partnerships-architect
Purpose
Help Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs answer four questions when a
prospective partner shows up:
- Is this a real partner, or someone hunting preferential terms without independent demand?
- At what tier should we sign them? (Referral / Reseller / OEM / SI-Consulting / Strategic Alliance)
- What's the 90-day joint GTM plan that proves the partnership works?
- What revshare makes economic sense — and at what point does the partnership beat direct sale?
The skill emits a tier verdict + GTM plan + revshare band with explicit kill criteria. It
does not sign the deal. The human, after running this skill, decides.
When to use
- A prospective partner has approached and asked for reseller / OEM / "strategic" terms
- You're designing a new partner program tier structure
- You're reviewing an existing partnership that's underperforming and need to decide: re-tier, restructure GTM, or unwind
- A Big Logo wants a "strategic alliance" — and you need to validate it's real, not vendor-lock theatre
- A consulting firm or SI wants services revshare on your product
- A platform vendor offers OEM / white-label and you need to model the math
- You suspect "partner-sourced" deals are actually your own pipeline being skimmed for margin
Do not use for:
- Technical demos and POCs →
business-growth/sales-engineer
- Cost-to-serve and ROI math on existing channel → sibling
channel-economics
- Whole-company revenue strategy →
c-level-advisor/cro-advisor
- Acquiring a company instead of partnering →
c-level-advisor/ma-playbook
- Per-deal discount approval inside a signed partner contract →
deal-desk
Workflow
Step 1 — Intake (≈ 20 min)
Fill assets/partnership_intake_template.md. Capture: partner_name, partner_type, evidence
of independent demand (named accounts they've sourced, end-customer relationships,
their sales team size), strategic value (geo / product / brand / channel economics),
commitments they've offered (joint marketing spend, dedicated headcount, certification,
sales targets).
If the intake template can't be honestly filled out, the prospective partner has not
demonstrated enough substance to evaluate. Stop. Go back to them.
Step 2 — Tier classify
Run scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown.
Output ranks the partner into 1 of 5 tiers — REFERRAL / RESELLER / OEM / SI-CONSULTING /
STRATEGIC — with deterministic floors. STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND
multi-year commit AND dedicated resources. Skill emits rationale + kill criteria.
Step 3 — Joint GTM plan
Run scripts/joint_gtm_planner.py --input gtm.json --profile saas --output markdown.
Output: 90-day plan with pre-launch milestones (training, certification, materials),
launch motion (target accounts, sales play, MDF allocation), mid-quarter checkpoint, and
90-day success criteria. Validates: cannot plan channel-led GTM for REFERRAL tier; cannot
plan white-label for non-OEM tier.
Step 4 — Revshare model
Run scripts/revshare_modeler.py --input revshare.json --output markdown. Computes
margin per deal direct vs. via partner, recommended revshare % band based on partner
contribution depth (sourced > influenced > delivered), break-even partner ROI, and
long-term economics — at projected scale, does partner economics beat direct?
Step 5 — Decide
Take tier + GTM plan + revshare band into the partnership committee. Skill does not sign
the partner — you do. Document kill criteria in the contract so the unwind is mechanical
when triggered.
Scripts
scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py — 5-tier classifier with deterministic floors per tier
scripts/joint_gtm_planner.py — 90-day joint GTM plan generator with tier-validated motion
scripts/revshare_modeler.py — revshare band + break-even ROI + long-term economics
All scripts: stdlib only. --help and --sample work on all three.
References
references/channel_partner_canon.md — Caro on HP indirect channels, Chintagunta on channel economics, Hessling on partner programs, Forrester channel software stack, IDC channel research, Tien Tzuo subscription-channel models, Geoffrey Moore whole-product partnerships
references/joint_gtm_canon.md — Aaron Ross Predictable Revenue (cold-source vs partner), Winning by Design, Jay McBain on co-sell, Microsoft Partner Network playbook, AWS Partner Network research, SiriusDecisions partner benchmarks, Bridge Group SaaS partner data
references/partnership_anti_patterns.md — Forrester partner-led-from-your-pipeline research, Tom Tunguz on channel conflict, Hessling failure analyses, MIT Sloan on disproportionate strategic revshare, HP channel post-mortems, IBM channel-conflict cases, Salesforce AppExchange research
Assumptions
- A partner who cannot produce evidence of independent demand (named accounts, end-customer
relationships, their own sales team) is hunting preferential terms, not a partner.
