opencode-skills-antigravity 1.0.4 → 1.0.6

package/bundled-skills/sales-enablement/references/objection-library.md

@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+# Objection Library
+
+Common B2B SaaS objections with response frameworks. Organized by category for quick reference.
+
+## Quick-Reference Table
+
+For live calls. Find the objection, scan the response, reference the proof.
+
+| Objection | Response (1-line) | Proof Point |
+|-----------|--------------------|-------------|
+| "Too expensive" | "Compared to what? Let's look at what the problem costs you today." | ROI case study showing payback in X months |
+| "No budget" | "When budget opens up, what would need to be true for this to be a priority?" | Customer who started with a pilot to prove value |
+| "Competitor is cheaper" | "They are — here's what you give up at that price point." | Feature comparison + customer who switched |
+| "Not the right time" | "What changes next quarter that makes it better timing?" | Cost-of-delay calculation |
+| "Maybe next quarter" | "Happy to reconnect. What would a pilot look like before then?" | Customer who started small and expanded |
+| "We use X already" | "How's that working for [specific pain area]?" | Customer who switched from X |
+| "What makes you different?" | "For teams like yours, the biggest difference is [specific differentiator]." | Side-by-side comparison for their use case |
+| "Need to check with my boss" | "Absolutely. What would help you make the case? I can send materials." | Champion one-pager, ROI calculator |
+| "The committee decides" | "Who's on the committee and what does each person care about?" | Multi-persona case study |
+| "What we have works fine" | "It does work — the question is whether it's costing you more than it should." | Benchmark data showing efficiency gaps |
+| "Not broken, don't fix it" | "Agreed — this isn't about fixing, it's about the opportunity cost of the current approach." | Customer who didn't know what they were missing |
+| "Does it integrate with X?" | "Yes / Let me check and get you specifics by end of day." | Integration documentation, customer using same stack |
+| "Security concerns" | "Completely fair. Here's our security overview — happy to loop in our team." | SOC 2 report, security whitepaper |
+| "Can it scale?" | "We serve companies from [small] to [large]. Here's an example at your scale." | Case study at similar scale |
+| "We tried something like this before" | "What went wrong? Understanding that helps me show how we're different." | Customer with same failed experience who succeeded with you |
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Objection Responses
+
+### Price Objections
+
+#### "It's too expensive"
+
+**Why they say it:** May be genuine budget constraint, sticker shock, or negotiation tactic. Often means they don't yet see enough value to justify the cost.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Don't defend the price immediately. Ask "Compared to what?"
+2. Reframe from cost to investment — what does the problem cost them today?
+3. Walk through the ROI calculation together
+4. If budget is real, explore smaller starting points
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "I hear that. Let me ask — what's the cost of the problem we discussed? You mentioned your team spends [X hours] on [task] every week. At your team's loaded cost, that's roughly [$ amount] per year. Our solution runs [$ price] — so the question is whether eliminating that problem is worth the investment."
+
+**Proof point:** ROI calculator or case study showing payback period.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "If the ROI was clear, is this something you'd prioritize this quarter?"
+
+---
+
+#### "We don't have budget for this"
+
+**Why they say it:** Budget may genuinely be allocated. Or they haven't identified budget because priority isn't established.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Validate — budget constraints are real
+2. Understand timing — when does budget cycle reset?
+3. Explore alternatives — pilot, smaller scope, different budget line
+4. Help them build the business case to create budget
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "Totally understand. Two questions: When does your next budget cycle open? And — if we could show clear ROI with a limited pilot, is that something you could fund from a different line item? Sometimes teams fund this from the efficiency savings it creates."
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who started with a small pilot and expanded after proving ROI.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Would it help if I put together an ROI brief you could share with your finance team?"
+
+---
+
+#### "Competitor X is cheaper"
+
+**Why they say it:** They're comparing prices, possibly without comparing capabilities. May be using competitor price as leverage.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Acknowledge the price difference — don't pretend it doesn't exist
+2. Shift to total cost of ownership and value delivered
+3. Highlight what they lose at the lower price point
+4. Share proof from customers who evaluated both
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "You're right, [Competitor] is less expensive. Here's what I've seen from teams who evaluated both: [Competitor] works well for [their strength]. Where it falls short is [specific gap]. Customers like [name] actually switched to us after starting with [Competitor] because [specific reason]. The question is whether [specific capability] is worth the difference for your team."
