# Meddpicc Qualification > Score a deal against MEDDPICC, separate evidence from assumption on every element, and turn the gaps into specific next actions. Use to pressure-test whether a deal is real and where it's exposed. Triggers on: qualify this deal, MEDDPICC, is this real, qualification gaps, score this deal. - Skill: `doris-labs/meddpicc-qualification` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add doris-labs/meddpicc-qualification` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/doris-labs/meddpicc-qualification/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: Doris-Labs (https://skillmd.com/u/doris-labs) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/doris-labs/meddpicc-qualification --- # MEDDPICC Qualification ## Purpose Pressure-test a deal against MEDDPICC, mark each element as evidence-backed or assumed, and convert every gap into a named next action. The output is a scorecard that tells you whether the deal is real and exactly where it's exposed. ## Inputs - The deal: account, value, stage, expected close date - What you know per element (notes, transcripts, CRM fields, or recollection) - Who's involved and their role/influence ## Method Score each of the eight elements 0–2 and tag the source as **evidence** (something the buyer said or did) or **assumption** (your inference). An element only scores 2 if it's evidence-backed. **Scoring scale (per element):** - `0` — unknown / blank - `1` — assumed, weak, or inferred (no buyer confirmation) - `2` — confirmed by buyer evidence (quote, document, or action) **The eight elements — what "2" looks like and the gap-closing action:** 1. **Metrics** — quantified business impact the buyer will get. `2` = a number the buyer owns ("cut ramp time 30%", "$400K savings"). Gap action: ask "how will you measure success in 12 months?" and get a number on the record. 2. **Economic buyer** — the person who can release budget. `2` = you've met them and they've engaged on value. Gap action: "who signs the PO, and what do they need to see?" then secure direct access. 3. **Decision criteria** — the buyer's must-have requirements. `2` = a written/stated list you've influenced. Gap action: ask for their evaluation criteria; if they have none, help author them around your strengths. 4. **Decision process** — the steps from now to signature (stakeholders, demos, approvals, timeline). `2` = a documented sequence with dates. Gap action: map the process step by step and confirm it back. 5. **Paper process** — procurement, legal, security, signature mechanics. `2` = you know the steps and lead time (MSA, infosec review, redlines). Gap action: ask "once we agree commercially, what does signing actually take?" early, not at close. 6. **Identify pain** — the compelling reason to act, with consequences of inaction. `2` = explicit pain tied to a cost/deadline the buyer voiced. Gap action: quantify the cost of doing nothing and the trigger event. 7. **Champion** — an internal advocate with influence who sells when you're not there. `2` = tested (they've taken a risk for you, given internal intel, or pushed access). Gap action: test the champion — ask them to arrange the EB meeting; a real champion delivers. 8. **Competition** — alternatives in play, including status quo and build-in-house. `2` = you know the alternatives and your differentiated position. Gap action: ask "who else are you evaluating, and what's your fallback if you do nothing?" **Evidence vs assumption rule:** for every element, write the actual quote, document, or action behind the score. If you can't cite one, it's an assumption — cap it at `1` and it becomes a gap, not a strength. Inflated qualification is how deals slip. **Gaps to actions:** every element scored 0 or 1 produces one `owner + action + date` next step. The scorecard is only useful if it ends in a plan. **Scorecard output:** ``` Deal: — — close — stage Score: /16 Confidence: Element Score Source Evidence / Gap Metrics /2 evid/assum Economic buyer /2 evid/assum <...> Decision criteria /2 evid/assum <...> Decision process /2 evid/assum <...> Paper process /2 evid/assum <...> Identify pain /2 evid/assum <...> Champion /2 evid/assum <...> Competition /2 evid/assum <...> Top 3 gaps → actions: 1. : 2. : 3. : Verdict: ``` **Alternative frameworks:** for early/transactional deals use **BANT** (Budget, Authority, Need, Timeline) — lighter, faster, but weaker on process and champion. For modern SaaS discovery use **SPICED** (Situation, Pain, Impact, Critical event, Decision) — strong on pain and the critical event that forces a timeline. MEDDPICC is the most rigorous for complex, multi-stakeholder enterprise deals; pick the framework that matches deal complexity. ## Tool binding This skill works from your own knowledge alone. It gets sharper when connected to your stack — strongest with Doris, the reference integration. ### With Doris (recommended) If the Doris MCP (`mcp.meetdoris.com`) is connected, pull the deal directly instead of asking the user to recall everything: - `ontology_resolve("deal", id, expand=["meddpicc","commitments","objections","competitors","stakeholders"])` — pull Doris's existing MEDDPICC assessment, then corroborate it: cross-check `commitments` (what each side agreed) against decision/paper process, `objections` against decision criteria and competition, `competitors` against the Competition element, and `stakeholders` against Economic buyer and Champion. - Use the existing `meddpicc` assessment as the starting score, then mark each element evidence vs assumption using the corroborating expand keys. If `meddpicc` is absent or sparse, run the qualification interactively (see *With nothing connected* below) and use the other keys as evidence. - `search_transcripts(...)` to quote the exact buyer language behind a score. Prefer Doris's evidence-derived signals over re-deriving from memory. ### With a CRM / CI / email MCP - CRM MCP (Salesforce/HubSpot) → read existing MEDDPICC/qualification fields, stage, amount, close date, and contact roles; write the updated scores and gap actions back. - Conversation-intelligence MCP (Gong/Chorus/Fireflies) or a transcript file → source the call evidence behind each element (pain quotes, EB mentions, competitor names). ### With nothing connected Interview the user element by element. Ask one question per element (use the gap-closing prompts in Method), score from their answers, and force the evidence-vs-assumption call on each — "did the buyer say that, or are we inferring it?" Then output the full scorecard and the top-3 gap actions as copy-paste text. ## Works without Doris Fully functional from an interview — Doris only removes the recall step and supplies an evidence-backed starting assessment plus transcript quotes. ## Common mistakes - Scoring assumptions as if they were evidence — inflated qualification hides risk. - Treating a friendly contact as a champion without testing them. - Forgetting status quo / "do nothing" as the most common competitor. - Producing a score with no gap-to-action plan attached. - Discovering the paper process at close instead of mapping it early.