| name | business-proposals |
| description | Generate sales outreach sequences, proposals, SOWs, investor pitch decks, and RFP responses. Covers cold email sequences, proposal structure, pricing tiers (Good-Better-Best), scope of work with exclusions, and 10-slide pitch deck. |
| version | 3.0 |
| triggers | ["write a proposal","cold email / outreach sequence","pitch deck / investor deck","SOW / statement of work","sales outreach / prospecting","respond to RFP","scope of work","client proposal"] |
| negatives | ["general corporate communication (use communication skill)","content marketing / blog posts (use content-marketing skill)","brand design / creative direction (use design skill)","financial models / spreadsheets (use finance skill)","legal contracts / terms of service (use legal-counsel skill)"] |
| license | MIT |
| compatibility | opencode |
| metadata | {"workflow":"sales","audience":"consultants, founders, freelancers","version":"3.0"} |
Business Proposals v3.0
Win deals and raise funding. Covers the full pipeline: outreach, proposals, and pitch decks.
Workflow
When the user asks for any sales document, follow this process:
- Clarify stage: Outreach (cold) → Proposal (warm) → Pitch deck (investor)? Ask if unclear.
- Gather context: Run discovery questions for the specific stage (sections below).
- Select template: Match the deliverable to the appropriate structure below.
- Draft: Fill template with user-provided info. Use placeholders
[like this] for unknowns.
- Review: Check against error handling table and production checklist.
- Verify anti-patterns: Scan the anti-patterns table — if any match, fix before delivery.
- Output: Return the completed document in the requested format (text, markdown, email body).
Sales Outreach
Required Discovery
- Prospect: Company + person + role
- Trigger: Why now? (funding, product launch, job change)
- Value prop: "We help [X] do [Y] so they can [Z]"
- Proof: Case study, testimonial, data point, mutual connection
- Goal: Reply? Call? Demo? Trial?
Cold Email Structure
- Subject: Personalized + curiosity gap. 10 words max.
- Opening: Specific reference to them (news, post, achievement)
- Value prop: One sentence. Their benefit, not your features.
- Proof: Social proof or relevant data point.
- Ask: Single, low-friction next step.
- Close: Simple. "Best, [Name]"
Subject Line Patterns
| Pattern | Example |
|---|
| Reference | "[Company] + [observation]" |
| Question | "Quick question about [situation]" |
| Compliment | "Impressed by [achievement]" |
| Mutual connection | "[Name] suggested I reach out" |
Personalization Levels (ALL required)
- Company: Recent news, funding, launch
- Person: Recent post, talk, job change, GitHub activity
- Fit: Why this matters to THEM specifically
If you cannot do level 2, do not send the email.
Sequence Logic
Email 1 (Day 1): Value prop + low-friction ask
Email 2 (Day 4): Follow-up with additional value
Email 3 (Day 8): Different angle or case study
Email 4 (Day 12): Breakup — leave door open
4 emails max. No response in 12 days → move to nurture.
Proposals
Required Discovery
| Question | Why |
|---|
| What problem needs solving? | Problem statement anchors the proposal |
| What is the solution? | Scope definition |
| What are the deliverables? | Tangible output client expects |
| What is excluded? | Prevents scope creep |
| What is the budget range? | Pricing tier selection |
Executive Summary
[Client] needs to [solve specific problem].
We propose to [solution overview] over [timeline] for [price].
This achieves [outcome 1], [outcome 2], [outcome 3].
One paragraph. This is the only section most decision-makers read.
Scope of Work
Included: features, revision rounds, deliverables (docs, source, deployment)
Excluded (critical): hosting, maintenance, content creation, third-party licenses, training
Assumptions: client access, decision-maker availability, feedback turnaround, frozen requirements after sign-off
Timeline
| Phase | Duration | Activities | Deliverable |
|---|
| Discovery | Week 1 | Interviews, audit, requirements | Requirements doc |
| Build | Weeks 2-4 | Implementation in sprints | Working build |
| Review | Week 5 | QA, revisions, acceptance | Reviewed build |
| Deploy | Week 6 | Production deployment, docs | Live system |
Add 20% buffer for unknowns.
