Score breakdown
Popularity is tracked separately. Support, ads, sponsorships, and tips never affect these signals.
Why it matters
Useful for tech leads, project managers, founders, and engineering managers who use Claude Code / Cursor / Codex and need a structured persuasion skill for kickoff, status update, wrap-up, investor pitch, and solution-selling communication that the agent can adapt per scenario and per audience. Installable globally via `npm install -g pitchcraft` or via `npx skills add moshuying/pitchcraft -a clau
Who should use it
Who should skip it
Pass on moshuying/pitchcraft if its scope or audience does not match what your team is building right now.
About this signal
moshuying/pitchcraft is tracked by RepoRadar as a communication skill in the AI Skills section. It was first seen on 2026-07-03 and last updated on 2026-07-03. The current verdict is 'try now' with a Silver tier and easy setup difficulty. Across RepoRadar's eight signals, moshuying/pitchcraft is strongest on workflow potential (8.8) and setup ease (8.8) and weakest on maturity (5.6) — a profile worth weighing against your own priorities. This page summarizes the evidence RepoRadar has captured from captured source metadata. The score, tier, risk label, and verdict on this page are never influenced by sponsorship, ads, or tips — they reflect only the usefulness, popularity, novelty, momentum, maturity, and evidence signals described in the RepoRadar methodology.
How this item is evaluated
RepoRadar assigned moshuying/pitchcraft a composite score of 7.7 out of 10, placing it in the Silver tier. This score combines weighted sub-signals: usefulness (35%), novelty (18%), momentum (14%), maturity (10%), open-source/build quality (7%), evidence quality (6%), workflow potential (6%), and setup ease (4%). Popularity is tracked separately at 1.0 and never affects the composite score or tier. The risk label of 'low' reflects inherent user-impacting hazards, not generic novelty. Items with no risk flag may still require normal code review before production use.
Putting this into practice? Read How to evaluate an AI tool before you adopt it for the checklist behind this score.
Risk explanation
The 5-scenario table is opinionated — review the per-scenario Hook / Evidence / Ask mapping on the first use before locking it as the team-wide default, because the agent may interpret 'pain / opportunity' too narrowly for an internal R&D wrap-up or too broadly for an investor pitch that needs a specific market size claim; The leader-context memory persists business positioning, format prefs, and audience information across sessions — review the stored context before sharing the skill output across a team, because the memory inherits any PII / customer-sensitive information the user provides during material intake; The AI material intake asks 'who's in the room / what they care about' before writing — review the agent's intake questions on the first use before treating the skill as a team-wide default, because the intake questions set the tone of the output and a misframed intake question (e.g. asking about audience instead of stakeholders) can produce a less targeted persuasion.