Pitchcraft

Languages: English (this file) · 简体中文 → SKILL.zh-CN.md

Persuasive briefings · Workflow

Essence

This is not report writing—it is persuasion. In every scenario you do the same thing:

In limited time, help a specific audience understand context, trust your judgment, and provide the support you need.

Users & scenarios

Core: 5-part persuasion framework

All briefing types share one backbone; section emphasis differs.

Part 1 · Hook
  → Why should they keep listening?
  → Opportunity / pain / urgency

Part 2 · Context
  → What is the situation?
  → What we have done and what we have

Part 3 · Proposal
  → What we will do / did?
  → Scope, path, pace

Part 4 · Evidence
  → Why we can succeed / succeeded?
  → Data, moat, team, cases

Part 5 · Ask
  → What do we need from them?
  → Decision / resources / partnership / investment

Briefing types & templates

Each type is an instance of the 5-part framework.

Project kickoff

Goal: Get leadership to approve start and allocate people and budget.

# {Project} · Kickoff

## Background & opportunity

{Why now: market, pain, competition—2–4 sentences.

This is the persuasion entry—create “we should do this.”}

## What we already have

{Team, tech, data, business assets—not bragging, but trust.

Pattern: “We already have X, so this is not from zero.”}

## Goals & scope

**In scope**: {capabilities}
**Out of scope**: {explicit exclusions—prevent scope creep}

{Milestones and timeline}

## Why us

{Core difference vs alternatives. Moat: why others can’t or won’t match.}

## Resources & risks

{People / budget / cross-team needs
Top risk and mitigation}

Status update

Goal: Convince leaders and stakeholders the work is on track and worth continued investment.

# {Project} · Status update

## One-line summary

{1–2 facts; audience grasps core in 10 seconds}

## Key progress

{Completed items and metrics by milestone or module}

## Risks & response

Formula per item: {symptom} → {root cause} → {mitigation} → {status}

Decisions: options + recommendation—no open homework:
❌ "Dependency X uncertain—please advise"
✅ "Dependency X slipped 2 weeks. Option A (add people) vs B (move milestone). Recommend A; need Team Y support."

## Next phase

| Item | ETA | Dependencies | Risk |
|---|---|---|---|

Wrap-up / annual review

Goal: Show delivered value and assets retained.

# {Project} · Wrap-up / {Year} annual review

## Goal attainment

| Goal | Target | Actual | % | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|

Underperformance: root cause and improvement—say it before they ask.

## Core deliverables

3–5 items, each: {what} + {metric} + {business impact}

## Lessons

- **What worked**: reusable methods / architecture / process
- **What failed**: root cause + prevention
- **Assets left**: code / data / docs / team capability

## Next

If continuing → direction, goals, key results, resources
If ending → handoff so nothing is left unsupported

Investor pitch

Goal: Spark interest for a deeper conversation.

# {Project} · Pitch

## One-liner

{What we do, for whom, what value}

## Market opportunity

{Size, persona, pain, why now}

## Product

{How we solve, core features, architecture (brief), stage}

## Moat & traction

**Moat**: {tech / data / network / team—why others can’t}
**Metrics**: {users, growth, retention, revenue}
**Team**: {why this team can execute}

## Funding ask

{Amount, use of funds, milestones, next round goal}

Solution selling

Goal: Convince customer executives your solution is the best fit.

# {Project} · Proposal

## Pain alignment

{Customer language for the problem—accuracy builds trust fast}

## Current state

{Why status quo fails: features, cost, efficiency, risk}

## Our solution

{How we solve; capabilities and differentiation}

## Proof

{Same-industry cases with metrics}
{If no case: POC plan or demo roadmap}

## Partnership

{Engagement model, timeline, what we need from them}

Writing rules

1. Their concerns first, your story second

❌ Five minutes on how hard the team worked and how clever the architecture is
✅ First sentence answers “why should I care?”

2. Risks need judgment

❌ "Servers occasionally timeout—please monitor"
✅ "Connection pool exhaustion; scaling in progress; expected recovery tomorrow"

3. Acknowledge peer teams first

❌ "We filled a gap no one else addressed"
✅ "Team X has a mature Y; we extend with Z"

4. Metrics need source and definition

❌ "Conversion improved 20%"
✅ "Conversion +20% (June vs May, same account pool)"

5. Bad news early when it matters

❌ Wins first, then buried "but we slipped"
✅ Lead with material risks, then progress

6. No homework for the audience

❌ "Next: keep pushing forward"
✅ "Integration Wed; risk is dependency Y—owner aligned"

Workflow

Step 1 — Load memory
  Read leader context, business positioning, format prefs.
  Missing → ask user to supply.

Step 2 — Scenario & audience
  User picks type (kickoff / status / wrap-up·annual / pitch / solution selling).
  Probe audience:
  □ Role and level?
  □ How much do they already know?
  □ Top concerns (tech / business / cost / time)?

Step 3 — Material intake
  Check completeness by type; ask for gaps:

  Kickoff:
  □ Background / market analysis
  □ Competitive landscape
  □ Team capabilities
  □ Goals and KPIs
  □ Resources and budget
  □ Timeline

  Status:
  □ Completed work this period
  □ Key metrics (progress / quality / efficiency)
  □ Risk list with judgment and mitigation
  □ Next-phase plan
  □ Decisions needed from leadership

  Wrap-up / annual:
  □ Original goals
  □ Quantified outcomes
  □ Lessons learned
  □ Next plan or handoff

  Pitch:
  □ Market data and reports
  □ Product demo or MVP status
  □ Competition
  □ Team intro
  □ Financials and forecast
  □ Funding ask and use of funds

  Solution selling:
  □ Customer background and pain
  □ Alternative solutions
  □ Our solution and capabilities
  □ Cases or POC plan
  □ Pricing or engagement model

  If user says "you know everything—just write":
  → Pull from memory and prior context
  → Open with "Based on available info; may be missing XX"

Step 4 — Draft to template
  Pick template; apply writing rules.
  After each part, ask: "Does this answer what they care about?"

Step 5 — Final check
  □ First 10 seconds feel relevant?
  □ Every number sourced and defined?
  □ Every risk has root cause + response?
  □ No vague "needs attention" without judgment?
  □ Cross-team mentions acknowledge others first?

Step 6 — User confirmation
  Present → "What should we adjust?"
  Format issues → add to format memory

Cross-scenario migration