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 tenets
• output-simplicity.md — length caps, three-layer source placement, robot-tells ban
• doc-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-research skill
• User wants sales deck → Use /sales-deck skill
• User wants demo script → Use /demo-script skill
• User wants competitive feature comparison only → Use /competitor-research skill

---

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:

1. Quick facts — Founded, funding, employees, target market, pricing model, starting price (side-by-side table)
2. When we win — 3 specific scenarios + verbatim customer proof point
3. When we lose — 2+ honest losing scenarios + mitigation actions
4. Their pitch — Verbatim competitor language + key claims
5. Counter-positioning — Scripted "when they say X, we say Y" responses
6. Feature comparison — Honest table with winner-per-row
7. Landmines to plant — 3+ discovery questions that expose competitor weaknesses
8. Objection handling — Common objections with proof-pointed responses
9. Red flags — When to walk away (qualification-out criteria)
10. 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:

1. Never invent competitor claims. Only use verified data with sources.
2. Never fabricate customer quotes. Verbatim only or mark "[PLACEHOLDER: need customer quote]".
3. Never guess competitor pricing. Use verified data or mark "[CONFIRM: pricing]".
4. Mark confidence levels on all competitive intel (High/Medium/Low/UNVERIFIED).
5. Cite sources for all factual claims with access dates.
6. Acknowledge gaps rather than fill with plausible content.
7. 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.

---