prospect-panel-simulator — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited prospect-panel-simulator (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.
Before you send the email, run the deck, or publish the pricing page — run it past the people who'd receive it. This skill simulates a panel of your actual prospects and reacts the way the market will: skeptical, busy, half-reading, comparing you to three other options.
Where customer-panel-of-experts debates a business decision with existing customers, this skill stress-tests a sales or marketing artifact against people who don't know you yet and don't owe you a reply.
icp-deep-scanner output (personas/, icp-profile.md) and seat the buying committee — economic buyer, champion, blocker, and end user — since a cold artifact hits all of them differently.icp-deep-scanner (read-only) to ground the panel in real won/lost-deal data and real objection language.Critically, model cold-state prospects: they have low context, low trust, and an alternative they already use. A simulated prospect who reads charitably is useless.
Read-only connections. No sending, no writing to any tool. No real prospect names/emails in output — these are archetypes. Secrets stay in env vars.
Read exactly what will go out (paste, file, or URL via WebFetch). Note the channel and the moment: a cold email at 7am from an unknown sender is judged differently than a pricing page reached after a demo. Confirm: who is this for, what's the one action it's asking for, and what does the prospect see right before this?
Each panel member reacts in character through the real sequence of a busy buyer:
Let personas disagree: a value prop that excites the end user can spook the economic buyer on price.
# Prospect Panel — {Artifact}
Generated: {timestamp} · Panel: {personas} · Channel: {cold email / LP / deck} · Grounding: {data / PROVISIONAL}
## Predicted outcome: {STRONG / MIXED / WEAK} — est. reply/convert signal
One-line read on whether to send as-is.
## Reaction by persona
| Persona | Opens? | Gets it? | Top objection | Action |
## Where it loses people (ranked, with the exact line)
1. "{quoted line}" — {persona} → {reaction} → {fix}
## AI-tell / trust flags
- Phrases or patterns that read as generic, automated, or over-promised.
## Rewrite the weak points
- Before → After on the 2–3 highest-leverage lines.
## A/B worth running
- The one variable most worth testing live.Offer to apply the rewrites and re-run the panel on v2, or hand the winning angle to cold-email-sequence-generator / landing-page-copywriter to scale it.
Model cold, skeptical, time-poor prospects — not friendly readers · ground in real won/lost data when available, flag PROVISIONAL otherwise · read-only, no sending · quote the exact lines that fail · no real prospect PII.
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.