AI teams depend on small, trusted operational skills: deploy checklists, safety gates, model-provider setup, browser QA, Stripe go-live, and incident runbooks. The people maintaining those practices rarely get paid for the quiet work that keeps them usable.
Fastest useful reply: one line.
Name the first skill category to maintain, the MCP/audit check you would need to trust, or the proof that would make sponsorship credible. No checkout, list signup, or private data required.
Uncurated skill directories optimize for surface area. Hermosskills optimizes for trust: a visible review method, dated catalog entries, disclosure of sponsorship, and human stop points for risky work.
That creates a funding lane for the kind of maintenance work that usually disappears into Slack threads, README footnotes, and unpaid community support.
No blind checkout needed. The sponsor question form creates a local human-review task; Pete replies only after checking fit.
Approval-gated: review the actual thread before sending. Do not paste this into private communities without permission.
The August 28 revenue report surfaced maintainer-economics, MCP-conformance, and founding-sponsor follow-ups. These links turn each thread into a structured, human-reviewed reply instead of asking a busy maintainer to compose a full response from scratch.
For maintainers who agree the funding model is worth testing but only have one category in mind.
Name first skillFor technical reviewers, MCP people, and safety-minded operators who can strengthen the review workflow.
Offer critiqueFor potential sponsors who need one public evidence point before considering $49 or $250/month.
Ask for proofIf this fits your work, send one sponsor question. Name the skill category, the tier you are considering, and what proof would make sponsorship credible.