customer-commitment-validation
About customer-commitment-validation
A meeting-outcome review skill for product, sales, partnership, investor, and customer conversations. It distinguishes concrete commitments from weak interest by assessing time, reputation, or money given up, then defines follow-up actions.
Key features
- 01Classify meeting outcomes
- 02Assess time, reputation, and money
- 03Identify concrete next steps
- 04Record owners, dates, and success criteria
- 05Treat rejection as evidence
Use cases
- 01Review a customer meeting
- 02Assess progress in a sales conversation
- 03Evaluate a partnership discussion
- 04Plan follow-up after a rejection
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
npx skills add https:/After installing, type/customer-commitment-validationin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Bundled filesagents/openai.yamlworkflows/classify-meeting-outcome.md
Details
From the project READMECustomer Commitment Validation
Use this skill after a product, sales, partnership, investor, or customer conversation where the team needs to decide whether the meeting created real progress. The core test is what the other person gave up: time, reputation, or money.
Source Traceability
Primary source: The Mom Test by Rob Fitzpatrick, especially chapters 5 and 8. Guidance is paraphrased for this MIT repo; authoring notes used converted EPUB lines 2365-2790 and 3613-4108.
Commitment Currencies
| Currency | Examples | Signal Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Time | Scheduled next meeting with goals, trial setup work, real feedback session | Medium |
| Reputation | Intro to a decision maker, internal championing, public case study | Medium to high |
| Money | Deposit, preorder, paid pilot, purchase order, signed letter of intent | High |
Compliments, vague "keep me posted" replies, and future-tense buying promises are not commitments.
An advancement must move the real-world funnel to a specific next decision or action. A next step without an owner, date, or customer-side effort is usually weak interest.
Review Workflow
- Restate the meeting context and what the team hoped would happen next.
- Classify the outcome as commitment, advancement, rejection, weak interest, or bad data.
- Identify what the other person gave up, if anything.
- If the outcome is fuzzy, propose a concrete next ask that creates a decision.
- If there was rejection, preserve the learning and decide whether it changes the product, segment, positioning, or sales path.
- If there was commitment, define the owner, date, success criteria, and follow up.
Outcome Classification
| Outcome | Meaning | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Commitment | They gave up time, reputation, or money | Track and follow through |
| Advancement | They moved the real-world funnel forward | Confirm next step details |
| Rejection | They declined a concrete ask | Learn and update assumptions |
| Weak interest | They were friendly but gave up nothing | Ask for a concrete next step or stop counting it |
| Bad data | Outcome is only compliments or future hypotheticals | Return to evidence or commitment |
Output Format
# Commitment Review
## Meeting
- Person/company:
- Context:
- Stage:
## Outcome
- Classification, evidence, currency given up:
## Interpretation
- What this proves / does not prove:
- Risks, missing decision makers, approval path:
## Next Ask
[A concrete ask that creates advancement or rejection.]
## Follow-Up
- Owner, deadline, success criteria:
Workflow
Use workflows/classify-meeting-outcome.md when the user provides notes,
transcripts, CRM entries, or a narrative of how a meeting ended.
Quality Bar
- Do not call a meeting successful because it felt positive.
- Do not count a lead as real until they had a chance to reject a concrete ask.
- Do not overvalue free trials that cost the customer nothing.
- Do not ignore missing decision makers or approval paths.
- Treat rejection as useful evidence, not as failure.