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who switched from the competitor, with specific reasons.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What's most important to your team — the lowest price or the best fit for [their specific need]?"
+
+---
+
+### Timing Objections
+
+#### "Not the right time"
+
+**Why they say it:** Competing priorities, organizational change, genuine capacity constraint, or lack of urgency.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Understand what's competing for their attention
+2. Quantify the cost of waiting
+3. Explore low-commitment next steps that keep momentum
+4. Set a concrete follow-up date
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "I get it — timing matters. Can I ask what's taking priority right now? The reason I bring up timing is that every month of [problem], based on our earlier conversation, costs your team roughly [$ amount]. A 3-month delay is [$ amount]. What if we mapped out a start date that works with your calendar so you're not losing that value?"
+
+**Proof point:** Cost-of-delay calculation based on their specific numbers.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What would need to change for this to move up in priority?"
+
+---
+
+#### "Maybe next quarter"
+
+**Why they say it:** Genuine scheduling, or a polite way of saying "not interested enough right now."
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Accept the timeline gracefully
+2. Propose a small action now that maintains momentum
+3. Get a specific date for follow-up
+4. Send value in the meantime (content, benchmarks, insights)
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "Next quarter works. To make sure we hit the ground running, would it make sense to do [small next step] now? That way when Q[X] starts, you're not starting from scratch. I'll also send over [relevant content] in the meantime. Can we lock in [specific date] to reconnect?"
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who started the evaluation process early and was live by their target date.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Is there anything I can send between now and then that would be helpful?"
+
+---
+
+### Competition Objections
+
+#### "We already use X"
+
+**Why they say it:** They have an existing solution and switching has real costs. May be satisfied, or may have frustrations they haven't voiced.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Don't trash the competitor — ask how it's working
+2. Probe for specific pain points with their current solution
+3. Position as complementary if possible, replacement if not
+4. Offer a side-by-side comparison or trial
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "How's that working for you? Specifically, when it comes to [area where you're stronger] — is that meeting your needs? The reason I ask is that most teams who come to us from [Competitor] tell us [specific pain point] was the tipping point. Not saying that's you, but worth exploring."
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who switched from that specific competitor.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "If you could change one thing about your current setup, what would it be?"
+
+---
+
+#### "What makes you different?"
+
+**Why they say it:** They're evaluating options and want a clear differentiator. Sometimes a genuine question, sometimes a test.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Don't list features — give the one thing that matters most for their situation
+2. Tie the differentiator to their specific pain
+3. Back it up with proof
+4. Offer to show, not just tell
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "For teams like yours — [their industry/size/use case] — the biggest difference is [specific differentiator]. That matters because [connection to their pain]. For example, [Customer] was evaluating us alongside [Competitor] and chose us because [specific reason]. Want me to walk you through how that works?"
+
+**Proof point:** Case study of a customer who chose you over alternatives.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What's the most important criteria for your decision?"
+
+---
+
+### Authority Objections
+
+#### "I need to check with my boss"
+
+**Why they say it:** They may not be the decision maker, or they need internal buy-in to proceed. Could also be a stall tactic.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Support them, don't pressure them
+2. Arm them with materials to sell internally
+3. Offer to join a meeting with their boss
+4. Understand what their boss cares about
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "Absolutely — what would help you make the case? I can put together a one-pager that covers the ROI and addresses the concerns your boss is likely to have. Also happy to jump on a quick call with them if that would be helpful. What does your boss typically prioritize — cost savings, risk reduction, or efficiency?"
+
+**Proof point:** Champion enablement one-pager, ROI calculator.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What questions do you think your boss will ask?"