Pricing (Good-Better-Best)
- Core: essential features, basic revisions, standard timeline
- Recommended (best value): everything in Core + extras + priority support
- Enterprise: everything + premium features + dedicated team + ongoing support
Payment terms: 50% deposit, 25% midpoint, 25% delivery. Net 30.
Risk Reduction
| Risk | Mitigation |
|---|
| Will they deliver? | Portfolio item similar to this project |
| Does it work? | Case study with measurable results |
| What if it fails? | Guarantee (satisfaction, timeline) |
Pitch Decks
The 10 Slides (Sequoia/Y Combinator)
| # | Slide | Emotion | Investor question |
|---|
| 1 | Title | — | Company, tagline, founder |
| 2 | Problem | Pain | Is this real? How bad? |
| 3 | Solution | Hope | Is it compelling? |
| 4 | Market | Ambition | Is it big enough? |
| 5 | Product | Excitement | Does it work? |
| 6 | Traction | Proof | Is anyone using it? |
| 7 | Business model | Confidence | Does the business make sense? |
| 8 | Competition | Trust | Can they win? |
| 9 | Team | Conviction | Is this the right team? |
| 10 | Ask | Urgency | How much? What for? |
Content Rules
- One slide, one idea. Max 20 words per slide (except traction).
- No bullet points. Font min 24pt content, 36pt headlines.
- Images > text for product slides. 3 seconds per slide max.
- PDF format, 5MB max.
Traction Benchmarks
| Stage | Key metric | Benchmark |
|---|
| Pre-seed | Problem validation | 50+ interviews, 500+ waitlist |
| Seed | Engagement | 10k+ MAU, 30%+ weekly retention |
| Series A | Revenue | $1M+ ARR, <20% monthly churn |
| Series B | Growth + unit economics | 3x YoY, LTV/CAC > 3 |
Ask Slide Format
Raising [$X] at [$Y valuation]
Use of funds:
→ [%] Engineering
→ [%] Go-to-market
→ [%] Operations
→ [%] Reserve (6-month runway)
Milestones 18 months: [metrics from → to]
Error Handling
| Situation | Resolution |
|---|
| User gives no prospect info | Ask: "Who is the target? Company, person, role?" |
| User gives no budget | Use "investment" language: "Typical engagements $X-$Y" |
| User has no case studies | Use "we've helped similar companies achieve [generic result]" |
| User has no traction data | Focus on problem validation: interviews, surveys, waitlist |
| User wants pricing without scope | Ask: "What deliverables do you need?" then tier pricing |
| User provides 5-year projections pre-revenue | Cap at 12-18 months. "That's our credible horizon." |
| User's RFP is vague or contradictory | Flag contradictions back. "I see X and Y — which takes priority?" |
| Multiple decision-makers with conflicting needs | Ask: "Who has final authority? I'll address their concern first." |
| User wants one price (no tiers) | Explain Good-Better-Best creates reference frame and increases close rate |
| User wants to pitch without problem slide | "No problem = no reason to invest. Always lead with pain." |
Production Checklist
Before delivering any document, verify:
Anti-Patterns
| Mistake | Fix |
|---|
No personalization beyond [Name] | Don't send. Requires company + person + fit level |
| No exclusions in proposal | Client assumes everything included → scope creep |
| Single pricing option | No frame of reference → client demands discount |
| No traction in deck | "We just launched" is not traction. Use validation data. |
| No clear ask | "We're raising a round" without specifics → no urgency |
| Too many words on slides | Investor stops reading. 20 words max per slide. |
| 5-year projections pre-revenue | 12-18 months is credible. Beyond that is fiction. |
| Sending outreach without trigger | "Why now?" missing → immediate delete |
| Pricing before value explained | Always state problem + solution + outcome before price |
| Generic subject lines | "Let's connect" / "Partnership opportunity" → spam folder |
Sources
- Sequoia Capital pitch deck template
- Y Combinator Startup School
- DocSend "Pitch Deck Study"
- Close.com outbound sales research
- AIGA agency proposal best practices
- B2B pricing psychology research