# Nw Br Review Criteria

> Review criteria, ethical boundaries, compliance checklists, and numerical benchmarks for business artifact review

- Skill: `majiayu000/nw-br-review-criteria` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/nw-br-review-criteria`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/nw-br-review-criteria/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/nw-br-review-criteria

---


# Review Criteria -- Business Artifact Review

## Cialdini Ethical Boundaries

Each principle has a clear line between ethical influence and manipulation:

| Principle | Ethical Use | Manipulation (Flag) |
|-----------|------------|---------------------|
| Reciprocity | Genuine unsolicited value before asking | Imposing unwanted gifts, artificial obligation |
| Commitment | Progressive asks aligned with stated values | Low-balling, pressuring into misaligned commitments |
| Social Proof | Real testimonials from named, similar clients | Fake reviews, inflated numbers, fabricated popularity |
| Authority | Genuine credentials, real citations, third-party data | Fake titles, unearned credentials, superficial signals |
| Liking | Authentic shared values, genuine observations | False flattery, pretending similarity, manufactured friendliness |
| Scarcity | Real capacity limits, actual deadlines | Artificial countdown timers, false "last chance", fake urgency |
| Unity | Genuine shared identity, real community | Falsely claiming membership, manufactured exclusivity |

Test: "Is this representing genuine value honestly, or fabricating value deceptively?"

## Legal Compliance Checklist

### CAN-SPAM Requirements
- Physical mailing address present in email
- Subject line honestly represents content (no deceptive "Re:" or "Fwd:" on first contact)
- Functional unsubscribe mechanism (must work within 10 business days)
- "From" field accurately identifies sender
- Commercial nature disclosed if not obvious

### GDPR Requirements (EU Prospects)
- Lawful basis for processing: legitimate interest (B2B prospecting) or consent
- Data minimization: only necessary data collected
- Right to erasure: process for deletion requests
- No special category data without explicit consent
- Privacy notice accessible

### Email Deliverability Standards
- SPF, DKIM, DMARC authentication configured
- Sending limit: 50-100 emails per mailbox per day
- Bounce rate: under 2%
- Spam complaint rate: under 0.3%
- Domain warming: 3-6 weeks before scaling (start 5-10/day)
- Dedicated sending subdomain (not root domain)

## Numerical Benchmarks

### Outreach Metrics
| Metric | Baseline | Good | Elite |
|--------|----------|------|-------|
| Cold email reply rate | 3.43% | 5.5%+ | 10.7%+ |
| Signal-based reply rate | 15-25% | -- | -- |
| Open rate (personalized subject) | +26% vs generic | -- | -- |
| Subject line length | 36-50 chars optimal | -- | -- |
| Email body length | Under 80 words | -- | -- |
| Sequence length | 4-7 touchpoints | -- | -- |
| First email reply share | 58% of all replies | -- | -- |

### Pipeline Metrics
| Metric | Benchmark |
|--------|-----------|
| MQL to SQL conversion | 10-30% (top: 40%) |
| SQL to opportunity | 42% |
| Overall win rate | ~21% across qualified |
| Sales cycle (mid-market) | ~90 days (<$25K) |
| Pipeline coverage ratio | 3:1 to 4:1 (target 4:1) |
| Lead response time | 53% conversion within 1hr vs 17% after 24hr |
| Pipeline velocity | (Opps x Win% x Avg Deal) / Cycle Days |

### Pricing Benchmarks
| Metric | Benchmark |
|--------|-----------|
| Value-based price | 10-20% of quantified value delivered |
| Customer ROI target | 5:1 to 10:1 |
| Good tier price | 30-40% of Better tier |
| Best tier price | 2.5-4x Better tier |
| Target tier distribution | 20% Good / 65% Better / 15% Best |
| B2B SaaS value-based adoption | 78% of SaaS companies |
| Good/Better/Best adoption | 40.8% of B2B |

### TAM/SAM/SOM Validation
- TAM: Total addressable market via top-down industry data -- acceptable as directional only
- SAM: Must have bottom-up calculation (ICP count x avg deal size) -- "1% of TAM" is not a methodology
- SOM: Realistically achievable in 12-18 months given current resources -- for a 3-person company, SOM over EUR 1M year 1 needs strong justification

### Unit Economics
- CAC payback: under 12 months for services, under 18 months for SaaS
- LTV:CAC ratio: minimum 3:1, target 5:1
- Gross margin: 70%+ for SaaS, 50%+ for services/consulting

## Copywriting Framework Checks

### PAS (Problem-Agitate-Solution)
1. Problem: specific, researched pain point (not generic)
2. Agitate: emotional amplification of consequences (not fear-mongering)
3. Solution: clear offer tied to the specific problem

### BAB (Before-After-Bridge)
1. Before: prospect's current painful state (researched)
2. After: desired future state (specific, measurable)
3. Bridge: how your offer gets them there

### Signal-Based Personalization
Every outreach must reference at least one verifiable business signal:
- Leadership changes (14-25% reply rate impact)
- Funding rounds (12-20%)
- Hiring surges (10-18%)
- Earnings call mentions (10-15%)
- Technology changes (8-15%)

Flag generic outreach with no signal reference as HIGH severity.

## Negotiation Validation

### Ackerman Sequence Check
Target price -> offers at 65% -> 85% -> 95% -> 100% of target
- Each increment decreasing (shows approaching limit)
- Final number: precise, non-round (e.g., EUR 14,850 not EUR 15,000)
- Verify math: each step correctly calculated from the target

### BATNA Validation
- Is the alternative specific and actionable? ("Walk away" is not a BATNA)
- Is it realistically available? (Can you actually execute the alternative?)
- Does it have known value? (What specifically would you get?)
- For a 3-person company: losing a deal hurts more -- BATNA must account for this

### ZOPA Check
- Seller's reservation price (minimum acceptable) defined?
- Buyer's reservation price estimated with evidence?
- Zone exists (buyer max > seller min)?
- If no ZOPA: flag that negotiation may be futile

## Size-Credibility Calibration (3-Person Company)

Flag these claims as credibility violations:
- "Our team of experts" (you have 3 people -- say "our team" or name them)
- "Industry-leading" anything (prove it with evidence or remove)
- Fortune 500 client logos without verifiable relationship
- "Trusted by hundreds of companies" (if actual client count is under 20)
- "Enterprise-grade" for a bootstrapped consultancy
- Claims of 24/7 support with 3 people
- Scale language ("we serve clients globally") without evidence of global delivery