+
+---
+
+#### "A committee decides this"
+
+**Why they say it:** Enterprise buying involves multiple stakeholders. Genuine process, not a brush-off.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Map the buying committee — who's involved and what each person cares about
+2. Provide persona-specific materials
+3. Offer to present to the committee
+4. Help your champion navigate the internal process
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "That makes sense. Can you walk me through who's on the committee and what each person cares about? I can tailor materials for each stakeholder so you're not doing all the heavy lifting. I've also got a deck designed for executive presentations if that would be useful."
+
+**Proof point:** Multi-stakeholder case study showing how different personas were addressed.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Who on the committee is most likely to push back, and what would their concern be?"
+
+---
+
+### Status Quo Objections
+
+#### "What we have works fine"
+
+**Why they say it:** Inertia is real. The current solution may be adequate, and change has real costs.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Agree — don't argue with their experience
+2. Shift from "broken vs. fixed" to "good vs. great"
+3. Introduce the concept of opportunity cost
+4. Show what peers are achieving
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "It probably does work — and I wouldn't suggest changing something that's truly meeting your needs. The question I'd ask is: is 'works fine' the bar? Teams using [your product] are seeing [specific outcome]. If you're leaving [X% improvement] on the table, is that worth exploring?"
+
+**Proof point:** Benchmark data showing what's possible vs. status quo.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "If there were one area where your current approach could be better, what would it be?"
+
+---
+
+### Technical Objections
+
+#### "Does it integrate with X?"
+
+**Why they say it:** Integration is a real requirement. They need to know your product fits their stack.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Answer directly — yes, no, or "let me check"
+2. If yes, provide specifics (native, API, Zapier, etc.)
+3. If no, explain alternatives or workarounds
+4. Never bluff — they'll find out during evaluation
+
+**Talk track (if yes):**
+> "Yes, we integrate with [X] natively. It takes about [time] to set up. [Customer] runs the same stack and here's how they have it configured."
+
+**Talk track (if no):**
+> "We don't have a native integration with [X] today. Here's what customers typically do: [alternative]. We also have an open API that [description]. Would it help to get our technical team on a call to explore options?"
+
+**Proof point:** Customer using the same tech stack, integration documentation.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What other tools are in your stack that we'd need to work with?"
+
+---
+
+#### "We have security concerns"
+
+**Why they say it:** Legitimate concern, especially in regulated industries or enterprise. Non-negotiable for many buyers.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Take it seriously — never dismiss security concerns
+2. Provide documentation proactively (SOC 2, security whitepaper)
+3. Offer to loop in your security team
+4. Ask about their specific requirements
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "That's exactly the right question to ask. Here's our security overview — we're [SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001 / etc.] certified, and I can share our full security documentation. We also have a security team that's happy to do a review call with your infosec team. What are your specific requirements?"
+
+**Proof point:** Security certifications, compliance documentation, customers in regulated industries.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Do you have a security questionnaire you'd like us to fill out?"

package/bundled-skills/sales-enablement/references/one-pager-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+# One-Pager Templates
+
+Templates for different one-pager use cases, with layout guidance and copy prompts.
+
+## Product Overview One-Pager
+
+The default one-pager. Introduces your product to someone who knows nothing about you.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]                                              [Tagline]
+
+HEADLINE: One sentence describing what you do and who it's for.
+
+THE PROBLEM
+2-3 sentences describing the pain your buyer faces.
+
+THE SOLUTION
+2-3 sentences describing how your product solves it.
+
+WHY [YOUR PRODUCT]
+• Differentiator 1 — One sentence explaining the benefit
+• Differentiator 2 — One sentence explaining the benefit
+• Differentiator 3 — One sentence explaining the benefit
+
+PROOF
+"Customer quote with specific result." — Name, Title, Company
+[Optional: 2-3 metric callouts: "X% improvement", "Y hours saved"]
+
+[CTA Button/Link]                    [Contact: name@company.com]
+```
+
+### Copy Prompts
+
+- Headline: "What do you do, in one sentence, that makes someone say 'tell me more'?"
+- Problem: "What is your buyer struggling with before they find you?"
+- Differentiators: "If you could only tell them 3 things, what would make them choose you?"