- Industry profiles (
--profile) tune defaults — they don't override your data.
- Revshare % bands are recommendations; the contract negotiation, MDF policy, and
exclusivity terms are human commercial decisions outside this skill.
- "Partner-sourced" requires the partner to have introduced the deal AND owned the
primary relationship. "Partner-influenced" pays at a lower band. Pay attribution
matters more than slide-deck claims.
- This skill is for partnership design, not signed-partner deal management — once
signed, per-deal commercial review routes to
deal-desk.
- Kill criteria are mandatory. A partnership without a written unwind trigger compounds
the bad-partner problem over years.
Anti-patterns
- "Partner = anyone who asked." A partner with no independent demand is a discount hunter.
Run the tier classifier — REFERRAL tier exists precisely to absorb these without giving
away reseller margin.
- Granting OEM / white-label terms without margin sufficient to fund support. OEM means
you support a customer you don't own. If the revshare doesn't fund Tier-2 support cost,
the OEM deal is a losing trade.
- Paying sourced-tier revshare on influenced-only deals. Influenced ≠ sourced. The deal
was going to close anyway. Pay the influenced rate.
- No kill criteria for under-performing partner. "Strategic alliances" without sunset
clauses become permanent obligations after the executive sponsor leaves.
- Channel conflict ignored until reps quit. When your direct rep and your partner both
show up at the same account, you lose either the rep or the partner. Decide the rules of
engagement before, not after.
- Exclusive territory granted to a weak partner. This locks out the strong partner who
would have actually sourced the deals.
- MDF without ROI accountability. Market Development Funds without named pipeline,
reported ROI, and a quarterly true-up are subsidy, not investment.
- No offboarding plan when partnership ends. Customer continuity, data hand-back, IP
cleanup, and brand take-down must be pre-negotiated. They're impossible to negotiate after
the relationship has soured.
Distinct from
- business-growth/sales-engineer — technical sale: demos, POCs, integration scoping.
Operates after the partnership decision is made and a deal is in flight.
- channel-economics (sibling) — cost-to-serve and ROI math on an existing channel.
Quantifies whether a signed partner is profitable. partnerships-architect decides
whether to sign in the first place and at what tier.
- c-level-advisor/cro-advisor — strategic CRO judgment (when to hire a VP Channel,
whole-company revenue mix decisions). partnerships-architect is per-partnership.
- c-level-advisor/ma-playbook — when the answer is "acquire them" not "partner with
them." Trigger: the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate, or the
partnership requires equity to align incentives. Re-route to ma-playbook.
- deal-desk — per-deal discount approval on signed partner contracts.
Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline)
Walked one at a time by /cs:grill-commercial or the orchestrator. Recommended answer +
canon citation per question. Never bundled. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-6.
"Name 5 end customers this partner has already sold to in the last 12 months — at companies you would target yourself."
Recommended: if they cannot, they have no independent demand. Sign at REFERRAL tier only,
if at all. Reseller/OEM/Strategic floors require demonstrated end-customer relationships.
Canon: Joe Hessling — partner-program failure analyses identify "no independent demand"
as the #1 root cause of dead partner tiers.
"Is this partner asking for preferential commercial terms, or asking how to bring you customers?"
Recommended: discount hunters lead with terms; real partners lead with accounts. Listen
to the first 30 minutes of the first meeting.
Canon: Forrester channel research — 60%+ of "partner inquiries" at early-stage SaaS are
discount hunting, not channel investment.
"What's the joint value proposition in one sentence, and who is the named end-customer it serves?"
Recommended: if there is no joint value prop distinct from either party's solo offering,
there is no partnership — there is co-marketing at best.
Canon: Geoffrey Moore (Crossing the Chasm) — whole-product partnerships exist when
neither party alone delivers the customer outcome.
"At what % discount / revshare does this partnership beat the direct-sale economics, and at what scale?"
Recommended: model break-even pipeline volume. If partner-sourced deals must exceed
30% of channel volume to beat direct, and partner can plausibly deliver 5%, you have
built a losing program.
Canon: Pradeep Chintagunta (Chicago Booth) on channel economics — channel partnerships
without volume floor break even in theory and lose money in practice.
"What are the named kill criteria for unwinding this partnership, and are they in the contract?"
