Skip to content
Beta Multi-model support (OpenAI, Gemini, and more) launching soon.
RBA RBA Skills

award-submission-writer

Installable Ships in case-study-writer — or copy the raw skill below.
Open Claude.ai

Paste into Claude Code, Claude.ai, the desktop app, or the browser extension — ⌘/Ctrl+V.

ExperimentalNo security review

Award Submission Writer

Produce nomination-ready award submissions calibrated to a specific award body's judging criteria, word limits, and required sections. Reuses case study content when available; otherwise drafts from project briefs and metrics.

When this skill applies

  • An award window is open (Sitecore Partner Experience Awards, Optimizely Partner Awards, Webby Awards, Digital Marketing Awards, Drum Awards, or other agency/DX awards)
  • A completed or near-complete project is a strong candidate for nomination
  • A case study draft or project brief is available as source material

Skip for: client-facing case study → case-study-draft; partner compliance evidence → partner-evidence-package.

Inputs

Parameter Required Default Notes
brief-file-or-case-study Yes — Source material: case study draft, retro, SOW, or inline brief
--body Yes — Award body; drives template and word-limit rules
--category No — Specific award category; if omitted, skill recommends best-fit category
--word-limit No body default Override when category-specific limit differs from body default
--deadline No — Surfaces in output header so the reviewer knows urgency

Supported Award Bodies

Sitecore Partner Experience Awards

What judges look for: innovation in the use of Sitecore capabilities; measurable business impact; strength of client relationship; go-to-market engagement with Sitecore.

Typical categories:

  • Customer Experience Excellence (B2B / B2C)
  • Best Personalisation Implementation
  • Best Migration or Platform Modernisation
  • Digital Commerce Excellence
  • Best Partner Innovation

Structural requirements:

  • Project overview: 200 words
  • Business challenge: 300 words
  • Solution and approach: 400 words
  • Results and business impact: 300 words
  • Why this project deserves to win: 150 words
  • Supporting evidence (metrics, screenshots, client testimonial): attached separately

Judging weight (indicative): Business impact 40% | Innovation 30% | Client relationship 20% | Sitecore product utilisation 10%

Optimizely Partner Awards

What judges look for: experimentation culture, personalisation at scale, Optimizely product depth, quantified business outcomes.

Typical categories:

  • Experimentation Excellence
  • Personalisation Champion
  • Digital Commerce Innovation
  • Content & Campaign Excellence
  • Partner of the Year (by region)

Structural requirements:

  • Executive summary: 150 words
  • Challenge: 250 words
  • Solution: 350 words
  • Results (quantified): 250 words
  • Innovation factor: 200 words

Webby Awards (sites and digital experiences)

What judges look for: design excellence, UX innovation, technical achievement, accessibility, and measurable audience impact. Entries are judged against peers in the same category — context matters.

Key rules:

  • Non-branded landing page required (cannot be the agency's own case study page)
  • A campaign entry video (60–90 seconds) is strongly recommended
  • Results/stats section must be factually accurate — judges verify claims
  • Maximum 500 words for written description; supplementary URL required

Typical categories for RBA work:

  • Best Website — Financial Services / Healthcare / Government
  • Best User Experience
  • Best Responsive Design
  • Best Accessibility

Generic / Other Bodies

When --body other is specified or the body is not listed above, apply the universal structure in the workflow below. Prompt for the specific word limits and judging criteria before drafting.

Workflow

Step 1 — Ingest and body calibration

Read all provided source files. Check:

  • Does an existing case study draft exist? If yes, reuse and adapt — do not rewrite from scratch.
  • What platform(s) were used? Align language to the award body's preferred vendor framing.
  • Are the key metrics available? Award submissions that lack quantified results are rarely competitive.

If metrics are absent, pause:

Award submissions without quantified results rarely place. Before drafting, please provide
at least 2 of: conversion rate delta, performance improvement, cost/time saving, volume
of content migrated, users impacted, or revenue influenced. Run metrics-collector if needed.

