Update to Marketing Strategy & Planning

{
  "description": "Plan PR, reputation and outreach research; find relevant media, blogs, conferences, comparison portals, communities, certifications and partners; assess source credibility and advertorials. Use for PR planning, multiplier discovery, media lists, guest-contribution ideas or standalone URL/source trust checks. Do not require positioning or persona work for a standalone source review.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 335
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "assets/delucks-brand-icon-v2.png",
      "size_in_bytes": 70053
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/source-validation.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 5148
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/working-rules.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 6946
    }
  ],
  "name": "marketing-pr-planning",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: marketing-pr-planning\ndescription: \"Plan PR, reputation and outreach research; find relevant media, blogs, conferences, comparison portals, communities, certifications and partners; assess source credibility and advertorials. Use for PR planning, multiplier discovery, media lists, guest-contribution ideas or standalone URL/source trust checks. Do not require positioning or persona work for a standalone source review.\"\n---\n\n# PR & Reputation Planning\n\nApply [Shared working rules](references/working-rules.md) before responding. Read [Source validation](references/source-validation.md) before scoring a source. This is the PR skill in Marketing Strategy & Planning.\n\n## Select the requested mode\n\n- PR or multiplier research: use the business brief and workflow A.\n- Source credibility review: use workflow B directly.\n- Integrated marketing plan: reuse positioning and personas; do not restart intake.\n- Both PR research and source review: assess sources as part of the requested research.\n\nA request to assess one URL needs no company intake or long outreach plan. A request to discover multipliers does not authorize contacting them.\n\n## Workflow A: PR and multiplier planning\n\n### 1. Establish the brief\n\nUse the supplied website, deep link, offer description or positioning/persona brief. Ask for a URL or short business description when neither is available. If a page is inaccessible, accept pasted content and disclose the limit.\n\nIdentify the business/offer, topics, industry, differentiating evidence, audience, geography and business goal. Keep conversation language separate from publication language and target country. Ask only for material missing context.\n\nFor an actionable plan establish the timeframe, available expertise/assets, staff time, budget/currency and preferred balance of editorial coverage, speaking, partnerships and paid exposure. If the user asks for a complete plan without these details, state reasonable working assumptions instead of inventing confirmed resources. Use a provisional 90-day horizon only when clearly labeled.\n\n### 2. Research suitable multipliers\n\nSearch current sources in the selected market and in the relevant publication languages. Verify active status, topic fit and actual opportunities. Organize findings into the requested categories:\n\nA. General and specialist conferences, events and speaking opportunities.\nB. Relevant comparison portals, directories, certifications and awards, including verified entry requirements and costs.\nC. Trade media, magazines, blogs, newsletters, podcasts, communities and partnership opportunities.\nD. Specific topic/trend ideas for guest articles, interviews, talks and collaborations, each tied to a relevant target and a useful contribution.\n\nFor a comprehensive brief, aim for up to 20 verified, relevant candidates in each requested category A–C and up to 20 tailored ideas in D. For a shortlist or narrow request, prioritize fewer strong matches. Never pad the list to meet a quota. Explain if fewer qualified candidates can be verified. Avoid duplicate entries across categories unless the opportunities are materially different.\n\nFor events, verify the edition, year, location, date and speaker deadline on the organizer's current pages. Distinguish confirmed future dates, announced dates, historical timing and estimates. Never present a past edition as upcoming. Offer international alternatives when local options are scarce and disclose the change of geography.\n\nFor fees, distinguish listing, sponsorship, award/certification, submission and ticket costs. Include currency, the applicable period and source date when available. Write \"not publicly listed\" or \"not verified\" when appropriate; do not invent free entry or a price.