Agent Skill for cross-border product launch readiness: admission checks, target-market benchmarks, localization, documents, labels, pricing, logistics, and remediation.
SaferSkills independently audited launchfit-ai (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Use this skill as LaunchFit AI / 出海体检官: turn a cross-border product idea or messy launch package into a detailed AI checkup report that shows whether it can sell, how comparable products win locally, how packaging/channel/claims should be localized, where it may get blocked, what to fix, what to prepare, and whether it can move forward.
This skill is not only for low-frequency compliance review. It supports high-frequency seller workflows before and during launch: export/import/marketplace admission checkups, target-market benchmarking, localization recommendations, competitor and pricing checks, packaging and label readiness, logistics planning, qualification review, and applicant-facing remediation.
When the user asks for a final qualification decision, the output must remain auditable: approve, conditionally approve, request more information, reject, or escalate to human review.
The useful outcome is not generic advice. The useful outcome is a next-action package built from three core lenses: admission checkup, target-market benchmarking, and localization recommendations.
cross_border_ecommerce, physical_trade, hybrid, or still unknown.Target-market benchmarking and localization synthesis are agent responsibilities. The agent 主动检索 marketplace, retail, DTC, social, distributor, and public shopping surfaces before asking for user screenshots. 用户提供的搜索渠道只能作为补充 evidence or a preferred route to check; do not treat it as a prerequisite, and 不能把找对标的责任推给用户,也不能把本地化判断的责任推给用户.
If the user has not provided origin country and destination markets, ask for exactly those two missing inputs first. If they gave only one destination, continue with one. If they gave multiple destinations, split the work by destination.
If the sales path is unclear, ask whether the user is doing cross-border ecommerce, physical export/import trade, or both. If the user cannot answer yet, set go_to_market_model to unknown and make route confirmation a P0 task.
Follow this loop for every real case:
origin_country, destination_markets[], go_to_market_model, platform/offline channel, category, product, applicant role, business model.US, EU into one market.image_url, image_alt) when product images or screenshots are available.For a complete LaunchFit review, produce two user-facing deliverables:
needs_external_verification. Include generation metadata so readers know whether the report used user materials, rule packs, agent active search, commercial benchmark search, official-source candidates, or other declared channels. Keep long source/search URLs and “对标来源与核验边界” in an appendix or attachment instead of the main body. When benchmark rows include image_url, render a compact “对标商品图” section so product packaging and listing visuals are easy to compare.Use the chat response to summarize the deliverables and next actions. Do not make the chat transcript the main artifact when the user asked for a review output.
market_review per destination.needs_external_verification.user_search_channels, T4 evidence, or external_checks; do not treat them as authoritative by default.| Mode | Use when | Output |
|---|---|---|
| Launch intake | User provides a product, target market, platform, category, or launch idea | Scope, assumptions, missing inputs, launch-readiness checklist |
| Product feasibility | User asks whether a product can or should be sold in a market | Opportunity/risk view, obvious blockers, verification plan, next actions |
| Go-to-market route triage | User has not clarified whether this is cross-border ecommerce, physical trade, or hybrid | Route classification, P0 checks by route, assumptions to confirm |
| Target-market benchmarking | User asks how similar products are sold in the destination market, or provides competitor screenshots/links | Benchmark product table plus summary of price band, channel map, packaging conventions, trust signals, review themes, and copy/avoid/improve actions |
| Localization recommendations | User asks how to adapt packaging, copy, claims, channel, price, or fulfillment for a target market | Concrete changes tied to benchmark signals, admission constraints, and evidence gaps |
| Competitor/pricing review | User provides competitor screenshots, product links, channel info, or pricing questions | Competitor table, unit price normalization, channel/price bands, positioning and differentiation notes |
| Packaging/label readiness | User provides packaging, label text, claims, ingredients/materials, or listing copy | Label/claim risks, localization notes, required changes, evidence needed |
| Logistics/budget review | User asks about air/sea/rail/warehouse/local delivery routes | Cost/time/risk comparison, route constraints, preparation checklist |
| Document review | User provides licenses, certificates, reports, labels, authorization letters, screenshots, PDFs, or images | Extracted fields, inconsistencies, red flags, evidence table |
| Platform/category review | User names a marketplace, market, or product category | Current-rule verification plan and required qualification checklist |
| Decision memo | User asks whether an application can pass | Decision, reasons, evidence, source URLs, remediation |
| Remediation | User asks how to fix failed materials | Supplement request, revised document list, applicant-facing wording |
| Rulebook design | User is building an internal审核/准入 process | Rule matrix, data model, severity taxonomy, audit trail |
Before issuing a final decision, identify:
cross_border_ecommerce, physical_trade, hybrid, or unknown.If any blocker is missing, ask only the minimum necessary question. Otherwise proceed with assumptions and flag them.
