Othmane Khadri Gtm Engineer Playbook Gtm Engineer Playbook

Competitive Battlecard Generator

Generate comprehensive, actionable competitive battlecards using WebSearch. Each battlecard gives sales teams the intelligence they need to win competitive deals — competitor strengths, weaknesses, objection handling, and trap questions, all grounded in real research. Can batch-process up to 5 competitors in a single run.

Activation

When the user triggers this skill, follow the steps below in order. Do NOT skip the input step. Do NOT produce a battlecard without gathering context first.

Step 1 — Collect Input

Ask the user for these inputs all at once in a numbered list:

I need some context before building your battlecard(s). Answer these questions:

1. What is your company name and what do you do? (one sentence)
2. Which competitor(s) do you want a battlecard for? (1-5 names)
3. (Optional) What are your key differentiators? (3-5 bullets)
4. (Optional) Any known weaknesses of the competitor(s)?
5. (Optional) Are you usually compared to them? In what context?

Rules for this step:

• Wait for the user to respond before proceeding. Do NOT generate placeholder answers.
• Only question 1 and 2 are required. If either is missing, ask again.
• If the user provides more than 5 competitors, tell them you will batch the first 5 and they can run the skill again for the rest.
• If the user provides optional inputs, use them to sharpen the analysis. If they skip optionals, proceed without them — you will research independently.

Step 2 — Competitor Overview

For each competitor, run 2-3 WebSearch queries to establish a factual baseline.

Search patterns:

• "{competitor} what does it do" or "{competitor} company overview"
• "{competitor} funding crunchbase" or "{competitor} series funding investors"
• "{competitor} customers case studies" or "{competitor} pricing"

Gather these data points:

Rules:

• If any data point is not findable after searching, write "Not found." Never fabricate company data.
• Always include the source URL for each data point in the Sources section.

Step 3 — Their Pitch

For each competitor, run 1-2 WebSearch queries to document their messaging.

Search patterns:

• "{competitor}" (homepage messaging)
• "{competitor} why choose us" or "{competitor} vs alternatives"

Gather:

Step 4 — Strengths Analysis

Honestly assess what the competitor does well. A battlecard that ignores competitor advantages is useless — sales reps will lose credibility if they dismiss a competitor that the prospect already likes.

For each competitor, run 1-2 WebSearch queries.

Search patterns:

• "{competitor} reviews G2" or "why I chose {competitor}"
• "{competitor} case study results"

Document:

Step 5 — Weaknesses Analysis

Use WebSearch aggressively to find real complaints, criticisms, and gaps. This is the highest-value section of the battlecard.

Run 3-4 WebSearch queries per competitor:

Search patterns:

• "{competitor} reviews complaints" or "{competitor} negative reviews G2 Capterra"
• "{competitor} reddit problems" or "{competitor} reddit complaints"
• "{competitor} issues limitations" or "switching from {competitor}"
• "{competitor} vs" (often surfaces comparison articles that highlight weaknesses)

Organize weaknesses into categories:

Rules:

• Every weakness claim must have a source (URL, review platform, Reddit thread). Never invent criticisms.
• Distinguish between isolated complaints and patterns. A single bad review is an anecdote; five reviews mentioning the same issue is a pattern.

Step 6 — Win/Loss Patterns

Based on all research gathered so far, synthesize win/loss patterns. If the user provided optional inputs in Step 1 (known weaknesses, comparison context), factor those in.

Run 1-2 additional WebSearch queries if needed:

Search patterns:

• "{competitor} vs {your company}" or "why I switched from {competitor}"
• "{competitor} alternative for {use case}"

Document four categories:

Step 7 — Objection Handling

For each competitor, create 5-8 objection handling entries. These should cover the most common things a prospect says when they are leaning toward the competitor.

Format for each entry:

Rules:

• "They Say" should be phrased as the prospect would say it, not as a formal objection label. Example: "But {competitor} has better integrations" — not "Integration breadth objection."
• "The Truth" must be factual and fair. Acknowledge if the claim has merit, then provide the nuance.
• "We Say" must be conversational. Write it the way a sales rep would actually say it on a call. No jargon, no buzzwords, no corporate positioning statements.
• If you do not have enough information to fill 5 entries, fill what you can and note which objections need input from the user's sales team.

Step 8 — Trap Questions

Write 3-5 questions that a prospect can ask the competitor during their evaluation. These questions are designed to expose the competitor's weaknesses — but they must sound natural, not hostile.

For each trap question, provide:

1. The question — phrased the way a prospect would naturally ask it
2. Why it matters — what this question reveals about the competitor
3. What a good answer looks like — if the competitor answers well, they may genuinely be strong here
4. What a bad answer looks like — how the competitor will likely dodge, deflect, or struggle

Rules:

• Trap questions must never sound loaded or aggressive. They should sound like normal due-diligence questions a smart buyer would ask any vendor.
• Each question should target a different weakness (do not cluster all questions around the same issue).
• Ground each question in a real weakness found in Step 5.

Step 9 — Positioning Statement

For each competitor, write a concise positioning statement that a sales rep can use when the competitor comes up in conversation.

Three components:

Step 10 — Output

Per-Competitor Battlecard: docs/battlecards/{competitor-name-slug}.md

The slug is the competitor name lowercased with spaces replaced by hyphens and special characters removed (e.g., "Scale AI" becomes scale-ai, "HubSpot" becomes hubspot).

Create the docs/battlecards/ directory if it does not exist.

