@stacksjs/defaults 0.75.108 → 0.75.110

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-prospecting/references/saas-prospecting.md

@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# SaaS Prospecting Reference
+
+For when the user sells SaaS or digital services to other SaaS companies / digital businesses.
+
+---
+
+## ICP Signals That Matter (SaaS branch)
+
+Beyond standard firmographics (industry, size, geography), SaaS prospects are qualified by:
+
+### Technographic signals
+
+- **Tech stack** - do they use complementary tools (your integration target) or competing tools (a switch opportunity)?
+- **Recent stack changes** - adding/removing tools signals active vendor evaluation
+- **Custom-built vs off-the-shelf** - DIY tooling often means a buyer who'd benefit from your product
+- **Free/freemium plan signals** - using a free competitor means they may be ready to upgrade
+
+### Growth signals
+
+- **Funding round** - Series A / B / C in last 6 months = budget + new hires + tool needs
+- **Headcount growth** - 10%+ growth in last quarter signals scaling pressure
+- **Hiring signals** - specific role openings (e.g., "Head of RevOps" → ICP for revops tooling)
+- **Product velocity** - frequent shipping, new features, blog posts = healthy growth motion
+- **Open positions for your buyer's role** - if you sell to Marketing Ops and they're hiring one, that's a signal
+
+### Decay signals (downgrade scoring)
+
+- Layoffs in target department
+- Funding round >2 years ago with no follow-up
+- Product hasn't shipped in 6+ months
+- Team page shows founders only (very early - may not have budget)
+
+---
+
+## Discovery Sources (SaaS branch)
+
+Combine 2+ sources for cross-verification.
+
+### Tier 1 - primary discovery
+
+- **Apollo**: firmographic + technographic + contact data. Good for building large initial lists.
+- **Clay**: waterfall enrichment, custom scoring, multi-source merges. Best for high-quality smaller lists.
+- **ZoomInfo**: enterprise-grade firmographic + intent signals. Expensive; mid-market+.
+- **LinkedIn Sales Navigator**: decision-maker mapping. Use manually, never bulk scrape.
+
+### Tier 2 - technographic / growth signals
+
+- **BuiltWith**: tech stack lookups, find sites using specific tools
+- **Wappalyzer**: free browser extension + API; lighter tech stack signal
+- **Crunchbase**: funding rounds, headcount, founders
+- **Pitchbook**: deeper investor data (enterprise/paid)
+- **ProductHunt**: recent launches, builder audience
+- **Hacker News / Show HN**: technical builders launching products
+
+### Tier 3 - buying signals
+
+- **Job boards** (LinkedIn Jobs, Indeed, AngelList): role openings as signals
+- **RB2B, Warmly, or Vector**: visitor identification (warm anonymous traffic)
+- **GitHub stars/forks of competitor or adjacent repos**: developer-level intent signal (see `tools/integrations/github.md` and the `github-prospects.js` CLI). Especially strong for dev-tool SaaS - a developer who starred `vercel/next.js` last week is in-market for adjacent Next.js infrastructure.
+- **Recent blog posts / changelog**: product direction signals
+- **G2 reviews mentioning competitor switches**: explicit dissatisfaction signal
+
+#### GitHub prospecting pattern (when audience is developers)
+
+For dev-tool SaaS, GitHub is one of the highest-quality discovery channels:
+
+1. Identify 3-5 "anchor" repos: your direct competitors, your category leader, complementary tools your buyer uses
+2. Pull stargazers (or forks for stronger intent) via a configured integration implementing the equivalent read operation
+3. Filter to users with `company` set - these are the easiest to enrich downstream
+4. Pair with Apollo/Clay/Hunter to lookup email by name + company
+5. Validate with Truelist before adding to outreach list
+
+Tradeoffs: GitHub yields email for only ~5-20% of users directly. The strength is the signal quality - a stargazer of a niche dev tool is genuinely in-market in a way Apollo firmographics alone can't tell you.
