---
name: sales-respondent
description: "Respondent (respondent.io) platform help — a B2B/professional participant-recruitment marketplace: recruit, screen, schedule, and pay real research participants from a 4M+ verified panel across 150+ countries (incentives via Tremendous), plus a Partner REST API (x-api-key + x-api-secret headers; projects, screeners, messaging, webhooks) for embedding recruitment into your own product. Use when recruiting B2B or professional users for interviews or surveys, writing screeners so participants actually fit the brief, cutting no-shows, reading Respondent per-session pricing (pay-as-you-go vs credit bundle, unmoderated discount) plus the incentive and platform fee, wiring the Respondent API or webhooks into a recruit pipeline or CRM, or triggering participant incentive payouts. Do NOT use for choosing a research/interview tool broadly or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), or an all-in-one recruit+run+repository research suite (use /sales-great-question)."
argument-hint: "[describe what you need help with in Respondent]"
license: MIT
version: 1.0.0
tags: [sales, pre-launch, platform]
---

# Respondent Platform Help

Respondent (respondent.io) is a **participant-recruitment marketplace** — it **recruits, screens,
schedules, and pays** real research participants from a **4M+ verified panel** (150+ countries), with a
strength in **B2B / hard-to-reach professional** audiences (phone + work-email verified; **<1% fraud**,
~95% show rate per Respondent). Incentives are paid via **Tremendous**.

Its place in the landscape is **recruit-only**: you run the interview in your own tool (Zoom/Meet) and
keep findings in your own repository. Direct twin: **User Interviews**. Contrast the
recruit+run+repository suite **Great Question** (`/sales-great-question`).

**Not respond.io** — that's a separate chat/messaging platform with a different API. This skill is
about **respondent.io** (research recruitment).

**Two things to say almost every time:**
- **Real people to talk to ≠ demand.** Recruiting real B2B users for interviews is a strong signal
  (the "talk to 10 users" rung) — but a recruited participant saying "I'd pay" is **still not a
  purchase**. Keep the *why/objections/language*; take the go/no-go to a **real behavior test**
  (`/sales-idea-validation`).
- **Total cost is recruit fee + incentive (+ ~5% fee) per participant**, not the sticker per-session
  price. Present all pricing as best-effort and point to respondent.io/pricing.

## Step 1 — Gather context

If `references/learnings.md` exists, read it first for accumulated platform knowledge.

Ask only what you can't infer:

1. **What do you need?**
   - A) **Recruit / screen** — targeting, screener design, qualifying the right people, quotas
   - B) **Scheduling / no-shows** — booking, reminders, over-recruiting, marking no-show vs attended
   - C) **Incentives / payouts** — setting incentives, marking attended, triggering Tremendous payout
   - D) **Automate / integrate** — the Partner API, webhooks, embedding recruitment in your product
   - E) **Choose / price** — pay-as-you-go vs credit bundle vs large volume; Respondent vs a peer
2. **B2B/professional or consumer audience?** (Respondent's edge is B2B — that shapes screener + incentive.)

Skip-ahead: if the user wants to **compare research tools across the market** or the
**validate-before-building method**, that's `/sales-idea-validation` — route in Step 2.

## Step 2 — Route or answer directly

| If the user's question is about… | Route to |
|---|---|
| Comparing research/recruitment/idea tools across the market, or the validate-before-building **method** | `/sales-idea-validation {question}` |
| An **all-in-one** recruit + run + repository research suite (not recruit-only) | `/sales-great-question {question}` |
| A pure **AI-moderated real-human interview** tool (the interview is run for you, self-serve API) | `/sales-userintuition {question}` |
| Running a **real behavior** demand test (smoke-test page, waitlist, pre-sale) after research | `/sales-idea-validation` or `/sales-funnel` `{question}` |
| Analyzing **existing** NPS/CSAT/VoC feedback (post-launch, not new recruits) | `/sales-customer-feedback {question}` |

When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: `/sales-idea-validation {original question}`"

Otherwise, answer Respondent-specific questions using Step 3.

## Step 3 — Respondent reference

**Read `references/platform-guide.md`** for the full reference — the capability/automation-surface
table (API vs webhook vs UI-only), best-effort pricing/plan gates, the Project → Screener → Response →
Participant data model, integrations, and quick-start recipes (create+screen+publish, webhook recruit
pipeline, reconcile poll). **Read `references/respondent-api-reference.md`** for the verbatim API
surface (two-header auth, base URLs, rate limits, full endpoint catalog, webhooks). Answer using only
the relevant section — don't dump the full reference.

