mohitagw15856
036511ab3e
Broadens both reach (more tools) and content types (an MCP server), continuing the multi-platform story. Windsurf + Aider: - build-exports.mjs gains two platforms: exports/windsurf/*.md (workspace rules, trigger: model_decision) and exports/aider/*.md (conventions for `aider --read`). Now 5 platforms (ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Windsurf, Aider). - install.sh + bin/cli.mjs install both (windsurf -> .windsurf/rules, aider -> .aider/skills with a --read hint); generated README index is excluded from copies. - One-line windsurf-install.sh / aider-install.sh wrappers for parity. MCP server (new content type): - mcp/server.mjs — zero-dependency stdio MCP server exposing list_skills, search_skills, get_skill. Published as a second bin (pm-claude-skills-mcp). Logs to stderr; reads bundled skills/ at startup. mcp/README.md documents client config. Also: README hero "See it in action" demo placement (ready to swap in a GIF; recording guide in web/docs-assets/README.md), Works-With table + exports + install docs updated, CHANGELOG Unreleased. package.json files/bin updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
109 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
109 lines
4.1 KiB
Markdown
# Discovery Call Prep Skill
|
|
|
|
Produces a complete discovery call brief — research summary, call hypothesis, structured questions, and success criteria — so every call starts with context and ends with a clear next step.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
- **Prospect company name**
|
|
- **Contact name and role**
|
|
- **Any known context** (how they found you, prior interaction)
|
|
- **Your product/solution** (one line)
|
|
- **Call duration** (15 / 30 / 45 / 60 min)
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Discovery Call Brief
|
|
**Prospect:** [Company] | **Contact:** [Name, Title] | **Duration:** [X min]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Research Summary
|
|
- What they do: [Product/service, customer, business model]
|
|
- Size: [Headcount, revenue if public]
|
|
- Stage: [Startup / Scaleup / Enterprise]
|
|
- Recent news: [Funding, launches, leadership changes — last 90 days]
|
|
- Contact background: [Role tenure, previous companies, LinkedIn activity]
|
|
- Likely priorities for someone in this role: [Based on title and stage]
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Call Hypothesis
|
|
Before the call write your best guess:
|
|
- **Their most likely pain:** [What someone in this role at this company probably has]
|
|
- **Why they would care about us:** [Specific connection to your value]
|
|
- **Biggest risk to the deal:** [What might make this not a fit]
|
|
|
|
Write it down — then test it on the call.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Call Agenda
|
|
"Here is what I was thinking for our [X] minutes:
|
|
- 2 min: Quick intros
|
|
- [X] min: Learn more about your situation
|
|
- [X] min: Share how we have helped similar companies
|
|
- 5 min: Next steps
|
|
Does that work? Anything specific you would like to cover?"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Discovery Questions
|
|
|
|
Open with context (not a pitch):
|
|
- "What prompted you to take this call today?"
|
|
- "What does [relevant area] look like for you at the moment?"
|
|
|
|
Go deeper on pain:
|
|
- "How long has [problem] been an issue?"
|
|
- "What have you tried to solve it?"
|
|
- "What is the impact of not solving this?"
|
|
|
|
Understand buying context:
|
|
- "Who else would be involved in a decision like this?"
|
|
- "Have you looked at other solutions?"
|
|
- "Is there a reason you are exploring this now?"
|
|
|
|
Qualify on budget:
|
|
- "Have you set aside budget for this kind of initiative?"
|
|
|
|
Close discovery:
|
|
- "Based on what you have told me, it sounds like [summary]. Is that right?"
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Success Criteria
|
|
This call is successful if we leave with:
|
|
- Understanding of specific pain and business impact
|
|
- Knowledge of buying process and key stakeholders
|
|
- A clear agreed next step (demo / proposal / intro)
|
|
- Sense of timeline
|
|
|
|
This call is NOT successful if we only pitched and got "sounds interesting, send me some info."
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Suggested Next Step
|
|
"Based on what we discussed, the logical next step would be [specific]. Does [day/time] work?"
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Research summary includes recent news (last 90 days) — not just LinkedIn bio
|
|
- [ ] Call hypothesis is written before the call (not post-rationalised after)
|
|
- [ ] Discovery questions progress from context → pain → business impact → buying process
|
|
- [ ] Success criteria define what "not successful" looks like (not just the ideal outcome)
|
|
- [ ] A specific next step is proposed (not "let's stay in touch")
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not write the call hypothesis after the call — hypotheses written post-hoc are rationalisations, not testable predictions
|
|
- [ ] Do not open with a product pitch before establishing the prospect's problem — leading with pitch signals you are not there to learn, which closes discovery conversations
|
|
- [ ] Do not use closed questions in the discovery phase ("Do you have this problem?") — they produce yes/no answers that confirm bias rather than reveal pain
|
|
- [ ] Do not skip the "not successful" definition in success criteria — a call that ends with "send me more info" feels like progress but is not a qualified next step
|
|
- [ ] Do not treat all prospect research equally — recent news (last 90 days) is more relevant to call context than static company facts from LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
|
- "Prepare me for a discovery call with [company/contact]"
|
|
- "Build a call brief for my meeting with [name] at [company]"
|
|
- "What questions should I ask in a discovery call for [use case]?"
|