter of vacation.
+
+## Runnable example
+
+Mid-market HR analytics tool, audience matrix locked (HR director · CFO · IT-security):
+
+- Cadence classification — evergreen (4 beats, Pareto-cut top 2 carry pull); campaign (2 beats keyed to board-quarter launch wave); reactive (8 hours per fortnight reserved); debt (11 items: 5 repay, 4 archive, 2 retire).
+- Beat-map — HR director (mid-funnel proof): one cohort-retention deep-dive per quarter. CFO (decision-funnel proof): one ROI calculator refresh per board-quarter. IT-security (top-funnel awareness): one HRIS-integration architecture explainer evergreen.
+- Hand-off → `content-funnel-design` translates each beat into its content shape; `release-comms` co-schedules board-quarter campaign with launch waves.