Matthew C.

Hmmm… tempting…

They're based right here in Fort Worth where I live. Might have to stop by the office and demand they give us one. 🫰🏼

Doesn't look like it. They def need one!

Ilya S. this is brilliant. Reminds me of the piñata mailing company. Apparently they've been crushing it for years now. https://www.pinatagrams.com/?srsltid=AfmBOooXFPRQXIgBMxjlTKZLzh0_8VRKxfFvpneb_rBy7eCNRb8fvKKK

Good questions! Two completely different use cases and both work. If you’re not building a public audience, you’re not using the storefront model at all. You’re using it as a private knowledge layer — your own library that you and your team call from Claude or Copilot to execute your work faster and more consistently. No subscribers needed. The value is internal leverage. Where you’d make money - you build skills for a client engagement, drop them into that client’s library, and charge for access on subscription. They pay you, not the marketplace. SR just handles the delivery and billing rails. And yes, the platform does drive discovery for skills that creators publish publicly. But that’s opt-in. You can keep everything private if the use case is internal or client-specific. The short answer - you don’t need an audience to get value from it. The audience model is just one path. :)

Once you experience this “skill curation” process, it becomes both addictive (in the best way) and powerful. It gives you leverage and a compounding asset. You can walk into the next engagement and plug and play, tweak the skills, drop them directly into client libraries, they call them directly from their LLM, their whole team then can apply them at scale within their personalized context, etc. The LLM agnostic architecture is really key, cuz you have flexibility. And in cases where IT is involved, owning and safe guarding their IP is important.

Sana C. Great question. A few things worth separating out.. First, the skills aren’t “integrated into their GTM systems.” Theyre stored in Skill Refinery’s library, not the client’s stack. There’s no migration, no build, no technical dependency. The client was just calling skills through Claude or Copilot etc. That access turns off when the subscription ends. Second, the IP situation actually flips in your favor. If you built those skills while you were the agency, you have a library of client-specific methodology you can either sell back to them on subscription terms, repurpose for the next similar client, or keep as your own documented IP. Most agencies walk away from an engagement with nothing. This model means you walk away with an asset. It’s less “take and sell to someone else” and more “you built it, you own it, and now you decide what happens to it next.” Make sense?