Recommended: minimum pipeline floor by quarter, minimum certified resources, minimum
joint deals closed, 90-day cure period. Unwinding without pre-agreed criteria becomes
a 2-year legal battle.
Canon: IBM channel-conflict case studies (1990s post-divestiture) — undocumented kill
criteria converted bad partners into permanent obligations.
"If this partner sells to one of YOUR direct accounts, who wins — your rep or them?"
Recommended: Rules of Engagement in writing, signed before kickoff. Territory by named
account, by segment, or by geo. Conflict resolution at named human, not committee.
Canon: Jay McBain (Canalys) — channel conflict is the #1 partner program killer; written
ROE published before partner signs prevents 80% of disputes.
"Is this a partnership, or should this be an acquisition?"
Recommended: if the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate AND the
partnership requires multi-year exclusivity AND the partnership requires equity-like
alignment, you're describing an acquisition. Re-route to ma-playbook.
Canon: HP channel post-mortems (Indigo, EDS partial integrations) — partnerships
structured as acquisitions-without-equity destroy more value than either pure path.
Walk depth-first. Lock 1-3 (is this a real partner?) before opening 4-7 (is the structure
right?). After all 7 are answered, invoke partner_tier_classifier.py →
joint_gtm_planner.py → revshare_modeler.py in sequence.
1---2name: partnerships-architect3description: Use when a startup is approached by a prospective partner and someone has to decide should we sign this partner, at what partner tier (referral / reseller / OEM / SI-consulting / strategic alliance), with what joint GTM commitment, and at what revshare. Classifies partner tier from independent-demand evidence vs. preferential-terms hunting, designs a 90-day joint GTM plan, models revshare against direct-sale margin, and surfaces kill criteria for unwinding under-performing partnerships. For Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs doing reseller agreement, OEM deal, or strategic alliance review — not technical sale enablement, not channel cost economics, not M&A.4license: MIT5---6
7# partnerships-architect
8
9## Purpose
10
11Help Head of Partnerships, Head of BD, and Founder-CEOs answer four questions when a
12prospective partner shows up:
13
141. **Is this a real partner, or someone hunting preferential terms without independent demand?**
152. **At what tier should we sign them?** (Referral / Reseller / OEM / SI-Consulting / Strategic Alliance)
163. **What's the 90-day joint GTM plan that proves the partnership works?**
174. **What revshare makes economic sense — and at what point does the partnership beat direct sale?**
18
19The skill emits a tier verdict + GTM plan + revshare band with explicit kill criteria. It
20does **not** sign the deal. The human, after running this skill, decides.
21
22## When to use
23
24- A prospective partner has approached and asked for reseller / OEM / "strategic" terms
25- You're designing a new partner program tier structure
26- You're reviewing an existing partnership that's underperforming and need to decide: re-tier, restructure GTM, or unwind
27- A Big Logo wants a "strategic alliance" — and you need to validate it's real, not vendor-lock theatre
28- A consulting firm or SI wants services revshare on your product
29- A platform vendor offers OEM / white-label and you need to model the math
30- You suspect "partner-sourced" deals are actually your own pipeline being skimmed for margin
31
32**Do not use for:**
33- Technical demos and POCs → `business-growth/sales-engineer`
34- Cost-to-serve and ROI math on existing channel → sibling `channel-economics`
35- Whole-company revenue strategy → `c-level-advisor/cro-advisor`
36- Acquiring a company instead of partnering → `c-level-advisor/ma-playbook`
37- Per-deal discount approval inside a signed partner contract → `deal-desk`
38
39## Workflow
40
41### Step 1 — Intake (≈ 20 min)
42
43Fill `assets/partnership_intake_template.md`. Capture: partner_name, partner_type, evidence
44of independent demand (named accounts they've sourced, end-customer relationships,
45their sales team size), strategic value (geo / product / brand / channel economics),
46commitments they've offered (joint marketing spend, dedicated headcount, certification,
47sales targets).
48
49If the intake template can't be honestly filled out, the prospective partner has not
50demonstrated enough substance to evaluate. Stop. Go back to them.
51
52### Step 2 — Tier classify
53
54Run `scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py --input intake.json --profile saas --output markdown`.
55Output ranks the partner into 1 of 5 tiers — REFERRAL / RESELLER / OEM / SI-CONSULTING /
56STRATEGIC — with deterministic floors. STRATEGIC requires named_accounts ≥ 5 AND
57multi-year commit AND dedicated resources. Skill emits rationale + kill criteria.
