agentsclimarketplace

Classify

Skill InSciCo/i-framework/i-framework/skills/classify

Assess or re-assess the innovation-vs-implementation classification and 0-100 innovation weight for one feature or the whole Product/Features set, then regenerate the ranked features-index.md and run the portfolio sanity check. Use when features need (re)ranking or after editing the UVP.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add InSciCo/i-framework --skill classify

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

  • 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

3.8 KB, 829 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

/classify — rank features innovation vs. implementation

You judge each feature against the UVP and assign a binary bucket plus a 0–100 weight, then produce the ranked "where's our edge" index and flag portfolio problems.

Reference: the rubric

A feature is innovation if it embodies the unfair advantage — a reason a user switches. It is implementation if it is necessary for a usable product but undifferentiated (table-stakes every competitor has).

  • Decision test: "If a competitor shipped this exact feature tomorrow, would we lose our edge?" Yes → innovation. "Would every competitor have this too?" Yes → implementation.
  • Weight: implementation → 0. Innovation → 1–100, proportional to how much of the moat the feature carries. Reserve 80–100 for the few features that are the reason to exist.
  • Trace: every innovation feature must cite a contributes_to: UVP-x from Product/innovation.md. A feature that traces to no UVP element is probably implementation — reclassify it.

Procedure

  1. Load the reference. Read Product/innovation.md for the enumerated UVP elements (UVP-1, UVP-2…). If it's missing, warn that classification is being done without a defined UVP (soft) and proceed using the user's stated differentiators. Also read Product/competition.md if present — the comparison matrix is hard evidence: a capability every rival already has is table-stakes (implementation); a whitespace capability mapping to a UVP is innovation. Prefer matrix evidence over gut.

  2. Target. Default to all Product/Features/F*.md; or a single feature if the user names one.

  3. Classify each. Apply the decision test, set classification, innovation_weight, contributes_to, and a one-sentence classification_rationale. Update the file frontmatter in place (don't touch the body).

  4. Portfolio sanity checks — report, don't silently pass. Use concrete thresholds so the check is consistent, not a vibe:

    • No innovation features (0%) → red flag: "nothing here is a reason to exist." Push the user to find the edge or revisit /innovate.
    • Innovation-heavy (>40% of features tagged innovation) → warn: most products are mostly table-stakes; challenge the weakest "innovation" tags. (>60% is a hard flag.)
    • Weight clusteringonly checked when there are ≥3 innovation features (with fewer, spread isn't meaningful — skip it). When it applies: if innovation weights span <30 points (e.g. all in 80–100), the weights aren't ranking anything; push for spread.
    • Near-duplicate edge (two+ innovation features tracing to the same UVP with overlapping depends_on) → likely one capability split in two; suggest merging, or making one a child of the other via depends_on.
    • Healthy shape: mostly implementation (≤40% innovation), a few sharp innovation features with a real weight gradient.
  5. Regenerate Product/features-index.md — a rollup sorted by classification then weight desc:

# Features index
_Generated by /classify — N features · X innovation · Y implementation_

## Innovation (ranked — where's our edge)
| weight | id | title | UVP | priority | status |
|-------:|----|-------|-----|----------|--------|
| 90 | F004 | ... | UVP-1 | must | proposed |

## Implementation (table-stakes)
| id | title | priority | status |
|----|-------|----------|--------|
| F001 | ... | must | proposed |
  1. Report the ranked edge list and any sanity-check flags as your closing summary.

What ships with it

Read from the repository

Just SKILL.md. No reference files, no scripts.

Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most quality gates skills give in 829 tokens

Counted across 1,524 of the 2,830 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-09-06

  • Read full output and check exit codein 45 of 1524, across 40 files
  • Verify output confirms the claimin 44 of 1524, across 39 files
  • Identify the command that proves the claimin 43 of 1524, across 39 files
  • Execute the full verification commandin 36 of 1524, across 30 files
  • Produce a verification reportin 34 of 1524, across 18 files
  • Review git diff changesin 30 of 1524, across 16 files
  • Fix build failures immediatelyin 29 of 1524, across 9 files
  • Group findings by severityin 28 of 1524
  • State claim only with evidencein 27 of 1524, across 22 files
  • Verify regression tests with red-green cyclein 26 of 1524, across 22 files
  • Run the full test suitein 26 of 1524, across 25 files
  • Run test suite with coveragein 25 of 1524, across 10 files

Said here and by no other author read

  • read innovation and competition files
  • apply decision test to each feature
  • assign classification and innovation weight
  • cite UVP for every innovation feature
  • update feature file frontmatter
  • perform portfolio sanity checks

Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 325,949. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.