matteotitta Battlecards
Quick-reference competitive intelligence battlecards for live sales conversations. Designed to be scanned in 30 seconds during a call. Supports batch generation for multiple competitors with confidence-level sourcing on every claim.
The body of this file holds decision-grade context (when to invoke, inputs, structure, anti-hallucination guardrails, gotchas). Step-by-step process, output template, quality gates, and feedback loops live in the premium reference.
Doctrine inherited (Step 7 — 0626 rollout)
Output complies with:
output-tenets.md— the seven tenetsoutput-simplicity.md— length caps, three-layer source placement, robot-tells bandoc-output-structure.md— GDoc/Notion structural defaults- Step 6 calibration: see [[feedback_execution_doctrine_refinements_step6]]
Refinements applied to this skill:
| Code | Refinement | How it lands in battlecards |
|---|---|---|
| R1 | Source placement (three layers) | Battlecards are internal-reference (rep-facing). Inline [VERIFIED:...] tags stay — auditability matters more than polish for sales QA. Working markdown keeps citations inline. Published Notion playbook can move them to a per-card toggle if reps prefer the cleaner read. |
| R2 | Single-doc-with-toggles | Multi-competitor battlecard packs ship as one doc with one toggle per competitor — not 8 separate files. Reps scan the index, expand the competitor that came up on the call. |
| R3 | Product-update tone | Capability framing in win themes — "we ship X" not "we are thrilled to announce." Reps repeat what they see. |
| R9 | Action-oriented section names | "Win themes / Landmines to plant / Objection handlers / Counter-positioning" — already verb-led. Preserve. |
Claude Code triggers
Invoke this skill when user says:
- "Create battlecard for [competitor]"
- "Competitive battlecard"
- "How to win against [competitor]"
- "Competitive intel for sales"
- "Battlecards for [product]"
- "Sales battlecard"
- "Counter-positioning against [competitor]"
- "Competitive one-pager" (if focus is on win/lose scenarios)
Do NOT invoke when:
- User wants deep competitor research → Use
/competitor-researchskill - User wants sales deck → Use
/sales-deckskill - User wants demo script → Use
/demo-scriptskill - User wants competitive feature comparison only → Use
/competitor-researchskill
Input requirements
Required inputs
| Input | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Competitor name(s) | Which competitor(s) to create battlecards for | User specifies |
| Your product context | What you sell, key capabilities | User, product-messaging, or URL |
Optional inputs (improve quality)
| Input | How it helps |
|---|---|
| competitor-research output | Pre-researched intel (funding, features, positioning) |
| win-loss-analysis output | When we win/lose patterns with evidence |
| Product messaging | Counter-positioning based on your value props |
| Positioning context | Strategic anchors for competitive framing |
| Competitor URLs | For live research if no prior research exists |
| Sales call transcripts | Real objections and competitive mentions |
Input validation checklist
Before proceeding, verify:
- Competitor(s) confirmed
- Your product's key differentiators known
- At least one intel source available (research, URL, or docs)
If inputs are missing: Ask which competitor(s). Offer to run competitor-research first if no intel available.
Process at a glance
| Phase | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Competitor selection | Confirm scope (single vs batch) | Confirmed competitor list |
| 2. Intel gathering | Pull from research + win-loss + web research | Intel dossier per competitor |
| 3. Battlecard generation | Fill template, add confidence levels, write talk tracks + landmines | Draft battlecard(s) |
| 4. Validation & delivery | Verify sources, format for delivery | Final battlecard(s) |
Full step-by-step (with checkpoints, confidence framework, workflow sequences, GDrive export commands) in the premium reference.
Battlecard structure (decision-grade)
Every battlecard contains these sections — in this order, no exceptions:
- Quick facts — Founded, funding, employees, target market, pricing model, starting price (side-by-side table)
- When we win — 3 specific scenarios + verbatim customer proof point
- When we lose — 2+ honest losing scenarios + mitigation actions
- Their pitch — Verbatim competitor language + key claims
- Counter-positioning — Scripted "when they say X, we say Y" responses
- Feature comparison — Honest table with winner-per-row
- Landmines to plant — 3+ discovery questions that expose competitor weaknesses
- Objection handling — Common objections with proof-pointed responses
- Red flags — When to walk away (qualification-out criteria)
- Sources — Every claim with URL + access date + confidence
Full template with field-level guidance in the premium reference. Output wrapper format and iteration prompts in the premium reference.
Anti-hallucination guardrails
Critical for sales credibility:
- Never invent competitor claims. Only use verified data with sources.
- Never fabricate customer quotes. Verbatim only or mark "[PLACEHOLDER: need customer quote]".
- Never guess competitor pricing. Use verified data or mark "[CONFIRM: pricing]".
- Mark confidence levels on all competitive intel (High/Medium/Low/UNVERIFIED).
- Cite sources for all factual claims with access dates.
- Acknowledge gaps rather than fill with plausible content.
- Be honest about weaknesses. "When we lose" builds credibility with sales team.
Gotchas
- Fabricated competitor pricing: Invents pricing tiers when pricing page is gated or not found → Mark pricing as [UNAVAILABLE] and note where to find it (sales call, demo request). Never guess.
- Generic objection handlers: Produces "we're more reliable" instead of specific counter-arguments → Every objection handler must reference a concrete differentiator or proof point.
- Missing landmines: Only covers strengths, forgets to include questions that expose competitor weaknesses → Landmines are the most valuable section for sales reps. 3-5 questions per competitor minimum.
- Stale competitive data: Uses old competitor positioning without checking current website → Always scrape competitor website at time of battlecard creation. Note access date.
Integration with other skills
Upstream skills (provide inputs)
| Skill | What it provides | Required? |
|---|---|---|
| competitor-research | Company facts, positioning, features, pricing | Recommended |
| win-loss-analysis | Win/loss patterns, objections, proof points | Recommended |
| product-messaging | Your value props for counter-positioning | Recommended |
| positioning | Strategic competitive anchors | Optional |
Downstream skills (consume outputs)
| Skill | How it uses battlecards |
|---|---|
| sales-deck | Differentiation slide content |
| demo-script | Objection handling during demos |
| outreach-emails | Competitive displacement email content |
MCP data integration
Level: 2 — PM Execution (inherits upstream, no unique pulls)
Inherits from: competitor-research, win-loss-analysis, product-messaging
Pulls fresh: NONE — all data comes from upstream. Battlecards synthesize existing competitor research and win-loss patterns.
Fallback (no MCP): Use competitor-research and win-loss-analysis outputs directly. If upstream skills haven't run, trigger them first before running battlecards.
Final ship gate
Run /premortem --output before ship. See /premortem skill for the 5 execution domains (will-it-resonate / will-it-convert / will-it-stay-on-brand / will-stakeholder-push-back / will-it-degrade-over-time) and output template.
Then run /scope-guardian-reviewer — the client-deliverable ship gate: scope-creep check on proposals/SOWs (pm-loop.md).
Trivial-case escape: ## Premortem\nNo failure modes — trivial change satisfies the contract for genuinely trivial outputs.