+
+---
+
+## Use-Case Specific One-Pager
+
+Tailored to a specific workflow, vertical, or problem. More targeted than the product overview.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]                                    [Use Case: e.g., "For Sales Teams"]
+
+HEADLINE: How [your product] helps [persona] [achieve outcome].
+
+THE CHALLENGE
+When [persona] needs to [task], they face [specific pain].
+This leads to [consequence]: [time wasted / money lost / risk].
+
+HOW IT WORKS
+1. [Step 1] — What happens and why it matters
+2. [Step 2] — What happens and why it matters
+3. [Step 3] — What happens and why it matters
+
+RESULTS
+• [Metric 1]: Before → After
+• [Metric 2]: Before → After
+• [Metric 3]: Before → After
+
+CUSTOMER SPOTLIGHT
+"Quote about this specific use case." — Name, Title, Company
+
+[CTA: "See it in action" or "Start a pilot"]       [Contact info]
+```
+
+### When to Use
+
+- Different buyer personas need different one-pagers
+- Industry-specific versions (healthcare, fintech, e-commerce)
+- Use-case versions (reporting, onboarding, security)
+
+---
+
+## Post-Meeting Leave-Behind
+
+Designed to reinforce a conversation that already happened. Summarizes what you discussed and proposes next steps.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]                                            [Date of Meeting]
+
+MEETING RECAP: [Company Name]
+
+WHAT WE DISCUSSED
+• [Pain point 1 they mentioned]
+• [Pain point 2 they mentioned]
+• [Goal they're trying to achieve]
+
+HOW [YOUR PRODUCT] HELPS
+• [Solution to pain 1] — [Specific capability or workflow]
+• [Solution to pain 2] — [Specific capability or workflow]
+• [How you help them reach their goal]
+
+RELEVANT PROOF
+"Quote from a similar customer." — Name, Title, Company
+[1-2 metrics from a similar customer]
+
+PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
+1. [Next step with date]
+2. [Follow-up action]
+3. [Decision timeline]
+
+[Your name]  |  [Your title]  |  [Email]  |  [Phone]
+```
+
+### Tips
+
+- Send within 24 hours of the meeting
+- Reference specific things they said (shows you listened)
+- Keep proposed next steps concrete and time-bound
+- This is the asset your champion forwards to their boss
+
+---
+
+## Champion Enablement One-Pager
+
+Designed specifically for your internal champion to share with their team and leadership. Written to make them look smart.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]
+
+WHY WE'RE EVALUATING [YOUR PRODUCT]
+
+THE SITUATION
+[2-3 sentences about the internal challenge, written as if the champion
+is explaining it to their team. Use "we" and "our" language.]
+
+WHAT [YOUR PRODUCT] DOES
+[1-2 sentences. Plain language, no jargon.]
+
+WHY THIS SOLUTION
+• [Reason 1] — How it solves our specific problem
+• [Reason 2] — How it compares to what we do today
+• [Reason 3] — How it compares to alternatives we evaluated
+
+EXPECTED IMPACT
+• [Metric]: Current state → Expected state
+• [Metric]: Current state → Expected state
+• [Time to value]: Live within [X weeks]
+
+WHO ELSE USES IT
+[2-3 recognizable company names in their industry]
+"Relevant customer quote." — Name, Title, Company
+
+NEXT STEPS
+• [What we're doing next]
+• [What we need from the team]
+• [Decision timeline]
+
+Questions? Talk to [Champion name] or [Your name at email].
+```
+
+### Why This Works
+
+- Written in the champion's voice, not yours
+- Answers the questions their boss will ask
+- Includes peer proof from companies they respect
+- Clear ask and timeline to drive internal momentum
+
+---
+
+## Layout Guidance
+
+### Visual Hierarchy
+
+1. **Headline** — Largest text, top of page, immediately communicates value
+2. **Section headers** — Bold, clear, act as scannable anchors
+3. **Body text** — Short sentences, bullet points preferred over paragraphs
+4. **Proof elements** — Metrics and quotes should visually stand out (larger font, color, or callout box)
+5. **CTA** — Prominent placement, bottom of page or bottom-right
+
+### Whitespace
+
+- Margins: at least 0.75" on all sides
+- Space between sections: enough to visually separate (don't cram)
+- If it feels crowded, cut content. Never shrink font below 9pt.