\n\n### 3. Assess evidence quality and fit\n\nApply the source-validation reference. Keep the 0–50 heuristic source assessment separate from audience fit and outreach priority. Do not invent Domain Authority, traffic, readership, circulation or AI-citation likelihood. Established brand names are clues, not proof of every article's quality.\n\nAssess individual pages or claims where possible. For media/portal rows, include Trust score, Rating, Evidence/limitations and Source. When evidence is insufficient, use \"not assessed\" instead of an invented midpoint. Label sponsored, affiliate and commercial contexts.\n\nUse official organizer or publisher pages to verify their own dates, submission rules, contact routes and prices. Such evidence can establish those facts without proving independent editorial quality. Do not exclude a relevant paid opportunity merely because it is paid; classify it separately and explain the trade-off. Do not use paid content as independent endorsement.\n\n### 4. Present the research\n\nStart with a brief business/audience/market summary and the most promising opportunities. Use readable, separate tables rather than one excessively wide table.\n\nFor events: name, topic/audience fit, location, date/year and status, submission deadline/route, effort or verified cost, source.\n\nFor media and portals: name/type, focus, market/language, audience fit, editorial or paid route, Trust score (0–50 or not assessed), Rating, evidence note, source.\n\nFor topic ideas: target, audience problem, angle, proposed format, evidence or asset needed, relevance and next action.\n\nInclude the research date. Link the actual relevant source pages, not invented URLs or vague search-result pages.\n\n### 5. Convert priorities into an actionable plan\n\nBuild a prioritized plan for the agreed timeframe:\n- Goal, target segment, key message and credible evidence.\n- Target outlet/event/partner and why it fits.\n- Angle and format, with a short pitch outline where requested.\n- Required asset, responsible role, effort and budget assumption.\n- Next action, deadline with year, dependencies and status.\n- Success metric and measurement method.\n\nSeparate earned, paid, partner and owned channels. Prioritize audience relevance, editorial fit, proof, timing and achievable effort; do not optimize only for backlinks or domain prestige.\n\nFor measurement, distinguish activity (pitches, responses), outputs (coverage, accepted talks), audience response (relevant visits, engagement) and business outcomes (qualified inquiries, opportunities, revenue where measurable). Suggest UTM tracking for controllable links, referral/source capture, CRM source notes and a review cadence when suitable. Explain attribution gaps and do not infer causal lift from a before/after increase alone.\n\nExplain the strongest counterargument to the recommended plan and a concise 0–10 heuristic feasibility rating. Identify the first low-effort step and the evidence needed to improve confidence.\n\n### 6. Complete the handoff\n\nOffer a Word export of the substantive findings, sources and plan. Draft an outreach message when asked. Sending, publishing, purchasing placements, registering or submitting applications are separate actions requiring the user's explicit instruction and appropriate tools. No autonomous outreach, purchased-link promises, guaranteed coverage or guaranteed SEO/GEO benefits.\n\n## Workflow B: Source credibility review\n\n1. Accept one or more supplied URLs or domains; three is useful for comparison but not mandatory. Ask for an example URL only when none is given.\n2. Open the actual article/page. For a domain-only request, explain which representative pages and ownership/editorial information were inspected; do not generalize beyond that sample.\n3. Assess authorship, ownership, publisher/section, date, evidence, methodology, citations, conflicts and explicit sponsorship. Distinguish advertiser-controlled material hosted on a publisher's domain from the publisher's own editorial work.\n4. Apply the reference's weighted criteria. Report observations, uncertainty, the score or \"not assessed\", confidence and suitability for the user's intended claim.\n5. Distinguish confirmed advertorial, suspected commercial influence and no evidence of sponsorship. Missing bylines or affiliate links alone are not proof of falsehood.\n6. For multiple sufficiently assessed sources, report the median, minimum–maximum and spread (maximum minus minimum) over scored items. State how many were excluded as unassessed. For exactly three, add a short comparison of evidence quality and conflicts.\n7. Recommend what can reasonably be cited, what needs corroboration and which original/primary source could resolve gaps. Do not rank a vendor page as useless for its own product specification or an organizer page for its own event date.\n8. Keep the answer scoped to the user's source question; do not launch unrelated marketing intake.\n"
}