Fetch the award body's current-year guidelines if a URL is known:

If the page confirms word limits or judging criteria that differ from the defaults above, use the live values. Note the source in the drafting notes.

Step 2 — Category selection (when --category not provided)

Review the available categories for the specified body. Recommend the best fit based on:

  1. Primary project type — migration, personalisation, commerce, experimentation, content ops
  2. Strongest evidence — where is the quantified impact most compelling?
  3. Competition landscape — avoid categories where the project is a weak fit even if the category sounds prestigious

Output a recommendation with rationale. Proceed if the user confirms.

Step 3 — Draft the submission

Follow the award body's required structure exactly. For each section:

  • Match the word limit — do not exceed. Use a word count annotation at the end of each section.
  • Front-load the key point — judges are reading dozens of submissions; the first sentence of each section must earn their attention
  • Quantify everything possible — "significant" and "major" are adjectives; percentages and absolutes are evidence
  • Call out the Sitecore/Optimizely product depth for vendor-sponsored awards — name the specific capabilities used (e.g. "Sitecore Personalize CDP", "Optimizely Feature Experimentation", "XM Cloud's Edge Delivery")
  • Distinguish RBA's contribution from the platform's built-in capability — judges know what the vendor's product does; they want to know what the partner did with it

Universal section guidance

Project / Executive overview

  • Who is the client (sector, size, market position)?
  • What was the engagement (type, duration, scope)?
  • What is the single most impressive result?

Challenge

  • Business problem in business language — not a technology complaint
  • Trigger for the project (regulation, competitive pressure, growth target, cost reduction mandate)
  • Why this was hard (legacy complexity, organisational constraint, market context)

Solution / Approach

  • Strategic rationale for the solution chosen
  • RBA's distinctive contribution — what did RBA bring that a less capable partner could not?
  • Key technical decisions and why
  • Platform capabilities leveraged (be specific: product names, version, feature names)

Results

  • Lead with the single strongest metric
  • List 3–5 additional metrics with before/after framing where available
  • Include a client testimonial if approved
  • Connect results to the business problem stated in the Challenge section

Why this project deserves to win / Innovation factor

  • What was novel about the approach, the delivery, or the outcome?
  • What will other practitioners in the industry learn from or be inspired by?
  • Does it advance the state of the art for the award body's community?

Step 4 — Differentiator check

Before finalising, confirm the submission answers these questions a judge would ask:

  • Why RBA and not any other agency?
  • Why this project and not a simpler one?
  • Is the claimed innovation actually innovative relative to the category's expected baseline?
  • Are all metrics sourced and defensible if a judge asks for evidence?
  • Does the "results" section directly address the "challenge" section?

If any answer is weak, flag it with [JUDGE CHALLENGE: ...] inline.

Step 5 — Output

Deliver:

  1. Submission copy — structured by the award body's required sections, with word counts
  2. Supporting evidence checklist — what assets to attach (screenshots, testimonial letter, performance reports, Lighthouse scores)
  3. Submission notes — assumptions made, gaps flagged, deadline reminder
  4. Category recommendation rationale (if Step 2 was run)

Remind the user to run case-study-reviewer on the draft before submission.

Reference and template files

  • reference.md — per-body judging criteria deep-dives, past winner patterns, evidence standards
Technical details
Plugin
case-study-writer
Author
Dakota Smith
Skill name
award-submission-writer
Maturity
experimental
Security review
No security review
Owners
  • business-development
  • strategy
Argument hint
<brief-file-or-case-study> --body sitecore|optimizely|webby|dma|other [--category <category-name>] [--word-limit <n>] [--deadline <date>]
Allowed tools
  • Read
  • Write
  • Edit
  • Bash(find *)
  • Bash(ls *)
  • WebFetch(domain:www.sitecore.com)
  • WebFetch(domain:www.optimizely.com)
  • WebFetch(domain:www.webbyawards.com)
Source
plugins/case-study-writer/skills/award-submission-writer/SKILL.md

Edit this skill on GitHub — opens GitHub's web editor. No git knowledge needed.