+
+### Font Sizing
+
+| Element | Suggested Size |
+|---------|---------------|
+| Headline | 18-24pt |
+| Section headers | 12-14pt bold |
+| Body text | 10-11pt |
+| Fine print / footer | 8-9pt |
+
+### Color
+
+- Use brand colors for headers and accents
+- Keep body text dark (black or near-black) on white
+- Limit accent colors to 1-2 for visual consistency
+- Use color to draw attention to metrics and CTAs
+
+### File Format
+
+- **PDF** for email attachments and leave-behinds
+- **Google Slides / PowerPoint** for editable versions reps can customize
+- Always include both — reps will customize, prospects want clean PDFs

package/bundled-skills/seo/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+---
+name: seo
+description: "Run a broad SEO audit across technical SEO, on-page SEO, schema, sitemaps, content quality, AI search readiness, and GEO. Use as the umbrella skill when the user asks for a full SEO analysis or strategy."
+risk: unknown
+source: "https://github.com/AgriciDaniel/claude-seo"
+date_added: "2026-03-21"
+user-invokable: true
+argument-hint: "[command] [url]"
+---
+
+# SEO: Universal SEO Analysis Skill
+
+Comprehensive SEO analysis across all industries (SaaS, local services,
+e-commerce, publishers, agencies). Orchestrates 12 specialized sub-skills and 7 subagents
+(+ optional extension sub-skills like seo-dataforseo).
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Use when the user asks for a full SEO audit or broad SEO strategy.
+- Use as the umbrella entry point when multiple SEO dimensions are in scope.
+- Use when the task spans technical SEO, content, schema, sitemaps, and AI search readiness together.
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+| Command | What it does |
+|---------|-------------|
+| `/seo audit <url>` | Full website audit with parallel subagent delegation |
+| `/seo page <url>` | Deep single-page analysis |
+| `/seo sitemap <url or generate>` | Analyze or generate XML sitemaps |
+| `/seo schema <url>` | Detect, validate, and generate Schema.org markup |
+| `/seo images <url>` | Image optimization analysis |
+| `/seo technical <url>` | Technical SEO audit (9 categories) |
+| `/seo content <url>` | E-E-A-T and content quality analysis |
+| `/seo geo <url>` | AI Overviews / Generative Engine Optimization |
+| `/seo plan <business-type>` | Strategic SEO planning |
+| `/seo programmatic [url\|plan]` | Programmatic SEO analysis and planning |
+| `/seo competitor-pages [url\|generate]` | Competitor comparison page generation |
+| `/seo hreflang [url]` | Hreflang/i18n SEO audit and generation |
+| `/seo dataforseo [command]` | Live SEO data via DataForSEO (extension) |
+| `/seo image-gen [use-case] <description>` | AI image generation for SEO assets (extension) |
+
+## Orchestration Logic
+
+When the user invokes `/seo audit`, delegate to subagents in parallel:
+1. Detect business type (SaaS, local, ecommerce, publisher, agency, other)
+2. Spawn subagents: seo-technical, seo-content, seo-schema, seo-sitemap, seo-performance, seo-visual, seo-geo
+3. Collect results and generate unified report with SEO Health Score (0-100)
+4. Create prioritized action plan (Critical -> High -> Medium -> Low)
+
+For individual commands, load the relevant sub-skill directly.
+
+## Industry Detection
+
+Detect business type from homepage signals:
+- **SaaS**: pricing page, /features, /integrations, /docs, "free trial", "sign up"
+- **Local Service**: phone number, address, service area, "serving [city]", Google Maps embed
+- **E-commerce**: /products, /collections, /cart, "add to cart", product schema
+- **Publisher**: /blog, /articles, /topics, article schema, author pages, publication dates
+- **Agency**: /case-studies, /portfolio, /industries, "our work", client logos
+
+## Quality Gates
+
+Read `references/quality-gates.md` for thin content thresholds per page type.
