Decision-grade entity research skill — produces a hypothesis-tested dossier on a specific company, person, nonprofit, or government org, not a generic profile. Forcing intake makes the user state their hypothesis upfront (what they already believe and want to verify or disprove) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it. Output is an editable Word document (.docx) with verdict on the hypothe
cd ~/.claude/skills
git clone https://github.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills.git claude-skillsmkdir -p ~/.claude/skills/dossier
curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/alirezarezvani/claude-skills/HEAD/.gemini/skills/dossier/SKILL.md \
-o ~/.claude/skills/dossier/SKILL.mdPortability: Requires
WebSearch+WebFetch, Node.js withdocxpackage, and optionallybash_tool+curlfor free APIs (SEC EDGAR, GitHub, ProPublica). BYOK MCPs (LinkedIn, Crunchbase, Apollo, Pitchbook, SimilarWeb) are optional enhancements. Works in Claude Code CLI natively.
This skill is decision-grade entity research with hypothesis-testing. It refuses to be “tell me about Microsoft”. Every invocation forces the user to expose their hypothesis upfront (Q4) so the dossier tests it rather than confirms it.
The use case shape:
“I’m pitching Microsoft Tuesday. My hypothesis is they’re consolidating AI spend on their first-party Foundry platform. Validate or disprove, and give me three conversation hooks tied to what you find.”
NOT:
“Tell me about Microsoft.”
The forcing Q4 — the hypothesis question — is the non-generic anchor. Skip it and the skill produces a Wikipedia summary.
See references/hypothesis_testing_discipline.md for the canon.
Locked verbatim per PR #657 audit.
[Background — verify before quoting] and excluded from primary findings count.Who is the subject? Give me the exact name and, if a company, the website or LinkedIn URL. If a person, their LinkedIn URL or a unique identifier (company affiliation + role).
Why I’m asking: Disambiguation. There are 47 John Smiths. There are three companies called “Atlas”. I need a specific entity to research.
If user gives only a name, push for a second identifier. Refuse to proceed on ambiguous names.
What kind of subject is this? Pick one: person / company / nonprofit / government org / other.
Why I’m asking: Different source matrices apply. For people I check LinkedIn, GitHub, Scholar, news; for companies I check SEC EDGAR (if public), Crunchbase, news, GitHub for tech orgs; for nonprofits I check Form 990s on ProPublica.
Forcing choice. “Other” requires a one-line description.
What are you preparing for? Pick one:
- Sales meeting / partnership pitch
- Investment diligence
- Acquisition diligence
- Journalism / due diligence
- Job interview prep
- Competitive intelligence
- Personal vetting (date, hire, business partner)
- Other (specify)
Why I’m asking: The purpose dictates the angle, the depth, and the red-flag sensitivity. Sales prep needs conversation hooks. Investment diligence needs traction signals. Personal vetting needs careful sensitivity boundaries.
What’s your hypothesis going in? What do you already believe about this subject, and what do you want to verify or disprove?
Why I’m asking: This is the critical question. A dossier that just confirms what you already think is worthless. By stating your hypothesis upfront, I can search for evidence that would disprove it as well as evidence that supports it — and give you a verdict you can actually use.
Examples:
- “I believe Microsoft is consolidating AI spend on first-party Foundry. Verify or disprove.”
- “I think the CEO is over their head — too much TAM talk, no traction. Test that.”
- “I believe this nonprofit’s overhead ratio is sketchy. Check the 990s.”
- “I think this person is technical enough to handle a CTO role. Verify.”
MANDATORY. If user says “I don’t have one”, push back once: “Then guess. Commit to a position you can update later. The dossier needs a hypothesis to test, otherwise it’s a generic profile and won’t help you make a decision.”
If still refused: fall back to implicit hypothesis “what’s the most surprising thing I could find?” and flag the fallback in audit log.
This question is the non-generic anchor. Skip it and the skill becomes a Wikipedia summary.
Time horizon: 5-minute brief or 15-minute decision-grade dossier?
Why I’m asking: Brief mode caps at ~10 searches and skips the network + reputation passes. Decision-grade goes deeper on every section. Pick based on how much skin you have in this decision.
Forcing choice.
Anything sensitive to exclude? E.g., personal medical, family details, political history, or specific topics off-limits?
Why I’m asking: Some research contexts have ethical constraints. I’d rather know upfront than surface something you’d never share.
Skip for sales/investment/acquisition/competitive intel (low sensitivity); ask for journalism/personal vetting (high sensitivity).
Stop condition: After Q6 (or earlier with dependency skips), commit and start Phase 2. Never re-open intake after Phase 2 begins.
Before Phase 3, resolve the subject to a specific entity:
If still ambiguous after Q1 push-back: halt and re-ask Q1 with disambiguating identifiers. Refuse to proceed.
Routed by Q2 subject type. See references/subject_type_source_matrix.md for the full canon.
If a paid MCP is connected (Apollo, Pitchbook, SimilarWeb), use it but mark findings as BYOK-sourced in the audit log.
Every Phase 4 search MUST be classified as either:
≥30% of search budget allocated to disconfirming queries. Enforced via scripts/disconfirming_evidence_balance.py.
Example for hypothesis “Microsoft is consolidating AI spend on Foundry”:
This is what makes the dossier decision-grade rather than confirmation-biased.