Use this structure:

# {Competitor Name} — Competitive Battlecard

**Generated:** {YYYY-MM-DD}
**Your Company:** {user's company name}
**Refresh Cadence:** Quarterly — battlecards go stale fast. Re-run this skill every 90 days.

---

## Company Details

| Field | Detail |
|---|---|
| **What they do** | {positioning statement} |
| **Founded** | {year} |
| **HQ** | {location} |
| **Employees** | {count or range} |
| **Funding** | {total raised, last round, key investors} |
| **Key Customers** | {logos} |
| **Target Market** | {who they sell to} |
| **Pricing** | {model and tiers, or "Not publicly available"} |

### Recent News
- {headline} — [{source}]({url}) ({date})
- ...

---

## Their Pitch

**Value Proposition:** {main claim}

**Top Claims:**
1. {claim}
2. {claim}
3. {claim}

**Differentiation Angle:** {how they describe what makes them different}

**Messaging Themes:** {recurring themes}

**Awards/Recognition:** {analyst mentions, badges, awards}

---

## Why {Your Company} Wins

### A | {Advantage Category 1}
{Description with proof points. Why the user's product is better in this dimension. Include specific evidence — features, customer quotes, benchmarks.}

### B | {Advantage Category 2}
{Description with proof points.}

### C | {Advantage Category 3}
{Description with proof points.}

---

## Their Strengths (Know What You're Up Against)

{Honest assessment. What they do well, where they have an advantage, what customers love. Sales reps who dismiss competitor strengths lose credibility.}

---

## Their Weaknesses

{Organized by category: feature gaps, pricing complaints, support issues, implementation difficulties, product quality, churn signals. Every claim cited with a source.}

---

## When We Win vs. Lose

| Scenario | Outcome | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | **WIN** | {Why you win in this scenario} |
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | **WIN** | {Why you win in this scenario} |
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | **LOSE** | {Why you lose in this scenario} |
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | **LOSE** | {Why you lose in this scenario} |

**Deal Killers:** {Things that make the competitor unbeatable for certain buyers}

---

## Objection Handling

| They Say | The Truth | We Say |
|----------|-----------|--------|
| "{prospect/competitor claim}" | {reality behind the claim} | "{conversational counter-positioning}" |
| ... | ... | ... |

---

## Trap Questions

1. **"{Natural-sounding question}"**
   - *Why it matters:* {what this question reveals}
   - *Good answer:* {what it looks like if they handle it well}
   - *Bad answer:* {how they will likely dodge or struggle}

2. **"{Natural-sounding question}"**
   - *Why it matters:* ...
   - *Good answer:* ...
   - *Bad answer:* ...

3. ...

---

## Quick Positioning

> **When they come up:** {one sentence to acknowledge them}
>
> **How to differentiate:** {2-3 sentences — your angle}
>
> **Compete or walk away:** {one sentence — when to fight, when to focus elsewhere}

---

## Sources

- [{description}]({url})
- [{description}]({url})
- ...

---

*Last Updated: {YYYY-MM-DD} | Refresh quarterly or when major competitor news breaks.*

Summary File: docs/battlecards/README.md

If this file already exists, update it. If not, create it.

# Competitive Battlecards

Last updated: {YYYY-MM-DD}

## Competitor Summary

| Competitor | One-Line Summary | Biggest Weakness | When We Win | When We Lose | Battlecard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| {Name} | {What they do in one sentence} | {Top weakness} | {Top win scenario} | {Top loss scenario} | [{name}.md](./{slug}.md) |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

*Refresh quarterly. Run the Competitive Battlecard Generator skill to update or add new competitors.*

When updating README.md, merge new competitor entries with any existing rows. If a competitor was previously listed, replace its row with the new data.

Tools

Rules (Non-Negotiable)

1. Be honest about competitor strengths. A battlecard that pretends the competitor has no advantages is worse than useless — it destroys sales rep credibility. Acknowledge what they do well, then show why you still win.
2. Always cite sources. Every weakness claim, review quote, and factual assertion must trace back to a URL in the Sources section. No source, no claim.
3. Trap questions must sound natural. They should read like normal due-diligence questions a smart buyer would ask any vendor. Never hostile, never loaded.
4. Objection handling must be conversational. Write "We Say" entries the way a sales rep would actually talk on a call. No corporate jargon, no buzzword-laden positioning statements.
5. Never fabricate data. If WebSearch returns nothing for a data point, write "Not found." Do not invent funding amounts, employee counts, customer names, or review quotes.
6. Handle pricing honestly. If pricing is not publicly available, write "Pricing not publicly available — ask during discovery." Do not guess pricing.
7. Include a refresh date. Every battlecard must include a "Last Updated" date and a note that battlecards should be refreshed quarterly. Competitive intelligence goes stale fast.
8. Check for existing battlecards. Before writing, use Glob to check docs/battlecards/ for an existing file for this competitor. If one exists, tell the user and ask: "A battlecard for {competitor} already exists (last updated {date}). Do you want to (A) overwrite it with fresh research, or (B) skip this competitor?"
9. No internal references. This skill is part of a public playbook. Never reference internal tools, client names, Notion databases, or proprietary infrastructure.
10. Works universally. This skill works for any B2B company analyzing any competitor. Do not assume a specific industry, company size, or GTM motion.
11. Create directories as needed. If docs/battlecards/ does not exist, create it before writing files.
12. Cap at 5 competitors per run. If the user asks for more than 5, process the first 5 and tell them to run the skill again for the rest. Each competitor requires 10-15 searches — more than 5 in a single run degrades quality.

Source: Othmane-Khadri/gtm-engineer-playbook — distributed by TomeVault.