+Hard rules:
+- WARNING at 30+ location pages (enforce 60%+ unique content)
+- HARD STOP at 50+ location pages (require user justification)
+- Never recommend HowTo schema (deprecated Sept 2023)
+- FAQ schema for Google rich results: only government and healthcare sites (Aug 2023 restriction); existing FAQPage on commercial sites -> flag Info priority (not Critical), noting AI/LLM citation benefit; adding new FAQPage -> not recommended for Google benefit
+- All Core Web Vitals references use INP, never FID
+
+## Reference Files
+
+Load these on-demand as needed (do NOT load all at startup):
+- `references/cwv-thresholds.md`: Current Core Web Vitals thresholds and measurement details
+- `references/schema-types.md`: All supported schema types with deprecation status
+- `references/eeat-framework.md`: E-E-A-T evaluation criteria (Sept 2025 QRG update)
+- `references/quality-gates.md`: Content length minimums, uniqueness thresholds
+
+## Scoring Methodology
+
+### SEO Health Score (0-100)
+Weighted aggregate of all categories:
+
+| Category | Weight |
+|----------|--------|
+| Technical SEO | 22% |
+| Content Quality | 23% |
+| On-Page SEO | 20% |
+| Schema / Structured Data | 10% |
+| Performance (CWV) | 10% |
+| AI Search Readiness | 10% |
+| Images | 5% |
+
+### Priority Levels
+- **Critical**: Blocks indexing or causes penalties (immediate fix required)
+- **High**: Significantly impacts rankings (fix within 1 week)
+- **Medium**: Optimization opportunity (fix within 1 month)
+- **Low**: Nice to have (backlog)
+
+## Sub-Skills
+
+This skill orchestrates 12 specialized sub-skills (+ 2 extensions):
+
+1. **seo-audit** -- Full website audit with parallel delegation
+2. **seo-page** -- Deep single-page analysis
+3. **seo-technical** -- Technical SEO (9 categories)
+4. **seo-content** -- E-E-A-T and content quality
+5. **seo-schema** -- Schema markup detection and generation
+6. **seo-images** -- Image optimization
+7. **seo-sitemap** -- Sitemap analysis and generation
+8. **seo-geo** -- AI Overviews / GEO optimization
+9. **seo-plan** -- Strategic planning with templates
+10. **seo-programmatic** -- Programmatic SEO analysis and planning
+11. **seo-competitor-pages** -- Competitor comparison page generation
+12. **seo-hreflang** -- Hreflang/i18n SEO audit and generation
+13. **seo-dataforseo** -- Live SEO data via DataForSEO MCP (extension)
+14. **seo-image-gen** -- AI image generation for SEO assets via Gemini (extension)
+
+## Subagents
+
+For parallel analysis during audits:
+- `seo-technical` -- Crawlability, indexability, security, CWV
+- `seo-content` -- E-E-A-T, readability, thin content
+- `seo-schema` -- Detection, validation, generation
+- `seo-sitemap` -- Structure, coverage, quality gates
+- `seo-performance` -- Core Web Vitals measurement
+- `seo-visual` -- Screenshots, mobile testing, above-fold
+- `seo-geo` -- AI crawler access, llms.txt, citability, brand mention signals
+- `seo-dataforseo` -- Live SERP, keyword, backlink, local SEO data (extension, optional)
+- `seo-image-gen` -- SEO image audit and generation plan (extension, optional)
+
+## Error Handling
+
+| Scenario | Action |
+|----------|--------|
+| Unrecognized command | List available commands from the Quick Reference table. Suggest the closest matching command. |
+| URL unreachable | Report the error and suggest the user verify the URL. Do not attempt to guess site content. |
+| Sub-skill fails during audit | Report partial results from successful sub-skills. Clearly note which sub-skill failed and why. Suggest re-running the failed sub-skill individually. |
+| Ambiguous business type detection | Present the top two detected types with supporting signals. Ask the user to confirm before proceeding with industry-specific recommendations. |