58
59### Step 3 — Joint GTM plan
60
61Run `scripts/joint_gtm_planner.py --input gtm.json --profile saas --output markdown`.
62Output: 90-day plan with pre-launch milestones (training, certification, materials),
63launch motion (target accounts, sales play, MDF allocation), mid-quarter checkpoint, and
6490-day success criteria. Validates: cannot plan channel-led GTM for REFERRAL tier; cannot
65plan white-label for non-OEM tier.
66
67### Step 4 — Revshare model
68
69Run `scripts/revshare_modeler.py --input revshare.json --output markdown`. Computes
70margin per deal direct vs. via partner, recommended revshare % band based on partner
71contribution depth (sourced > influenced > delivered), break-even partner ROI, and
72long-term economics — at projected scale, does partner economics beat direct?
73
74### Step 5 — Decide
75
76Take tier + GTM plan + revshare band into the partnership committee. Skill does not sign
77the partner — you do. Document kill criteria in the contract so the unwind is mechanical
78when triggered.
79
80## Scripts
81
82- `scripts/partner_tier_classifier.py` — 5-tier classifier with deterministic floors per tier
83- `scripts/joint_gtm_planner.py` — 90-day joint GTM plan generator with tier-validated motion
84- `scripts/revshare_modeler.py` — revshare band + break-even ROI + long-term economics
85
86All scripts: stdlib only. `--help` and `--sample` work on all three.
87
88## References
89
90- `references/channel_partner_canon.md` — Caro on HP indirect channels, Chintagunta on channel economics, Hessling on partner programs, Forrester channel software stack, IDC channel research, Tien Tzuo subscription-channel models, Geoffrey Moore whole-product partnerships
91- `references/joint_gtm_canon.md` — Aaron Ross *Predictable Revenue* (cold-source vs partner), Winning by Design, Jay McBain on co-sell, Microsoft Partner Network playbook, AWS Partner Network research, SiriusDecisions partner benchmarks, Bridge Group SaaS partner data
92- `references/partnership_anti_patterns.md` — Forrester partner-led-from-your-pipeline research, Tom Tunguz on channel conflict, Hessling failure analyses, MIT Sloan on disproportionate strategic revshare, HP channel post-mortems, IBM channel-conflict cases, Salesforce AppExchange research
93
94## Assumptions
95
96- A partner who cannot produce evidence of independent demand (named accounts, end-customer
97 relationships, their own sales team) is hunting preferential terms, not a partner.
98- Industry profiles (`--profile`) tune defaults — they don't override your data.
99- Revshare % bands are recommendations; the contract negotiation, MDF policy, and
100 exclusivity terms are human commercial decisions outside this skill.
101- "Partner-sourced" requires the partner to have introduced the deal AND owned the
102 primary relationship. "Partner-influenced" pays at a lower band. Pay attribution
103 matters more than slide-deck claims.
104- This skill is for partnership design, not signed-partner deal management — once
105 signed, per-deal commercial review routes to `deal-desk`.
106- Kill criteria are mandatory. A partnership without a written unwind trigger compounds
107 the bad-partner problem over years.
108
109## Anti-patterns
110
111- **"Partner = anyone who asked."** A partner with no independent demand is a discount hunter.
112 Run the tier classifier — REFERRAL tier exists precisely to absorb these without giving
113 away reseller margin.
114- **Granting OEM / white-label terms without margin sufficient to fund support.** OEM means
115 you support a customer you don't own. If the revshare doesn't fund Tier-2 support cost,
116 the OEM deal is a losing trade.
117- **Paying sourced-tier revshare on influenced-only deals.** Influenced ≠ sourced. The deal
118 was going to close anyway. Pay the influenced rate.
119- **No kill criteria for under-performing partner.** "Strategic alliances" without sunset
120 clauses become permanent obligations after the executive sponsor leaves.
121- **Channel conflict ignored until reps quit.** When your direct rep and your partner both
122 show up at the same account, you lose either the rep or the partner. Decide the rules of
123 engagement before, not after.
124- **Exclusive territory granted to a weak partner.** This locks out the strong partner who
125 would have actually sourced the deals.
126- **MDF without ROI accountability.** Market Development Funds without named pipeline,
127 reported ROI, and a quarterly true-up are subsidy, not investment.
