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>
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
|