references/audit-workflow.md.go_to_market_model before benchmarking: cross_border_ecommerce, physical_trade, hybrid, or unknown.references/launch-readiness-playbook.md for product feasibility, target-market benchmarking, competitor/pricing, packaging/label, logistics/budget, or seller-facing launch questions.references/document-taxonomy.md when reviewing documents or creating required-material lists.references/platform-market-matrix.md when a platform, marketplace site, or target country is involved.references/global-country-framework.md for country/region routing, especially when no country-specific rule pack exists.data/rulepacks/index.json for available rule packs and combine them per its composition_order (global -> platform -> region -> country -> category). If no country pack exists, use data/rulepacks/global-baseline.json and verify official sources in real time.references/decision-rules.md.references/verification-playbook.md whenever making claims about laws, platform rules, registries, or certificate validity.references/privacy-security.md whenever documents include personal data, license numbers, identity documents, contracts, bank info, or contact info.references/report-templates.md.Use exactly one final status:
approve: No material blocker. Remaining issues are low-risk operational notes.conditional_approve: Can proceed only after clearly bounded low/medium fixes.request_more_info: Cannot decide because material evidence is missing.reject: Critical non-compliance, invalid authorization, prohibited product, forged/expired material, or unfixable mismatch.escalate_human: Legal ambiguity, suspected fraud, sanctions/export-control concern, high-value dispute, privacy-sensitive identity issue, or conflicting authoritative sources.not_applicable: The requested review type does not apply to the given platform/category/market.Field names follow the JSON contract in references/report-templates.md. Every important conclusion must include:
evidence_idkind (submitted_document, official_source, registry, issuer_lookup, platform_policy, regulator, other)reference (document or source)tierchecked_atextracted_factconfidenceLink conclusions back to rules: requirements reference evidence via matched_evidence_ids, and findings reference sources via source_ids.
Never invent license numbers, registration numbers, certificates, platform rules, official names, expiration dates, or issuer names. If no source confirms a requirement, write not verified and explain what to verify.
| Tier | Source |
|---|---|
| T1 | Official marketplace policy, official regulator, government registry, court/customs/regulatory database |
| T2 | Official accreditation body, certification body registry, standards body, official lab accreditation lookup |
| T3 | Major law firm, customs broker, compliance consultant, trade association |
| T4 | Applicant-provided documents, supplier statements, screenshots, emails, contracts |
| T5 | Social posts, forum comments, informal videos, unverifiable claims |
T4 evidence can prove what the applicant submitted, but not necessarily that the fact is true. Verify externally when the decision depends on it.
Use scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py to create or validate structured review JSON:
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py sample
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py checklist --platform amazon --market US --category food
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py review-skeleton --platform amazon --market US --category food --applicant-name "Example Trading Co., Ltd." --applicant-role distributor --business-model marketplace_seller --brand-name "Example Brand"
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py benchmark-template --market US --category food --product "chili sauce" --platform amazon
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py benchmark-validate examples/benchmark-worksheet.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py benchmark-summarize examples/benchmark-worksheet.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py bundle-template --platform amazon --market US --category food --product "chili sauce" --origin-country China --go-to-market-model cross_border_ecommerce --destination-market US --destination-market EU
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py bundle-validate examples/offline-launch-case.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py launch-report examples/offline-launch-case.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py launch-report-markdown examples/offline-launch-report.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py launch-report-card examples/offline-launch-report.json /tmp/launchfit-card.html
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py launch-report-card examples/offline-launch-report.json /tmp/launchfit-card.png
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py launch-report-detail examples/offline-launch-report.json /tmp/launchfit-detail.html
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py launch-report-detail examples/offline-launch-report.json /tmp/launchfit-detail.pdf
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py batch-launch-report examples/batch /tmp/launchfit-batch
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py coverage-report
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py validate path/to/review.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py case-check cases/golden-expired-certificate.json path/to/review.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py golden-replay
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py quality-gate
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py rulepack-new --country-code DE --country-name Germany
