mirror of
https://github.com/getcargohq/cargo-skills.git
synced 2026-09-14 19:17:15 +08:00
Auree Aubert
d91ab11e45
The cookbook guidance said there was no copy tool and the agent had to place the code itself. `cdk add cookbook/<slug>` is that tool now, so the skill says what it does, where it writes, and — the part an agent gets wrong — that the cookbook's own procedure has to be picked up at its Adapt section, because its opening steps assume you found the folder on GitHub and still have to place it. The command reference documented `--template <blank|full>` and `--list-templates` for `cdk init`. Neither flag exists: the scaffold never varies and a worked example comes from a cookbook. It also had no row for `add` or `cookbook` at all, which is the reference an agent reads to decide what to run. Fixed, along with the two recipes and the example that invoked `--template full`. Refreshes the cookbook snapshot, which had gone stale at two cookbooks while the catalog grew to three — `crm-enrichment` was missing from the menu. Regenerates llms.txt and the skill's metadata snapshot, both CI-gated. Co-authored-by: Cursor <cursoragent@cursor.com>
86 lines
3.7 KiB
JSON
86 lines
3.7 KiB
JSON
[
|
|
{
|
|
"slug": "account-scoring",
|
|
"kind": "cookbook",
|
|
"outcome": "Keep every account scored and tiered against your written ICP by a deployed agent that re-scores as accounts arrive and as the ICP changes, writing the rationale back to the CRM.",
|
|
"state": "to-be-approved",
|
|
"chain": 1,
|
|
"requires": [],
|
|
"hasSkill": true,
|
|
"variations": [
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "deterministic-scoring",
|
|
"when": "You need fixed cost and exact reproducibility, or an LLM judgement is not acceptable to your team",
|
|
"trade": "The criteria move out of the ICP markdown and into code, so they stop being reviewable by non-engineers, and you lose the rationale entirely"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "skip-crm-roundtrip",
|
|
"when": "You want the score on the model directly and do not need it visible in the CRM",
|
|
"trade": "Reps lose the score and rationale where they actually work. The native's input is untyped, so confirm the field shape on the first run"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "no-crm-at-all",
|
|
"when": "You have no CRM, or you do not want to hand this skill a CRM credential",
|
|
"trade": "Every other CRM-dependent skill you install later brings a CRM connector of its own; reuse one"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"slug": "crm-enrichment",
|
|
"kind": "cookbook",
|
|
"outcome": "Keep CRM accounts filled and refresh them when they go stale: a deployed play that fills approved blank firmographics from LinkedIn and re-enrolls a record after six months.",
|
|
"state": "to-be-approved",
|
|
"chain": 3,
|
|
"requires": [],
|
|
"hasSkill": true,
|
|
"variations": [
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "crm",
|
|
"when": "The consumer uses Salesforce or Attio instead of HubSpot",
|
|
"trade": "Live generated types must be rechecked; a guessed flag writes or no-ops silently"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "selected_fields",
|
|
"when": "The approved contract differs from the starting recommendation",
|
|
"trade": "Each added field expands mapping, type-review, and the \"already filled\" filter"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "eligibility",
|
|
"when": "Only a governed subset should be enriched",
|
|
"trade": "Narrower scope reduces coverage and paid calls"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "approved_refresh_behavior",
|
|
"when": "Populated fields must be refreshed after explicit approval",
|
|
"trade": "Refresh can overwrite CRM-authoritative values if the preview and the write disagree"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"slug": "tam-building",
|
|
"kind": "cookbook",
|
|
"outcome": "Stand up your account universe as a deployed pipeline: a Sales Navigator company search split past the 1,000 extraction cap, resolved to real domains, deduped into a shared accounts model.",
|
|
"state": "to-be-approved",
|
|
"chain": 2,
|
|
"requires": [],
|
|
"hasSkill": true,
|
|
"variations": [
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "non-linkedin-source",
|
|
"when": "You do not want to source from LinkedIn at all, or Sales Nav does not cover your market",
|
|
"trade": "You lose the Sales Nav facet taxonomy that makes the split tactic mechanical, and the splitting has to be redesigned around the new source's own limits"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "land-without-promoting",
|
|
"when": "You want to see and filter the raw market before paying to enrich it",
|
|
"trade": "Nothing reaches `accounts`, so no downstream skill (scoring, contact sourcing, signals) has anything to work with until you promote"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"id": "sample-first",
|
|
"when": "The market search is large and you want to see the cost curve before committing",
|
|
"trade": "Your TAM is deliberately incomplete until you widen it, so do not score or report on coverage from a sample"
|
|
}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|
|
]
|