+
+---
+
+## Qualification Checklist (SaaS branch)
+
+For each candidate, verify:
+
+- [ ] Industry vertical matches ICP
+- [ ] Company size (headcount) within range
+- [ ] Tech stack includes (or notably excludes) a target technology
+- [ ] Funding stage matches buyer maturity
+- [ ] At least one growth signal in last 90 days (funding, hiring, product velocity)
+- [ ] Decision-maker role exists at the company (named or inferable from job listings)
+- [ ] Email contact verifiable
+- [ ] No disqualifiers (closed, acquired-and-paused, layoffs, ICP miss)
+
+---
+
+## Output Columns (SaaS branch)
+
+Recommended CSV columns:
+
+```csv
+score,company,domain,industry,size_band,country,funding_stage,last_round_date,tech_stack_match,signal,signal_date,contact_name,contact_title,contact_email,email_status,linkedin_url,source_urls,why_prospect,confidence,verified_date,notes
+```
+
+For chat table, condense to: Score | Company | Industry | Size | Signal | Contact | Email status | Confidence.
+
+---
+
+## Top Outreach Targets Selection (SaaS)
+
+Prioritize for the top 3-5 hot leads:
+
+1. **Strongest signal recency** - funding 30 days ago beats funding 9 months ago
+2. **Tech stack match strength** - known integration partner beats inferred fit
+3. **Decision-maker named with verified email** - beats role-pattern-guessed email
+4. **Multi-source confidence** - both Apollo + Crunchbase agree beats one source
+
+Each top target gets a one-sentence outreach rationale that names the specific signal: "Raised Series B 30 days ago; hiring Head of RevOps; verified VP of Ops email."
+
+---
+
+## Common Mistakes (SaaS)
+
+1. **Buying lists from Apollo wholesale** without re-verifying email and re-checking firmographics. Stale data is the norm.
+2. **Treating tech stack data as 100% accurate**. BuiltWith and Wappalyzer miss things; Clay's waterfalls miss things. Cross-check.
+3. **Targeting Series C+ for early-stage SaaS sellers**. The buyer profile is wrong - too many procurement hoops, too much red tape.
+4. **Targeting Pre-Seed/Seed** for products requiring meaningful budget. They have neither budget nor evaluator bandwidth.
+5. **Ignoring intent data when it exists** (ZoomInfo Intent, 6sense, etc.) - pre-warm signals beat cold every time.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-prospecting/references/signal-plays.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+# Signal Plays
+
+A list tells you who could buy. A signal tells you who might buy now. This reference turns signals into outbound plays: which signals to trust, how fresh they need to be, what to do when one fires, and how much effort each account deserves.
+
+Signals are a timing and relevance filter. They don't replace ICP fit. A strong signal at a company outside your ICP is still a skip, and a great-fit account with no signal can still get a well-aimed message built on its situation.
+
+## Rank signals by how close they are to you
+
+The closer the signal is to your product and your past customers, the better it converts. Work down this list and stop where you have enough volume:
+
+| Rank | Signal | Why it works | Typical source |
+|------|--------|--------------|----------------|
+| 1 | **Your own product usage**: a signup from a company domain, a plan limit hit, a big upload, a team invite | They already chose you once | Your product analytics, billing |
+| 2 | **Past champions changing jobs** | Former users bring the tool with them; vendors report win rates roughly double when the buyer has used the product before | CRM contacts + job-change tracking (UserGems, Clay, manual LinkedIn checks) |
+| 3 | **High-intent website visits**: pricing, comparison, integration pages | Active evaluation | Visitor identification (RB2B, Warmly, Vector), your analytics |
+| 4 | **Engagement with you or a competitor**: comments on your posts or a competitor's, community questions | Public interest in the problem | Trigify, Common Room, social listening |
+| 5 | **Hiring in the function you serve**, or a new leader in it | New budget and a mandate to change things | Job boards (TheirStack, PredictLeads), LinkedIn |
+| 6 | **Funding, launches, expansion** | Budget, plus pressure to grow fast | Crunchbase, news, press releases |
+| 7 | **Tech stack changes**: adding or dropping a tool next to yours | A related decision is in motion | BuiltWith, Wappalyzer, job-post tech mentions |
+| 8 | **Generic third-party intent** | Weakest, and noisy | Bombora-style intent feeds, review-site intent |
+
+Stack signals before acting on the weaker ones. Hiring a lifecycle marketer **plus** an ESP in the stack **plus** a fit score above your threshold is worth a sequence. Any one of those alone usually isn't.
