| name | competitive-battlecard-generator |
| description | Use when analyzing competitors, creating sales battlecards, building competitive positioning, preparing for competitive deals, or updating competitive intelligence. Triggers: 'battlecard for [competitor]', 'competitive analysis of [competitor]', 'how do we beat [competitor]', 'compare us to [competitor]', 'competitive intel', 'win against [competitor]'. |
| version | 1.0.0 |
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:
| Field | Description |
|---|
| What they do | Their positioning statement — how they describe themselves (from their homepage or about page) |
| Founded | Year founded |
| HQ | Headquarters location |
| Company size | Employee count range |
| Funding | Total raised, last round, key investors (for private companies) |
| Key customers | Named logos from case studies, website, or press releases (3-8 names) |
| Target market | Who they sell to — company size, industry, buyer persona |
| Pricing model | Pricing tiers, per-seat, usage-based, etc. If not publicly available, write "Pricing not publicly available — ask during discovery" |
| Recent news | 1-3 headlines from the last 90 days with source URLs |
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:
| Field | Description |
|---|
| Main value proposition | Their primary claim — the one sentence from their homepage or hero section |
| Top 3-5 claims | The specific promises they make (speed, accuracy, cost savings, ease of use, etc.) |
| How they differentiate | What they say makes them different from competitors |
| Key messaging themes | Recurring themes across their marketing (innovation, simplicity, enterprise-grade, etc.) |
| Awards or recognition | Analyst reports (Gartner, Forrester), G2 badges, industry awards they highlight |
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:
| Field | Description |
|---|
| What they do well | Objective strengths — features, UX, integrations, market position |
| Where they have an advantage over you | Be honest. If they are better at something, say so. This helps reps prepare instead of getting blindsided. |
| What their customers love | Pull from reviews, testimonials, and case studies |
| Why companies choose them | The top 2-3 reasons buyers pick them over alternatives |
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:
| Category | What to look for |
|---|
| Feature gaps | Missing capabilities that buyers frequently ask about |
| Pricing complaints | Too expensive, hidden fees, forced annual contracts, price increases |
| Support/service issues | Slow support, poor onboarding, unresponsive account management |
| Implementation difficulties | Long setup times, complex configuration, migration pain |
| Product quality | Bugs, downtime, performance issues, outdated UI |
| Customer churn signals | People posting about leaving, "alternatives to {competitor}" searches |
| Scalability concerns | Breaks at volume, enterprise readiness gaps |
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:
| Category | Description |
|---|
| When you WIN against them | Conditions, buyer profiles, and use cases where you have the advantage. Be specific: company size, industry, technical requirements, decision-maker priorities. |
| When you LOSE to them | Conditions where they are stronger. Sales reps need to know when they are walking into a tough fight. |
| Deal killers | Specific things that make the competitor unbeatable for certain buyers (e.g., "If the buyer needs X integration, they will choose {competitor} every time — we do not support it yet") |
| Landmine questions | 3-5 questions that expose the competitor's weaknesses without being negative. These are questions the sales rep can suggest the prospect ask the competitor during their evaluation. |
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:
| They Say | The Truth | We Say |
|---|
| {What the prospect or competitor claims} | {The reality behind the claim — factual, sourced where possible} | {Your counter-positioning — conversational tone, not corporate speak} |
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:
- The question — phrased the way a prospect would naturally ask it
- Why it matters — what this question reveals about the competitor
- What a good answer looks like — if the competitor answers well, they may genuinely be strong here
- 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:
| Component | What to write |
|---|
| When they come up | One sentence to acknowledge the competitor without dismissing them. Shows respect and confidence. |
| How to differentiate | 2-3 sentences explaining the user's angle — why the user's product is a better choice for certain buyers. Must be specific, not generic "we're better." |
| When to compete vs. walk away | One sentence defining when this is a winnable deal vs. when the sales rep should focus elsewhere. |
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.}
---
| Scenario | Outcome | Why |
|----------|---------|-----|
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | | {Why you win in this scenario} |
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | | {Why you win in this scenario} |
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | | {Why you lose in this scenario} |
| {Buyer profile / use case / conditions} | | {Why you lose in this scenario} |
{Things that make the competitor unbeatable for certain buyers}
---
| They Say | The Truth | We Say |
|----------|-----------|--------|
| "{prospect/competitor claim}" | {reality behind the claim} | "{conversational counter-positioning}" |
| ... | ... | ... |
---
{what this question reveals}
{what it looks like if they handle it well}
{how they will likely dodge or struggle}
...
...
...
...
---
---
[]()
[]()
...
---
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
| Tool | Purpose |
|---|
| WebSearch | Primary tool. Run 10-15 searches per competitor to cover all sections. Batch independent searches into the same message to run in parallel. |
| Read | Check if docs/battlecards/README.md or existing battlecards already exist. |
| Write | Output the battlecard file and update the README. |
| Glob | Check docs/battlecards/ for existing battlecard files to avoid overwriting without warning. |
Rules (Non-Negotiable)
- 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.
- 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.
- