event4u-app/agent-config

forecast-accuracy

Use when constructing the forecast call — commit / best-case / pipeline categorisation, deal-level evidence test, accuracy retro-loop. Triggers on 'build the forecast', 'why does our commit miss'.

89Collecting
See how to use itView GitHub source
npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/forecast-accuracy"
Automated source guide

Source checked Jul 28, 2026·Refresh due Oct 26, 2026

Reorganized from the pinned upstream SKILL.md

Turn forecast-accuracy's source instructions into a guide you can follow

According to the pinned SKILL.md from event4u-app/agent-config: Triggers on 'build the forecast', 'why does our commit miss'.

npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/forecast-accuracy"
Check the pinned source

Best fit

  • The quarterly forecast call is being constructed and the team needs a categorisation rule that survives retro — not a feel-good number that flatters this week.
  • Commit has missed two or more quarters and nobody can name which signals broke — the retro-loop is missing or the categorisation rule is unwritten.
  • A new RevOps lead inherits a pipeline and needs to rebuild the forecast call without inheriting last regime's optimism bias.

Bring this context

  • A concrete task that matches the documented purpose of forecast-accuracy.
  • The files, examples, or context the task depends on.
  • Your constraints, target environment, and definition of done.

Expected outputs

  • forecast-call.md — commit $ and best-case $ with confidence bands; per-segment breakdown.
  • commit-list.md — one row per commit deal: $, segment, MEDDIC-completeness, decision-process date, premortem tag (none / single-risk / two-risk demoted).
  • retro-deltas.md (at quarter-end) — predicted vs actual per category, per-segment, per-rep miss-rate, and the categorisation-rule change (if any) for next quarter.

Key source sections

Read forecast-accuracy through these 5 source sections

Sections are extracted automatically from the pinned SKILL.md and link back to the source.

01

Procedure

Pull stage-definitions.md, coverage-by-cell.md from pipeline-strategy, and the latest meddic-card.md per deal from deal-qualification-meddic. Inspect whether each commit-candidate deal carries falsifiable evidence per MEDDIC slot — a forecast built without that inspection is rep…

SKILL.md · Procedure
Commit — deal closes in-window with ≥ 90 % subjectiveBest-case — deal could close in-window with ≥ 50 %Pipeline — everything else. Pipeline is not a forecast
02

Step 0: Inspect — inherit pipeline + qualification artefacts

Pull stage-definitions.md, coverage-by-cell.md from pipeline-strategy, and the latest meddic-card.md per deal from deal-qualification-meddic. Inspect whether each commit-candidate deal carries falsifiable evidence per MEDDIC slot — a forecast built without that inspection is rep…

SKILL.md · Step 0: Inspect — inherit pipeline + qualification artefacts
Pull stage-definitions.md, coverage-by-cell.md from pipeline-strategy, and the latest meddic-card.md per deal from deal-qualification-meddic. Inspect whether each commit-candidate deal carries falsifiable evidence per M…
03

Step 1: Lock the three categories with falsifiable rules

1. Commit — deal closes in-window with ≥ 90 % subjective probability and MEDDIC slots all filled with evidence and decision-process has buyer-written dates inside the window. 2. Best-case — deal could close in-window with ≥ 50 % probability and ≤ 2 MEDDIC slots unfilled and at l…

SKILL.md · Step 1: Lock the three categories with falsifiable rules
Commit — deal closes in-window with ≥ 90 % subjectiveBest-case — deal could close in-window with ≥ 50 %Pipeline — everything else. Pipeline is not a forecast
04

Step 2: Apply the segment-historical close rate

For each deal, compute expected $ = $ × segment-historical in-window close-rate (trailing four quarters). Aggregate by category. If commit-$ exceeds (segment historical commit close-rate × pipeline-$ in commit), the call is structurally optimistic — find the optimism source befo…

SKILL.md · Step 2: Apply the segment-historical close rate
For each deal, compute expected $ = $ × segment-historical in-window close-rate (trailing four quarters). Aggregate by category. If commit-$ exceeds (segment historical commit close-rate × pipeline-$ in commit), the cal…
05

Step 3: Premortem the commit list

Write "if commit misses by 20 %, the reason is \\\." The most common patterns: (a) one anchor deal slipped, (b) segment cycle lengthened, (c) procurement/legal queues bunched at quarter-end. Tag each commit deal with which of these would kill it; deals tagged with two or more mo…

SKILL.md · Step 3: Premortem the commit list
Write "if commit misses by 20 %, the reason is \\\." The most common patterns: (a) one anchor deal slipped, (b) segment cycle lengthened, (c) procurement/legal queues bunched at quarter-end. Tag each commit deal with wh…

SkillSignal prompt templates

Provide the task, context, and acceptance criteria

These prompts were written by SkillSignal from the source structure; they are not upstream text.

Task-start prompt

Confirm source fit, inputs, and outputs before acting.

Use forecast-accuracy to help me with: [specific task]. Context: [files, data, or background]. Constraints: [environment, scope, and prohibited actions]. Before acting, check the pinned SKILL.md and explain which sections apply, what inputs are still missing, and what you will deliver.

Source-guided execution

Make the Agent explicitly follow the key extracted sections.

Apply the pinned forecast-accuracy source to [task]. Pay particular attention to these source sections: “Procedure”, “Step 0: Inspect — inherit pipeline + qualification artefacts”, “Step 1: Lock the three categories with falsifiable rules”, “Step 2: Apply the segment-historical close rate”, “Step 3: Premortem the commit list”. Preserve the important decision at each step. Mark facts not covered by the source as “needs confirmation” instead of inventing them. Then verify the result against my acceptance criteria: [criteria].

Result-review prompt

Check omissions, permissions, and source drift before delivery.

Review the current forecast-accuracy result: (1) does it satisfy the original task; (2) were any applicable steps or limits in the pinned SKILL.md missed; (3) did it perform any unauthorized file, command, network, or data action; and (4) which conclusions remain unverified? List issues first, then fix only what the source or user authorization supports.

Output checklist

Verify each item before delivery

The task matches the purpose documented in the SKILL.md.

The source section “Procedure” has been checked.

The source section “Step 0: Inspect — inherit pipeline + qualification artefacts” has been checked.

The source section “Step 1: Lock the three categories with falsifiable rules” has been checked.

The source section “Step 2: Apply the segment-historical close rate” has been checked.

Inputs, constraints, and acceptance criteria are explicit.

Unverified facts, compatibility, and outcome claims are clearly marked.

Any file, command, network, or data action has been reviewed.

Choose a different workflow

When another Skill is the better fit

gtm-product-led-growth

Build self-serve acquisition and expansion motions. Use when deciding PLG vs sales-led, optimizing activation, driving freemium conversion, building growth equations, or recognizing when product complexity demands human touch. Includes the parallel test where sales-led won 10x on revenue.

A separate implementation from github/awesome-copilot; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

attribution

When the user wants to figure out which marketing actually drives conversions and revenue, choose or interpret an attribution model, or reconcile conflicting numbers across tools. Also use when the user mentions "attribution," "attribution model," "first-touch vs last-touch," "multi-touch," "which channel drives revenue," "what's my real CAC," "my dashboards disagree," "Google/Meta says X but GA says Y," "media mix model," "MMM," "incrementality," "geo lift," "holdout test," "how did you hear ab

A separate implementation from coreyhaines31/marketingskills; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

lead-magnet

Create high-converting free resources that capture emails and build trust. Produces complete lead magnets (ebooks, checklists, templates, toolkits, quizzes) with landing page copy, thank-you page, and follow-up email sequence. Use when someone needs a list-building asset, wants to grow their email list, needs an opt-in incentive, a content upgrade, a gated download, or top-of-funnel content. Triggers on 'lead magnet', 'ebook', 'checklist', 'template', 'free resource', 'opt-in', 'grow my list', '

A separate implementation from MoizIbnYousaf/marketing-cli; compare its source, maintenance signals, and permission requirements.

Open source detail

FAQ

What does forecast-accuracy do?

Triggers on 'build the forecast', 'why does our commit miss'.

How do I start using forecast-accuracy?

The catalog detected this source-specific install command: npx skills add https://github.com/event4u-app/agent-config --skill "src/skills/forecast-accuracy". Inspect the command and pinned source before running it.

Which Agent platforms does it declare?

No dedicated Agent platform is declared in the pinned source record.

Repository stars
7
Repository forks
1
Quality
89/100
Source repository last pushed

Quality breakdown

Based on traceable docs and repository signals; stars are not treated as quality.

89/100
Documentation24/30
Specificity25/25
Maintenance20/20
Trust signals20/25

Compare before choosing

Related Agent Skills and source variants

These links are selected from shared tasks, functions, stacks, platforms, and same-name variants. Compare the source owner, documentation, permissions, and maintenance signals.

gtm-product-led-growth by github

Build self-serve acquisition and expansion motions. Use when deciding PLG vs sales-led, optimizing activation, driving freemium conversion, building growth equations, or recognizing when product complexity demands human touch. Includes the parallel test where sales-led won 10x on revenue.

attribution by coreyhaines31

When the user wants to figure out which marketing actually drives conversions and revenue, choose or interpret an attribution model, or reconcile conflicting numbers across tools. Also use when the user mentions "attribution," "attribution model," "first-touch vs last-touch," "multi-touch," "which channel drives revenue," "what's my real CAC," "my dashboards disagree," "Google/Meta says X but GA says Y," "media mix model," "MMM," "incrementality," "geo lift," "holdout test," "how did you hear ab

lead-magnet by MoizIbnYousaf

Create high-converting free resources that capture emails and build trust. Produces complete lead magnets (ebooks, checklists, templates, toolkits, quizzes) with landing page copy, thank-you page, and follow-up email sequence. Use when someone needs a list-building asset, wants to grow their email list, needs an opt-in incentive, a content upgrade, a gated download, or top-of-funnel content. Triggers on 'lead magnet', 'ebook', 'checklist', 'template', 'free resource', 'opt-in', 'grow my list', '

cro by coreyhaines31

When the user wants to optimize, improve, or increase conversions on any marketing page or form — including homepage, landing pages, pricing pages, feature pages, lead capture forms, or contact forms. Also use when the user says 'CRO,' 'conversion rate optimization,' 'this page isn't converting,' 'improve conversions,' 'why isn't this page working,' 'my landing page sucks,' 'form abandonment,' 'nobody's converting,' 'low conversion rate,' or 'this page needs work.' Use this even if the user just

salesforce-developer by jeffallan

Writes and debugs Apex code, builds Lightning Web Components, optimizes SOQL queries, implements triggers, batch jobs, platform events, and integrations on the Salesforce platform. Use when developing Salesforce applications, customizing CRM workflows, managing governor limits, bulk processing, or setting up Salesforce DX and CI/CD pipelines.

View original Skill.mdThis page is parsed directly from the repository SKILL.md without editorial rewriting. Collected: Jul 28, 2026 · about 6 min

forecast-accuracy

When to use

  • The quarterly forecast call is being constructed and the team needs a categorisation rule that survives retro — not a feel-good number that flatters this week.
  • Commit has missed two or more quarters and nobody can name which signals broke — the retro-loop is missing or the categorisation rule is unwritten.
  • A new RevOps lead inherits a pipeline and needs to rebuild the forecast call without inheriting last regime's optimism bias.

Do NOT use to design pipeline stages (route to pipeline-strategy), qualify a single deal (route to deal-qualification-meddic), or build the finance-side top-down / bottom-up model (composes against — but does not duplicate — the finance-partner forecasting capability, via the forecast-construction-shape interface).

Cognition cluster

  • Mental model 16 — Leading vs. lagging indicators. Closed-won is lagging; per-stage conversion and MEDDIC-slot completeness are leading. A forecast built on lagging signals can only confirm the result after it lands. See docs/contracts/mental-models.md § 16.
  • Mental model 29 — Premortem. Before locking the call, write the post-quarter retro as if commit missed by 20 %. The premortem surfaces which categorisations are riding on weak evidence; demote those before the call locks. See mental-models.md § 29.
  • Mental model 9 — Hypothesis-driven thinking. Each commit deal carries a falsifiable claim: "this closes by <date> because <evidence>." If the claim cannot be falsified inside the quarter, the deal is best-case, not commit. See mental-models.md § 9.
  • Context-spine — product + customer-segment. Read the product slot for what is actually GA-shippable this quarter (deals depending on non-shipped scope are not commit), and the customer-segment slot for segment-historical close rates — pricing-power and cycle-length differ by segment and the forecast must too. See context-spine.

Procedure

Step 0: Inspect — inherit pipeline + qualification artefacts

Pull stage-definitions.md, coverage-by-cell.md from pipeline-strategy, and the latest meddic-card.md per deal from deal-qualification-meddic. Inspect whether each commit-candidate deal carries falsifiable evidence per MEDDIC slot — a forecast built without that inspection is rep opinion, not categorisation.

Step 1: Lock the three categories with falsifiable rules

  1. Commit — deal closes in-window with ≥ 90 % subjective probability and MEDDIC slots all filled with evidence and decision-process has buyer-written dates inside the window.
  2. Best-case — deal could close in-window with ≥ 50 % probability and ≤ 2 MEDDIC slots unfilled and at least one decision-process date inside the window.
  3. Pipeline — everything else. Pipeline is not a forecast category; it is the population from which commit and best-case are drawn.

Reject "commit" placements that do not meet all three commit criteria, regardless of $ value or rep confidence.

Step 2: Apply the segment-historical close rate

For each deal, compute expected $ = $ × segment-historical in-window close-rate (trailing four quarters). Aggregate by category. If commit-$ exceeds (segment historical commit close-rate × pipeline-$ in commit), the call is structurally optimistic — find the optimism source before defending the number.

Step 3: Premortem the commit list

Write "if commit misses by 20 %, the reason is ___." The most common patterns: (a) one anchor deal slipped, (b) segment cycle lengthened, (c) procurement/legal queues bunched at quarter-end. Tag each commit deal with which of these would kill it; deals tagged with two or more move to best-case.

Step 4: Construct the call with confidence bands

Report commit $ = sum of commit-tagged after Step 3 demotions. Best-case $ = commit + best-case-tagged. Attach the band: "commit ± <historical-deviation>; best-case ± <historical upside>". A call without a band has no honesty about its prior miss-rate.

Step 5: Run the accuracy retro-loop at quarter-end

Compare predicted commit / best-case / pipeline to actual closed-won by category. Compute per-rep, per-segment, and per-stage miss-rate. Patterns that repeat for two quarters become categorisation rule changes in Step 1; one-off misses become deal-level evidence upgrades in Step 0.

Related Skills

WHEN to use this

  • Constructing the quarterly forecast call from a qualified pipeline.
  • Running the accuracy retro-loop and feeding it back into Step 1.

WHEN NOT to use this

  • Designing pipeline stages or per-stage conversion targets — route to pipeline-strategy.
  • Single-deal qualification or disqualification — route to deal-qualification-meddic.
  • Finance-side top-down model or board-deck forecast — composes against (does not replace) the finance-partner forecasting capability via the forecast-construction-shape interface.

When the agent should load this

  • "Build the Q3 forecast call."
  • "Why does our commit keep missing?"
  • "Run the forecast retro for last quarter."
  • "Welche Deals gehören wirklich in Commit?"

Output

  1. forecast-call.md — commit $ and best-case $ with confidence bands; per-segment breakdown.
  2. commit-list.md — one row per commit deal: $, segment, MEDDIC-completeness, decision-process date, premortem tag (none / single-risk / two-risk demoted).
  3. retro-deltas.md (at quarter-end) — predicted vs actual per category, per-segment, per-rep miss-rate, and the categorisation-rule change (if any) for next quarter.

Gotcha

  • "Strong commit" without buyer-written dates inside the window is a wish, not a forecast. Subjective probability without artefact evidence is what the retro will punish.
  • Segment-historical close rates change after a pricing change, a packaging change, or a competitive shift. Recompute the rates when the segment shape changes, otherwise the call inherits the old regime's optimism.
  • Reporting commit as a point estimate without the band hides the prior miss-rate. A team that has missed by 18 % twice and reports commit ± 0 % is performing forecasting, not doing it.

Do NOT

  • Do NOT place a deal in commit because the size is large; size is independent of evidence.
  • Do NOT skip the premortem on commit deals — most misses come from a small number of anchor deals slipping, and the premortem is where you catch them.
  • Do NOT change categorisation rules on a single-quarter miss; rules change on a two-quarter pattern.

Runnable example

End of Q2, last two commits missed by 14 % and 21 %.

  • Step 1 enforcement — three deals placed in commit had ≥ 2 MEDDIC slots open; demoted to best-case (–$ 540 k commit, +$ 540 k best-case).
  • Segment close-rate — Mid-Market historical commit close-rate is 78 %; commit-$ implies 91 % aggregate close-rate; structural optimism of ~$ 320 k.
  • Premortem — two anchor deals (each > 10 % of commit) tagged single-risk (procurement queue); one tagged two-risk (no buyer-written date) → demoted.
  • Final call — "commit $ 4.1 m ± 12 % (historical deviation); best-case $ 6.7 m + 8 % / – 14 %." Commit-list flags the two procurement-risk anchors for VP-level intervention.
  • Retro at quarter-end — predicted commit $ 4.1 m, actual $ 4.0 m; rule unchanged; one rep over-commits two quarters running → categorisation-coaching action.
Skill path
src/skills/forecast-accuracy/SKILL.md
Commit SHA
0adf49a8ae84
Repository license
MIT
Data collected