Claude
572b8acf8c
Make the library multi-platform without duplicating content. Each skills/<name>/SKILL.md body remains the single source of truth; a new generator renders platform-ready exports from it. - scripts/build-exports.mjs — dependency-free Node generator with a PLATFORMS registry so new platforms (Gemini, Cursor, …) are a few lines. Ships ChatGPT exports at exports/chatgpt/<bundle>/<skill>/SYSTEM_PROMPT.md (172 skills), plus generated index READMEs. Supports --platform and --check. - exports/ — generated ChatGPT system prompts, ready to paste into a Custom GPT. - .github/workflows/check-generated.yml — fails a PR if exports or web/skills.json drift from the source skills. - README "Works With" now documents the ready-to-use exports and regen command. - CHANGELOG + SKILL-AUTHORING-STANDARD note the generated artifacts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px
3.0 KiB
Sales Battlecard Skill
Produces a practical one-page competitive battlecard that sales reps can use in calls — not a theoretical analysis.
Required Inputs
- Your product/company
- Competitor name
- Your target customer (ICP)
- Your top 3 differentiators vs this competitor
- Common objections when competing against them
- Known competitor weaknesses
Output Structure
Battlecard: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]
Updated: [Date] — Review quarterly
In One Sentence
When a prospect mentions [Competitor], say: "[Your positioning in one sentence]"
Why Customers Choose [Competitor]
(Be honest about their genuine strengths)
- [Strength 1]
- [Strength 2]
Why Customers Choose Us
(Specific differentiators with proof points)
- [Differentiator 1]: [Proof point — customer outcome or capability]
- [Differentiator 2]: [Proof point]
Objection Responses
"[Competitor] is cheaper" "You are right their list price is lower. What our customers find is [specific TCO difference]. [Customer] saw [result]. Should we explore total cost of ownership?"
"We already use [Competitor]" "That is helpful. What is working well? [Listen] And what is one thing you wish was better?"
"[Competitor] has [feature] you do not" "You are right. What problem are you solving with that feature? [Listen] Here is how our customers solve that..."
Landmines to Plant
- "How do you currently handle [area where competitor is weak]?"
- "What happens when you need to [scenario competitor struggles with]?"
Traps to Avoid
- Never badmouth [Competitor] directly
- Do not lead with features — lead with the prospect problem
- Do not claim you do everything better — be specific about where you win
When We Win / When We Lose
We win when: [Scenario — e.g. customer prioritises outcome over price] We lose when: [Honest scenario — e.g. primary driver is lowest upfront cost]
Quality Checks
- Competitor strengths are listed honestly (not minimised)
- Differentiators have proof points (not just claims)
- Objection responses are conversational (not scripted-sounding)
- Landmine questions are natural and non-confrontational
- "When we lose" is included and honest
- Battlecard has a review date
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Build a battlecard against [competitor]"
- "Create a competitive cheat sheet for [competitor]"
- "Write objection handling for [competitor] comparisons"
Anti-Patterns
- Do not minimise or ignore genuine competitor strengths — sales reps who encounter them unprepared lose credibility
- Do not write differentiators without proof points — a claim without evidence is marketing, not a battlecard
- Do not make the battlecard exhaustive — it is a one-page cheat sheet, not a full competitive analysis
- Do not include a "When we lose" section that is dishonestly optimistic — honest loss scenarios build rep trust
- Do not skip the review date — an outdated battlecard with wrong information is worse than no battlecard