## Step 4 — Actionable guidance

- **Say the caveat: recruiting real users is not demand.** Whatever the user asks, make explicit that
  Respondent gets **real people on the call** (a strong signal — genuine reasoning/objections/language)
  but a recruited "I'd pay" is **not observed demand**. Keep the *why*; take the go/no-go to a **real
  behavior test** (pre-sale, smoke test) → `/sales-idea-validation`.
- **Attack no-shows directly — it's the #1 researcher complaint.** Tell the user to **over-recruit**
  (invite more than the target), lean on **automated reminders + calendar/Zoom integration**, and
  **mark no-shows** (`Mark as no-show`) so they don't get paid. Respondent cites ~95% show rate — plan
  for the other ~5%.
- **Fix "participants don't fit the brief" with screener design, not the panel.** Write **behavior-based
  screener questions** (ask about the last time they did X, not "are you a good fit"), add a **hidden
  disqualifier** and **skip logic**, avoid leading/obvious-answer questions, and use **quotas** to
  balance the sample. Use the **review / report / hide** actions on bad applicants (`Report participant`).
- **Budget the true cost.** Total per participant = **recruit fee (~$40 PAYG / ~$34 bundle, min ~63) +
  the incentive you set (B2B often $50–$150/hr) + ~5% fee**. Default to **unmoderated (~-38%)** where the
  method allows to cut cost. Present all figures as **best-effort — confirm at respondent.io/pricing**.
- **Payouts are researcher-controlled and gated on attendance.** A participant is paid only after you
  **`Mark as attended`** then **`Trigger manual payout`** (via **Tremendous**, typically 7–10 business
  days). For automation, wire "attended → pay" but keep the no-show path so you never auto-pay an absent
  person.
- **The API is a partner/embed API — provisioned, two-header auth.** Credentials are `Client ID` +
  `Client Secret` sent as **`x-api-key` + `x-api-secret`** (not Bearer), requested via the Quickstart +
  a demo-video checklist (no instant self-serve key). Build against **staging** first (test participants
  are staging-only). **Verify the webhook signature/HMAC and event-type names on the live Webhooks
  Overview page** (they're not on the fetchable docs) and **add a status-filtered reconcile poll** since
  retry behavior isn't documented.

If you discover a gotcha or tip not in `references/learnings.md`, append it there with today's date.

## Gotchas

*Best-effort from research (2026-07) — pricing (~$40/session PAYG, ~$34 bundle min ~63, unmoderated
~-38%, ~5% fee), panel size ("4M+"), the two-header API, and webhook specifics all move; verify at
respondent.io/pricing and developers.respondent.io.*

- **respondent.io ≠ respond.io.** Different companies. respond.io is chat/messaging with a Bearer API
  and heavy Zapier presence — don't apply its docs here. Respondent uses `x-api-key` + `x-api-secret`.
- **Recruit ≠ demand.** Real interviews reveal the *why*, but a recruited "I'd pay" is not a purchase —
  the go/no-go belongs to a real behavior test.
- **No-shows are the top researcher-side complaint.** ~95% show rate means ~1 in 20 doesn't appear —
  over-recruit, use reminders, and mark no-shows so you don't pay them.
- **"Participants don't fit the brief" happens on any incentivized panel.** It's a **screener-design**
  problem, not a bad panel — behavior-based questions, hidden disqualifiers, skip logic, and quotas fix
  it. Report/hide off-brief applicants.
- **Cost is easy to under-budget.** The per-session price is only the recruit fee — the **incentive
  (often $50–$150/hr for B2B) and ~5% fee are on top**. Surveys are custom-priced only.
- **Payouts are manual and researcher-controlled.** Mark attended → trigger payout (Tremendous, ~7–10
  business days). If you forget, the participant isn't paid — a frequent participant-side complaint.
- **The API is partner-provisioned, not self-serve.** You request Client ID/Secret (demo-video
  checklist); no instant key. Webhook HMAC/retry specifics aren't on the public pages — verify live and
  reconcile with polling.
- **Reviewers flag a confusing UI and variable support.** Set expectations; the strength is panel
  quality + B2B reach, not polish.