+
+## Freshness windows
+
+A signal decays. Act inside these windows or downgrade it:
+
+| Signal | Act within | After that |
+|--------|-----------|------------|
+| Product usage spike, limit hit | Same day (ideally within minutes) | Treat as a normal product-qualified lead |
+| Pricing or comparison page visit | 24 hours | Drop to the general list |
+| Champion job change | 30-90 days in the new role | They've already chosen their stack |
+| New leader in the function | First 90 days | Priorities are set |
+| Job post for the function | While the post is open, up to ~60 days | Hire made, budget allocated |
+| Funding announcement | 30-60 days | Old news; don't congratulate on it |
+| Tech install or removal | 30 days | Decision done |
+
+Record the signal date on every lead. A lead sheet without signal dates can't be prioritized.
+
+## From signal to play
+
+Every signal you track should map to a specific play, so nobody improvises the angle at send time:
+
+| Signal | Play | Opening angle | Channel order |
+|--------|------|---------------|---------------|
+| Product limit hit | Sales-assist | Offer to help them get more from the plan they're outgrowing | Email from a founder or account owner within minutes, then LinkedIn |
+| Champion job change | Reunion | Reference the work they did with you before; ask how the new team handles it | LinkedIn first (they're updating their profile), then email |
+| Pricing page visit (identified) | Evaluation help | Don't mention the visit. Lead with the decision they're probably weighing | Email, then call for Tier 1 |
+| New leader in the function | First 90 days | The thing new leaders in that role usually fix first, with proof | LinkedIn connect, then email |
+| Hiring for the function | Bridge the gap | What they can get done before the hire lands, or what the hire will need | Email |
+| Competitor engager | Alternative | The problem they engaged with, not the competitor | LinkedIn, then email |
+
+Write the angle as the problem the signal implies. "Saw you raised a Series A" is a fact everyone else sent. "Most teams that just raised are told to double pipeline in two quarters, and the site usually becomes the bottleneck" is a reason to reply.
+
+## Two worked examples
+
+**A services agency selling to B2B SaaS (for example, a CRO and landing page agency)**
+- **Signals:** funding in the last 60 days; a new VP Marketing or head of growth; open roles for growth or performance marketers; a redesigned site or new pricing page; paid search or paid social campaigns launching.
+- **Play:** value first. Offer a short teardown of their actual page. Send it only after they say yes. See the stacks-marketing-cold-email skill's outbound plays reference.
+- **Volume:** about 50 well-researched accounts a week beats 5,000 generic sends. Agencies rely on depth.
+
+**A self-serve SaaS tool (for example, an email verification product)**
+- **Signals:** signups from company domains; credit or plan limits hit; large list uploads; team invites. Off-product signals include companies hiring lifecycle, RevOps, or SDR roles and cold-email tools appearing in their stack.
+- **Play:** product-led outbound for usage signals, problem-led cold outbound for the rest. The outbound plays reference covers both.
+- **Volume:** usage signals are few but hot. Cold lists can be larger, but every send has to model the deliverability the product sells.
+
+## Account tiers
+
+Tiers decide how much research and how many channels each account gets. Assign the tier before writing anything.
+
+| Tier | Accounts | Research | Channels | Copy |
+|------|----------|----------|----------|------|
+| **Tier 1 (1:1)** | Top ~25-50 by fit and signal | A full account brief (see [account-research.md](account-research.md)), mobile numbers | Email, LinkedIn, phone, video, possibly direct mail | Written per person; a human reviews every message |
+| **Tier 2 (1:few)** | Segments of 20-200 sharing one specific pain | Segment research plus one personal line | Email + LinkedIn | Written per segment, with a personal opener; a human reviews a sample |
+| **Tier 3 (1:many)** | Everyone else who fits | The segment definition is the research | Email | Written per segment; relevance comes from how tightly the segment is defined |
+
+Keep campaigns small. Several vendor and agency datasets show reply rates falling as campaign size grows, with campaigns of 50 or fewer recipients replying at roughly twice the rate of campaigns over 1,000.