128- **No offboarding plan when partnership ends.** Customer continuity, data hand-back, IP
129 cleanup, and brand take-down must be pre-negotiated. They're impossible to negotiate after
130 the relationship has soured.
131
132## Distinct from
133
134- **business-growth/sales-engineer** — technical sale: demos, POCs, integration scoping.
135 Operates after the partnership decision is made and a deal is in flight.
136- **channel-economics** (sibling) — cost-to-serve and ROI math on an existing channel.
137 Quantifies whether a signed partner is profitable. partnerships-architect decides
138 whether to sign in the first place and at what tier.
139- **c-level-advisor/cro-advisor** — strategic CRO judgment (when to hire a VP Channel,
140 whole-company revenue mix decisions). partnerships-architect is per-partnership.
141- **c-level-advisor/ma-playbook** — when the answer is "acquire them" not "partner with
142 them." Trigger: the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate, or the
143 partnership requires equity to align incentives. Re-route to ma-playbook.
144- **deal-desk** — per-deal discount approval on signed partner contracts.
145
146## Forcing-question library (Matt Pocock grill discipline)
147
148Walked one at a time by `/cs:grill-commercial` or the orchestrator. Recommended answer +
149canon citation per question. Never bundled. Lock 1-3 before opening 4-6.
150
1511. **"Name 5 end customers this partner has already sold to in the last 12 months — at companies you would target yourself."**
152 Recommended: if they cannot, they have no independent demand. Sign at REFERRAL tier only,
153 if at all. Reseller/OEM/Strategic floors require demonstrated end-customer relationships.
154 Canon: Joe Hessling — partner-program failure analyses identify "no independent demand"
155 as the #1 root cause of dead partner tiers.
156
1572. **"Is this partner asking for preferential commercial terms, or asking how to bring you customers?"**
158 Recommended: discount hunters lead with terms; real partners lead with accounts. Listen
159 to the first 30 minutes of the first meeting.
160 Canon: Forrester channel research — 60%+ of "partner inquiries" at early-stage SaaS are
161 discount hunting, not channel investment.
162
1633. **"What's the joint value proposition in one sentence, and who is the named end-customer it serves?"**
164 Recommended: if there is no joint value prop distinct from either party's solo offering,
165 there is no partnership — there is co-marketing at best.
166 Canon: Geoffrey Moore (*Crossing the Chasm*) — whole-product partnerships exist when
167 neither party alone delivers the customer outcome.
168
1694. **"At what % discount / revshare does this partnership beat the direct-sale economics, and at what scale?"**
170 Recommended: model break-even pipeline volume. If partner-sourced deals must exceed
171 30% of channel volume to beat direct, and partner can plausibly deliver 5%, you have
172 built a losing program.
173 Canon: Pradeep Chintagunta (Chicago Booth) on channel economics — channel partnerships
174 without volume floor break even in theory and lose money in practice.
175
1765. **"What are the named kill criteria for unwinding this partnership, and are they in the contract?"**
177 Recommended: minimum pipeline floor by quarter, minimum certified resources, minimum
178 joint deals closed, 90-day cure period. Unwinding without pre-agreed criteria becomes
179 a 2-year legal battle.
180 Canon: IBM channel-conflict case studies (1990s post-divestiture) — undocumented kill
181 criteria converted bad partners into permanent obligations.
182
1836. **"If this partner sells to one of YOUR direct accounts, who wins — your rep or them?"**
184 Recommended: Rules of Engagement in writing, signed before kickoff. Territory by named
185 account, by segment, or by geo. Conflict resolution at named human, not committee.
186 Canon: Jay McBain (Canalys) — channel conflict is the #1 partner program killer; written
187 ROE published before partner signs prevents 80% of disputes.
188
1897. **"Is this a partnership, or should this be an acquisition?"**
190 Recommended: if the partner has independent moat you cannot replicate AND the
191 partnership requires multi-year exclusivity AND the partnership requires equity-like
192 alignment, you're describing an acquisition. Re-route to `ma-playbook`.
193 Canon: HP channel post-mortems (Indigo, EDS partial integrations) — partnerships
194 structured as acquisitions-without-equity destroy more value than either pure path.
195
196Walk depth-first. Lock 1-3 (is this a real partner?) before opening 4-7 (is the structure
197right?). After all 7 are answered, invoke `partner_tier_classifier.py` →
198`joint_gtm_planner.py` → `revshare_modeler.py` in sequence.