# Quickstart — MicroLink Offer Review Pack

## What this is

Everything a Claude chat needs to produce a complete MicroLink offer review: the method, the benchmarking research prompt, the scoring anchors, the company context, the HTML output template with a gold-standard example, and the PDF layout contract with fonts included. The output of a review is always two files: the HTML review and the designed PDF, identical content, both in the MicroLink.Review design system.

## How to use it

1. Start a new Claude chat.
2. Upload this zip together with the proposal, term sheet, quotation, or offer document under review.
3. Say: **"Run the offer review."** (Any equivalent phrasing works: "review this offer", "go through this proposal".)
4. Claude works the sequence: reads the offer, runs the deep research step from `references/research-prompt.md` (do not let it score from memory), scores against `references/scoring-anchors.md`, builds flags/questions/negotiation map, applies the gate rules and `references/company-context.md` thresholds, then delivers both artifacts.
5. Confirm the fields marked as needing human input before treating the gate as final: BATNA, signing entity, and anything tagged needs_review.

## What a correct output looks like

- Chat: prose findings first, gate recommendation with the mandatory counter-argument.
- File 1: `MicroLink_Review_<Counterparty>_<Site>_<MonYYYY>.html`, matching `assets/example-output-nps-mansfield.html` in structure and quality, all graphics redrawn with the review's real data, Download PDF button linking to File 2.
- File 2: same name `.pdf`, nine pages, A4, built with `assets/pdf-reference-implementation.py` as the layout contract, brand fonts embedded, charts drawn as vectors.

## Red lines (the pack enforces these; watch for violations)

- No benchmark table filled from memory. If research wasn't run, the review is invalid.
- No PDF produced by printing, browser rendering, or converting the HTML. If the PDF doesn't look like the reference (paper pages, serif headings, drawn charts), reject it and point Claude at the output contract in SKILL.md.
- No gate outcome of "proceed" while red flags are open or BATNA is empty.
- Weighted score is secondary to red flag status, always.

## Maintenance

- `references/company-context.md` is dated; refresh quarterly (thresholds, raise status, standing alternatives, site register, review register).
- After each review, add one line to the review register for cross-offer consistency.