For each search:
citation_tracker.py with classification (supporting / disconfirming)source_tier_classifier.py to each result URLDefault 12-month window for activity timeline; deeper for foundational identity.
Categories:
Reverse chronological. Each entry hyperlinked + tiered.
5-10 entries, ranked by relevance to hypothesis.
Surface but don’t sensationalize:
Each flag tiered. Tier shows up next to every flag in the DOCX.
3-5 specific hooks tied to actual findings, not generic talking points.
See references/conversation_hook_quality.md for the canon.
| ❌ Generic | ✅ Finding-tied |
|---|---|
| ”Ask about their roadmap" | "Mention their recent acquisition of [X] — it signals they’re investing in vertical Y. Suggested framing: ‘Saw the [X] announcement — how does that change your roadmap on Y?’" |
| "Ask about hiring" | "Their VP Engineering left 3 weeks ago (LinkedIn). Suggested framing: ‘I noticed [name] moved on — what’s the eng leadership plan?’" |
| "Talk about their values" | "They updated their pricing page last week (their official site). Suggested framing: ‘Saw the pricing refresh — what drove that?’” |
Each hook:
Via Node.js + docx library.
Arial 12pt body, navy headings (#1a3a5c), light blue table headers (#e8f0f8), red red-flag callout, green conversation-hook callout.
new ExternalHyperlink({
link: "https://...",
children: [new TextRun({ text: title, style: "Hyperlink" })],
});<output-dir>/dossier_<entity-slug>_<YYYY-MM-DD>.docxpython3 -c "import zipfile,sys; zipfile.ZipFile(sys.argv[1]).testzip()" <docx> (no output = intact), then confirm the required sections are present| Script | Role |
|---|---|
scripts/citation_tracker.py | Three-count audit + supporting/disconfirming classification + source-tier tagging at ~/.dossier_sessions/<session>.json |
scripts/disconfirming_evidence_balance.py | Verifies ≥30% of search budget allocated to disconfirming queries; warns if biased |
scripts/source_tier_classifier.py | URL → primary / secondary / tertiary classification via domain heuristics |
references/hypothesis_testing_discipline.md — ≥30% rule + decision-grade vs encyclopedic (7+ sources)references/subject_type_source_matrix.md — person/company/nonprofit/gov source matrices (7+ sources)references/conversation_hook_quality.md — finding-tied hook discipline (7+ sources)| Failure | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Subject name ambiguous | Refuse to proceed. Re-ask Q1 with disambiguating identifier. |
| User refuses to state hypothesis | Push back once. If still refused, fall back to “what’s the most surprising thing I could find?” implicit hypothesis. Flag in audit. |
| Subject has zero public footprint | Surface explicitly. Suggest different name or early-stage. Don’t fabricate. |
| LinkedIn scrape blocked | Note in audit; fall back to WebSearch; suggest user verify manually. |
| SEC EDGAR fails | Retry once. If still failing, note “public filings not retrieved” and continue. |
| Sentiment data sparse | Mark reputation section as “limited public signal”; don’t infer from training. |
| Sensitive topic surfaces (Q6 exclusion) | Exclude from DOCX. Note in chat (not in DOCX) so user knows the exclusion was honored. |
| 3 consecutive tool failures | Stop, alert user, share collected so far. |
| DOCX generation fails | Save raw data as JSON fallback. |
Version: 1.0.0
Source spec: megaprompts/12-dossier-megaprompt.md
Build pattern: Path B (direct conversion). Research-pack sibling, hypothesis-testing variant.
Create beautiful visual art in .png and .pdf documents using design philosophy. You should use this skill when the user asks to create a poster, piece of art, design, or other static piece. Create original visual designs, never copying existing artists' work to avoid copyright violations.
Guide users through a structured workflow for co-authoring documentation. Use when user wants to write documentation, proposals, technical specs, decision docs, or similar structured content. This workflow helps users efficiently transfer context, refine content through iteration, and verify the doc works for readers. Trigger when user mentions writing docs, creating proposals, drafting specs, or
Use this skill whenever the user wants to create, read, edit, or manipulate Word documents (.docx files). Triggers include: any mention of 'Word doc', 'word document', '.docx', or requests to produce professional documents with formatting like tables of contents, headings, page numbers, or letterheads. Also use when extracting or reorganizing content from .docx files, inserting or replacing images
Use this skill whenever the user wants to do anything with PDF files. This includes reading or extracting text/tables from PDFs, combining or merging multiple PDFs into one, splitting PDFs apart, rotating pages, adding watermarks, creating new PDFs, filling PDF forms, encrypting/decrypting PDFs, extracting images, and OCR on scanned PDFs to make them searchable. If the user mentions a .pdf file or
Use this skill any time a .pptx file is involved in any way — as input, output, or both. This includes: creating slide decks, pitch decks, or presentations; reading, parsing, or extracting text from any .pptx file (even if the extracted content will be used elsewhere, like in an email or summary); editing, modifying, or updating existing presentations; combining or splitting slide files; working w
Toolkit for styling artifacts with a theme. These artifacts can be slides, docs, reportings, HTML landing pages, etc. There are 10 pre-set themes with colors/fonts that you can apply to any artifact that has been creating, or can generate a new theme on-the-fly.