+
+## Tools for detecting signals
+
+| Signal type | Options | Agent access |
+|-------------|---------|--------------|
+| Job postings and hiring | TheirStack, PredictLeads, LinkedIn Jobs (manual) | TheirStack has an MCP; PredictLeads has an API |
+| Job changes | UserGems, Clay job-change tracking, manual checks of past champions | Clay MCP |
+| Website visitors | RB2B (US, person-level), Warmly, Vector, Koala | Mostly webhooks into your CRM or a Zap |
+| Social and community engagement | Trigify, Common Room | Both have APIs and MCPs |
+| Funding and news | Crunchbase, news search, Exa | Exa MCP; Crunchbase API on paid plans |
+| Tech stack | BuiltWith, Wappalyzer, tech mentions in job posts | APIs |
+| Product usage | Your own analytics and billing events | Webhooks into your CRM |
+
+See the [tools registry](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/blob/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff/tools/REGISTRY.md) for setup. A scheduled sweep of these sources is the signal-sweep loop in the marketing-loops skill.
+
+## Common mistakes
+
+- Treating any funding round as a buying signal for everything.
+- Opening with the signal itself ("Congrats on the raise"). Use it to choose the angle, then talk about their problem.
+- Acting on stale signals. A six-month-old job change is just a job.
+- Mentioning website visits that the prospect doesn't know were tracked. It reads as surveillance.
+- Running every account at the same depth. Tier first.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-prospecting/references/sourcing-and-enrichment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# Sourcing, Enrichment, and Verification
+
+How to get contacts legitimately, fill in missing data without paying twice or trusting bad data, and verify every address before it reaches a sequence.
+
+## Sourcing without scraping LinkedIn
+
+LinkedIn is where the people are, and scraping it is where the lawsuits are (see [compliance.md](compliance.md)). The workable pattern:
+
+1. **Define the audience in Sales Navigator** (or LinkedIn search): titles, seniority, company size, industry, geography, recent job changes, growth. This is research, which is fine.
+2. **Pull the contacts from a licensed database** using the same filters: Apollo, ZoomInfo, Clay's providers, Prospeo, and similar. They're licensed to provide the data and carry the provenance.
+3. **Use LinkedIn by hand** for Tier 1 accounts: confirm the person still holds the role, read their recent posts, decide whether to connect.
+
+Other sources that don't involve LinkedIn:
+
+| Source | Good for | Notes |
+|--------|----------|-------|
+| Job boards via TheirStack or PredictLeads | Companies hiring in your function | Also reveals their tools |
+| Directories and marketplaces | Niche lists: app store developers, agency directories, partner listings, software review categories | Check each site's terms; prefer official APIs or exports |
+| Competitor customer pages | Logos and case studies | Public, but use them as accounts, not as a pitch ("I see you use X") |
+| Google Places API | Local and SMB lists | The compliant programmatic route; see compliance.md |
+| GitHub | Developer tools | See the SaaS branch reference |
+| Podcast guests, conference speakers | Leaders who talk publicly | Ready-made research material too |
+| AI list builders (Exa Websets, Parallel FindAll) | Niche lists from a plain-English description ("Series A fintechs that added a pricing page this year") | Precise but incomplete. In one 2026 evaluation the best tool found about a fifth of possible matches, at high precision. Use them for depth, not coverage |
+| Apify actors | Structured data from sites without an API | Pick actors for public sites whose terms allow it; never for LinkedIn |
+| Lookalikes | "More companies like our best customers" | Exa `find-similar`, Ocean.io, or seed-based search in your database |
+
+## Enrichment: run providers in order
+
+No single provider finds everyone, and the ones that find the most also return more wrong data. The standard approach is a **waterfall**: query providers one at a time and stop at the first confident result.
+
+1. **Order providers by accuracy for your ICP, then by coverage.** Independent comparisons disagree wildly. Different 2025-26 benchmarks put the same tools anywhere from 25% to 87% find rates, and the highest finders sometimes had four times the false-positive rate. Run your own bake-off (below).
+2. **Stop at the first result that passes verification.** Paying three providers for the same contact is the most common waste.
+3. **Set a cost cap per contact** and log which provider filled each field.
+4. **Mobile numbers are for Tier 1 only.** They're the most expensive field, and many are personal phones (see the phone rules in compliance.md). For EU and UK numbers, providers with human-verified European data tend to do better.
