Purpose
Score any inbound or outbound partnership opportunity against a consistent, weighted rubric — turning a subjective "this feels interesting" into a defensible number, tier, and go/no-go call. Solves the problem of BD teams evaluating every opportunity differently, chasing low-value deals, and lacking a shared language to prioritize a full pipeline.
When to Use
Invoke this skill when the user asks to:
- Evaluate an inbound partnership request that just landed
- Score or rank a list of outbound partnership targets
- Decide whether a specific partner is worth pursuing
- Compare two or more partnership opportunities against each other
- Build a repeatable scoring framework for the partnerships pipeline
- Justify a pursue / pass decision to leadership or a deal committee
Inputs Required
Before starting, collect:
- Partner name & description: Who they are and what they do (2–3 sentences)
- Partnership type: Integration / co-marketing / distribution / liquidity / listing / white-label / referral / other
- Our strategic goals: What this partnership would help us achieve this quarter/year
- Partner's stage & traction: Funding, users/TVL/volume, notable backers or clients if known
- Deal terms discussed: Revenue share, exclusivity, technical scope, timeline (or "TBD")
- Regulatory/compliance context: Jurisdictions involved, licensing status, any AML/KYC exposure
- Effort estimate: Rough eng, legal, and BD lift required to launch
If traction or terms are unknown, score against best available signal and flag the dimension as "low-confidence."
Instructions
Step 1: Score Across 8 Weighted Dimensions
Rate each dimension 1–5 (1 = poor, 5 = excellent), multiply by its weight, and sum. Maximum weighted score is 100.
Dimension 1 — Strategic Fit (weight 20) How directly does this advance a stated company goal?
- 5: Directly unlocks a top-3 company objective (new market, key integration, distribution channel)
- 3: Adjacent value — helpful but not core to current priorities
- 1: Interesting but disconnected from strategy; opportunistic only
Dimension 2 — Revenue / Value Potential (weight 18) Realistic economic upside — fees, volume, TVL, or user acquisition value.
- 5: Material revenue or volume within 2 quarters; clear model
- 3: Modest or long-dated upside; monetization unproven
- 1: No clear path to value; goodwill only
Dimension 3 — Partner Credibility & Traction (weight 14) Reputation, backers, users, and staying power. Critical in crypto where counterparty risk is real.
- 5: Established brand, credible backers, real usage, clean track record
- 3: Early but legitimate; some traction, thin history
- 1: Anonymous team, no traction, or reputational red flags
Dimension 4 — Audience / Distribution Overlap (weight 12) Do their users match our ICP, and can they actually move users to us?
- 5: Strong ICP match + proven ability to drive their audience to partners
- 3: Partial overlap or unproven distribution muscle
- 1: Wrong audience or no real distribution reach
Dimension 5 — Regulatory & Compliance Risk (weight 12) Jurisdictional exposure, licensing gaps, AML/KYC and sanctions considerations. Reverse-scored — high risk lowers the number.
- 5: Clean jurisdictions, licensed/compliant, no added exposure
- 3: Manageable risk requiring standard diligence
- 1: Unlicensed activity, sanctioned-jurisdiction exposure, or unresolved compliance questions
Dimension 6 — Ease of Execution (weight 10) Technical, legal, and operational lift to launch.
- 5: Light integration, standard terms, launchable in weeks
- 3: Moderate build and negotiation
- 1: Heavy custom eng, complex legal, multi-quarter timeline
Dimension 7 — Deal Economics & Terms (weight 8) Fairness and defensibility of proposed terms.
- 5: Favorable or balanced terms, no problematic exclusivity
- 3: Acceptable with negotiation needed
- 1: One-sided, over-broad exclusivity, or unfavorable rev share
Dimension 8 — Momentum & Timing (weight 6) Is now the right moment, and is the counterparty responsive?
- 5: Both sides motivated, timing aligns with a launch or campaign
- 3: Neutral timing; workable
- 1: Premature, stalled, or misaligned timing
Step 2: Apply Deal-Breaker Flags
Independent of score, flag any hard blockers:
- Sanctioned-jurisdiction or sanctioned-entity exposure
- Unlicensed activity where a license is legally required
- Requested exclusivity that conflicts with an existing partner
- Anonymous team on a high-trust integration (e.g., custody, funds flow)
- Any dimension scored 1 on Strategic Fit or Compliance
Any active deal-breaker overrides the numeric score and forces a "No-Go (blocked)" recommendation regardless of total.
Step 3: Classify the Tier
Map the weighted total to a tier:
- Tier 1 — Priority (80–100): Pursue aggressively; assign owner and timeline now
- Tier 2 — Qualified (60–79): Pursue with conditions; resolve flagged gaps first
- Tier 3 — Watch (40–59): Park and monitor; revisit if a key dimension improves
- Tier 4 — Pass (below 40): Decline politely; not worth pipeline capacity
Step 4: Write the Recommendation
State a clear go / conditional-go / no-go call. Name the 2 strongest dimensions, the weakest dimension, and the single biggest risk. Be decisive — do not hedge to a "maybe."
Step 5: Define Next Steps
List 3–5 concrete next actions matched to the recommendation (e.g., "Send compliance questionnaire," "Route to legal for exclusivity review," "Draft mutual NDA," or "Send a courteous decline"). Include a suggested owner role for each.
Output Format
- Structure: Header block with partner name, type, total score, and tier → scorecard table → deal-breaker flags → recommendation → next steps
- Length: 600–900 words
- Format: One scoring table (8 rows: dimension, raw 1–5, weight, weighted score) plus structured prose sections
- Sections: Summary Header → Scorecard Table → Deal-Breaker Flags → Tier Classification → Recommendation → Next Steps
- Tone: BD operator — analytical, decisive, commercially sharp; no filler, no diplomatic hedging
Quality Checklist
Before delivering output, verify:
- [ ] All 8 dimensions are scored 1–5 and weighted (weights sum to 100)
- [ ] The weighted total is calculated correctly and matches the assigned tier
- [ ] Deal-breaker flags were checked, and any active flag overrides the numeric call
- [ ] The recommendation names specific strongest/weakest dimensions — not generic praise
- [ ] Low-confidence dimensions are flagged where inputs were missing
- [ ] Next steps are concrete, assigned to a role, and matched to the go/no-go decision
Notes
- Compliance and Strategic Fit are the two dimensions where a single low score should give real pause — a great-economics deal with regulatory exposure is rarely worth it in crypto/fintech.
- For ranking a pipeline, run the same scorecard across every opportunity and sort by weighted total; consistency across evaluations is the entire point of the tool.
- Revisit dimension weights quarterly — if strategy shifts toward distribution over revenue, adjust the weights and re-score active opportunities so the pipeline reflects current priorities.
- When terms are still "TBD," score Deal Economics as low-confidence rather than defaulting to a middle number; an honest gap is more useful than a fabricated 3.
How to use this skill
This file is a Claude Code skill in Anthropic's standard format — markdown with YAML frontmatter at the top.
Installing in Claude Code:
~/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads in every session anywhere on your machine (recommended for skills you'll use across multiple projects)<your-project>/.claude/skills/<folder-name>/SKILL.md— auto-loads only when working in that project (recommended for project-specific skills)
Restart Claude Code or open a new session to register.
Using in Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini, or other AI tools:
- Drag this file into a new chat, or copy and paste its contents
- Send your task or request as your next message — the AI will apply the skill where it fits
For Claude Code skill details: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/claude-code/skills