## Related skills

- `/sales-idea-validation` — The validate-before-building method + the full research/recruitment/validator tool landscape (a research "yes" is not demand). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-idea-validation -a claude-code`
- `/sales-great-question` — The all-in-one recruit + run + repository suite (Respondent is recruit-only; Great Question also runs the study and stores it). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-great-question -a claude-code`
- `/sales-prolific` — Prolific: the **developer-native online research panel** peer — recruit + screen + pay vetted participants at scale for **surveys, online tasks, and AI human-data collection** via a **self-serve public REST API** (instant Token key) + webhooks + MCP + CLI. Reach for it over Respondent for **broad/representative online samples** and a **programmatic pipeline** (Respondent's edge is hard-to-reach B2B professionals + moderated interviews). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-prolific -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userintuition` — Pure real-human AI-moderated interviews with a self-serve REST API + webhooks + MCP — the pick when you want the interview *run for you*, not just a recruit. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userintuition -a claude-code`
- `/sales-funnel` — Build the smoke-test / fake-door landing page that turns a research hypothesis into a real demand test. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-funnel -a claude-code`
- `/sales-do` — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code`

## Examples

### Example 1: "How do I embed Respondent recruiting in my product and auto-pay attendees?" (developer/automation)
**User says**: "I'm building a research platform and want to create studies and pay participants through Respondent's API."
**Skill does**: Explains the **Partner API** is a partner/embed API — request `Client ID` + `Client
Secret`, send them as **`x-api-key` + `x-api-secret`** (not Bearer), build against **staging** first.
Sketches the flow: `POST /v1/projects` → add screener questions → publish → subscribe to
**`response.status_changed` webhooks** → on `attended`, call **`Mark as attended` then `Trigger manual
payout`** (Tremendous). Flags that **webhook HMAC/retry specifics aren't on the public docs** — verify
the signature live and **add a status-filtered reconcile poll** — and that production access needs the
demo-video checklist.
**Result**: The user builds a webhook + reconcile pipeline behind their own UI with the payout gate correct.

### Example 2: "My Respondent participants keep not matching what I asked for"
**User says**: "Half the people I recruit don't actually fit the profile — am I on a bad panel?"
**Skill does**: Reframes it as a **screener-design** problem, not a bad panel (Respondent is
phone+work-email verified, <1% fraud). Prescribes **behavior-based screener questions** (last time they
did X), a **hidden disqualifier**, **skip logic**, and **quotas**; tells the user to **report/hide**
off-brief applicants and tighten targeting. Notes reviewers do report occasional off-brief participants
on incentivized panels — the fix is the screener.
**Result**: The user rewrites the screener and gets qualified B2B participants.

### Example 3: "Is Respondent's $40/session the whole cost, and how do I keep it down?"
**User says**: "I need 8 B2B interviews — what will this actually cost?"
**Skill does**: Breaks down **total = recruit fee (~$40 PAYG or ~$34/session on a ~63-session bundle) +
the incentive you set (B2B often $50–$150/hr) + ~5% fee** — so the sticker price is not the whole cost.
Suggests **unmoderated (~-38%)** where the method allows and a **credit bundle** for volume, and that
**surveys are custom-priced**. Presents all figures as best-effort — **confirm at respondent.io/pricing**.
**Result**: The user budgets recruit + incentive + fee and picks the cheaper methodology where possible.

## Troubleshooting

### "Too many participants no-show / I paid for empty slots"
**Symptom**: Booked participants don't join the call.
**Cause**: No-shows are the top researcher-side complaint even at ~95% show rate; and payouts are
manual, so a mis-marked attendee can get paid.
**Solution**: **Over-recruit** past your target, enable **automated reminders** + the calendar/Zoom
integration, and **`Mark as no-show`** for absentees so they aren't paid. Only run **`Trigger manual
payout`** after **`Mark as attended`**.

### "My API calls 401 / where's my API key?"
**Symptom**: Requests fail auth, or you can't find a key.
**Cause**: Respondent uses **two headers** — `x-api-key` (Client ID) + `x-api-secret` (Client Secret) —
**not** a Bearer token, and credentials are **partner-provisioned** (Quickstart + demo-video
checklist), not instant self-serve. (You may also be reading **respond.io**'s Bearer docs by mistake.)
**Solution**: Request Client ID/Secret via the Quickstart, send both headers, and test on **staging**
(`api-staging.respondent.io`) with a **test participant** (staging-only) before production.

### "A participant says they never got paid"
**Symptom**: Attendance happened but no incentive arrived.
**Cause**: Payouts are **researcher-triggered** and gated on attendance — if you didn't **mark attended
+ trigger payout**, nothing is sent; Tremendous payouts also take ~7–10 business days.
**Solution**: `Mark as attended` then `Trigger manual payout`; check **`View credit and incentive
balance`** to confirm funds, and use **`Retrieve payout counts`** to audit. Automate "attended → pay"
but keep a manual review for disputes.