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
92 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
# 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
|