Activate for The Side System™ engagement proposals. Converts a completed side:sight diagnosis and side:scope map into a priced, structured proposal ready for client sign-off. Produces three investment options. Refuses to price without a defined scope. Also activates for proposal review or revision.
From brand-bond-osnpx claudepluginhub brandbondco/brand-bond-os --plugin brand-bond-osThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
Guides Next.js Cache Components and Partial Prerendering (PPR) with cacheComponents enabled. Implements 'use cache', cacheLife(), cacheTag(), revalidateTag(), static/dynamic optimization, and cache debugging.
Migrates code, prompts, and API calls from Claude Sonnet 4.0/4.5 or Opus 4.1 to Opus 4.5, updating model strings on Anthropic, AWS, GCP, Azure platforms.
Details PluginEval's skill quality evaluation: 3 layers (static, LLM judge), 10 dimensions, rubrics, formulas, anti-patterns, badges. Use to interpret scores, improve triggering, calibrate thresholds.
A proposal is not a pitch. It's a mirror held up to the client's problem.
If they read it and think "yes, that's exactly what's broken" — the proposal did its job before they saw a single price.
| Input | Source |
|---|---|
| Real problem named | tss-sight output |
| Phase map defined | tss-scope output |
| Deliverables named | tss-scope Scope Map |
| Client inputs identified | tss-scope output |
| Decision maker confirmed | Diagnostic conversation |
If any input is missing: Run the prerequisite first. A proposal without a scope is a guess with a price tag.
01 — What we heard (problem in their language — not our pitch)
02 — What we found (diagnostic observation — the real problem)
03 — What we'd do (phase map with rationale)
04 — What you get (named deliverables per phase — not activities)
05 — What we need (client inputs required, and when)
06 — What's not in scope (explicit boundary — silence is not exclusion)
07 — Investment (3 options: Entry / Recommended / Partnership)
08 — Next step (one action, one date)
Never present one price. Never present two.
| Option | Scope principle | Framing |
|---|---|---|
| Entry | Minimum scope to answer the core question — side:sight + side:scope only | Diagnosis before full commitment |
| Recommended | Optimal scope — foundation built and verified | Through side:setup, system ready to run |
| Partnership | Long-term embedded model — all 5 phases, ongoing side:sync | Shared risk, shared growth |
Pricing rules:
INVESTMENT
[Option 1: Entry]
→ Phases: side:sight + side:scope
→ Deliverables: Situation Report, Priority Matrix, Scope Map
→ Duration: [X weeks]
→ Investment: [Price]
→ For companies that need a diagnosis before committing to a full engagement
[Option 2: Recommended]
→ Phases: side:scope + side:setup [+ side:scale if applicable]
→ Deliverables: [Named list]
→ Duration: [X weeks]
→ Investment: [Price]
→ For companies ready to build the system, not just name the problem
[Option 3: Partnership]
→ Phases: Full 5S sequence
→ Deliverables: [Named list] + ongoing side:sync
→ Duration: [Initial X weeks + ongoing partnership]
→ Investment: [Monthly retainer + setup fee]
→ For companies that want The Side System™ embedded, not just engaged
Every deliverable in the proposal must be named as an output, not an activity.
| ❌ Activity | ✅ Output |
|---|---|
| Strategic sessions | Situation Report |
| Workshop with leadership team | Priority Matrix + Decision Map |
| Implementation support | Working [system name] infrastructure |
| Ongoing advisory | Monthly side:sync session + progress report |
Address friction before it appears:
Budget concern:
A smaller investment is available for a smaller scope. The Entry option delivers a full diagnosis — and that alone changes how you make the next decision.
Timeline concern:
The timeline reflects what the work actually requires. Half the time means half the scope or double the resource cost — which direction works for you?
Scope concern:
What's not in scope is listed explicitly. Anything not on that list is available in a separate engagement.
| Signal | What to do |
|---|---|
| Scope was discussed verbally but not documented | Stop. Write the scope first. |
| Client has multiple decision makers with no alignment | Name the approval process in the proposal |
| Timeline was set by the client | Reframe in the proposal or flag it as a constraint |
| Client resists side:sight | Address it directly in Section 02 |
| No clear success metric | Define it in Section 04 as part of deliverables |
Proposal sent
↓
Wait [X days for response — agree on this upfront]
↓
Follow-up: "The proposal is attached. One note before you read it: [key observation]"
↓
Response: negotiate scope, not price
↓
Agreement → `/client-update` → `bb-ops-linear`
| After tss-proposal | Next |
|---|---|
| Proposal accepted, kick-off needed | → bb-client-comms + bb-ops-linear |
| Proposal needs copy review | → tss-copy |
| Proposal needs deck formatting | → tss-deck |