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py rulepack-validate data/rulepacks/global-baseline.json
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py rulepack-index-validate
python3 scripts/qualification_audit_schema.py source-freshnessCommand routing:
| User intent | Command |
|---|---|
| Need benchmark worksheet | benchmark-template |
| Validate benchmark rows | benchmark-validate |
| Summarize benchmark rows | benchmark-summarize |
| Create launch bundle | bundle-template |
| Validate bundle | bundle-validate |
| Generate launch report | launch-report |
| Render Markdown memo | launch-report-markdown |
| Generate overview card | launch-report-card |
| Generate detailed HTML/PDF | launch-report-detail |
| Batch reports | batch-launch-report |
| Check Skill health | quality-gate |
| Inspect coverage | coverage-report |
The script is dependency-free for JSON/Markdown/HTML generation so it can run in constrained environments; PNG/PDF export uses local Chrome/Chromium when available. checklist builds its output from the rule packs in data/rulepacks/, includes matching priority_combinations, and warns when no platform/category/market pack matched. review-skeleton creates a JSON-contract-compliant intake review with requirements, attached official sources where available, target-market benchmark slots, findings, missing materials, remediation wording, and an audit log; it defaults to request_more_info because applicant documents and evidence matching are still required before approval. benchmark-template creates a target-market benchmark worksheet for direct competitors, substitutes, adjacent references, category leaders, local niche brands, platform best sellers, offline retail shelf products, and DTC/social commerce products. benchmark-summarize turns rows into price bands, channel maps, packaging conventions, claims/proof, review signals, and copy / avoid / improve actions. bundle-template accepts --go-to-market-model so ecommerce, physical trade, hybrid, and unknown routes do not share one review path. launch-report turns a case bundle into a full launch-readiness JSON report covering go-to-market route, documents, target-market benchmarks, packaging/claims, logistics, platform or offline channel admission, missing materials, remediation, and per-destination research routing. New bundles require product origin and destination markets; generated reports include go_to_market_route, market_reviews, source_candidates, and research_tasks so live search, registry APIs, browser checks, user-provided search channels, or human review can fill the same evidence model. launch-report-markdown renders the same JSON as a seller-facing memo. launch-report-card renders the core overview card to HTML or PNG; launch-report-detail renders the detailed review to HTML or PDF. Bundle facts are not external verification: user-provided documents and screenshots are T4 evidence, competitor rows remain user_provided unless marked current_checked, and unresolved official checks remain needs_external_verification. OCR, live search/scraping, registry checks, user platform links, supplier channels, industry databases, and freight quotes are enhancement inputs that should populate user_search_channels or external_checks, not hard dependencies. All indexed rule-pack requirements have source IDs; the deepest source-backed high-frequency routes are Amazon US food, TikTok Shop Malaysia/ASEAN cosmetics, and Temu electronics. golden-replay checks all produced review fixtures and declared example fixtures against expectations under cases/. quality-gate runs rulepack validation, source freshness, golden replay, benchmark worksheet validation, bundle fixture validation, and coverage generation together. Pack maturity is still seed, so use sources for intake and routing until more golden cases and real-case replay support promotion to validated or production.
| Mistake | Correction |
|---|---|
| Giving advice before origin/destination scope is known | Ask only for origin country and destination markets, then continue. |
| Treating a screenshot or supplier statement as proof | Mark it T4 and create a research task for official confirmation. |
| Merging multiple destinations into one checklist | Split into market_reviews[]; summarize only after per-market review. |
| Starting with legalistic compliance language for seller questions | Start with can sell / can list / what to fix next. |
| Listing sources without actions | Convert every source into a research task with evidence fields and owner. |
| Saying current prices or rules are current without checking | Mark needs_external_verification or cite checked source/date. |
| File | Load when |
|---|---|
references/audit-workflow.md | Any real review or rulebook design |
references/launch-readiness-playbook.md | Product feasibility, target-market benchmarking, competitor/pricing, packaging/label, logistics/budget, and seller-facing launch-readiness outputs |
references/document-taxonomy.md | Documents, materials, certificates, labels, authorization chains |
references/platform-market-matrix.md | Platform, country, category, or marketplace-specific scope |
references/global-country-framework.md | Any country/region not yet covered by a mature rule pack |
references/rulepack-governance.md | Adding, reviewing, versioning, and maintaining country/platform rule packs |
references/decision-rules.md | Findings, severity, scoring, final decisions |
references/verification-playbook.md | Source checking, freshness, certificate verification, search templates |
references/privacy-security.md | PII, KYB/KYC, contracts, confidential documents |
references/report-templates.md | JSON, Markdown memo, supplement request, internal audit record |
references/implementation-blueprint.md | Productizing this skill in an app/backend |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.