+5. **Keep the enrichment result in your data, not just the sending tool**, so you can re-verify later and answer data subject requests.
+
+For acceptance rules per field, cache keys, and how to treat errors versus genuine no-matches, see [enrichment-playbook.md](enrichment-playbook.md). Clay is the common way to orchestrate a waterfall across many providers. FullEnrich and similar aggregators do it as a single API call. Building it yourself means calling each provider's API in sequence.
+
+### Provider bake-off
+
+Before committing to a provider or an order, test on your own ICP:
+1. Take 200 contacts you already know are correct (customers, recent conversations).
+2. Strip the emails and phones, then run each candidate provider.
+3. Score each: **found**, **correct**, **wrong** (a confident answer that was false), **cost per correct contact**.
+4. Order the waterfall by fewest wrong answers first, then by cost per correct contact.
+
+Repeat each quarter, because providers' data quality shifts.
+
+## Verification
+
+Verify every address before it reaches a sequence. This is the single cheapest protection for sender reputation.
+
+**When to verify**
+- When you enrich the contact.
+- Again within 7 days of sending, for any list built earlier. B2B data decays steadily (vendor estimates run around 2% a month and 20-30% a year).
+- Re-verify CRM contacts every quarter, and anything older than 30-60 days before using it.
+
+**What to do with each result**
+
+| Result | Action |
+|--------|--------|
+| Valid | Send |
+| Invalid, disposable, or spam trap | Suppress permanently |
+| Role address (info@, sales@) | Exclude from personal sequences. Fine only for local businesses that publish it as their main contact |
+| **Catch-all (accept-all)** | See below |
+| Unknown | Retry once later; don't send if it's still unknown |
+
+**Catch-all domains** accept mail for any address, so basic verification can't tell whether the person exists. They make up a large share of B2B domains (vendor estimates run 15-28%). Handle them with a policy, not a guess:
+1. **Resolve them** with a verifier that goes beyond the SMTP check (BounceBan, Scrubby, Truelist, and others combine extra signals). Some verifiers only mark catch-alls "risky."
+2. **Send resolved-valid catch-alls from separate, lower-volume inboxes**, so a bad batch can't damage your main sending.
+3. **Send unresolved catch-alls only for Tier 1 accounts**, where the account is worth the risk, and watch bounces on that inbox closely.
+
+**Hard limits:** keep bounces under 2% per campaign (under 1% is best in class) and pause automatically above that. See the stacks-marketing-cold-email skill's deliverability reference.
+
+## Suppression list
+
+Keep one suppression list, synced to every tool that sends (email tool, LinkedIn tool, dialer, CRM), and check it before every send:
+- Unsubscribes and opt-outs from any channel
+- Hard bounces and invalid addresses
+- Current customers and open deals (outbound to them is a sales-team problem)
+- Competitors and partners
+- People who replied "not interested," for the cooldown period you choose
+- Do-not-contact requests and data deletion requests
+
+Key it on email, LinkedIn URL, and phone number so a person removed in one channel is removed in all of them.
+
+## Provenance
+
+Every contact carries: the source (provider or URL), the collection date, the lawful basis for EU/UK contacts, and the last verification date and result. This answers "where did you get my email?" and makes data deletion requests possible.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-psychology/LICENSE

@@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
+MIT License
+
+Copyright (c) 2025 Corey Haines
+
+Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
+of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
+in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
+to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
+copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
+furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
+
+The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
+copies or substantial portions of the Software.
+
+THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
+IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
+FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
+AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
+LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
+OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
+SOFTWARE.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-psychology/NOTICE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Source and license
+
+Adapted from [coreyhaines31/marketingskills](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills),
+revision [1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/tree/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff),
+upstream skill `marketing-psychology`, version 2.0.0.
+The original MIT copyright and permission notice is in [LICENSE](LICENSE).
+
+Stacks supplies a namespaced entrypoint, shared implementation guidance, mapped
+related-skill links, and regular-hyphen copy. The playbook and its supporting
+references/templates are retained. Tool integrations remain optional linked
+references; upstream CLI programs, servers, and packaging scripts are not
+bundled or installed. Source examples are illustrative and changing platform
+facts require verification.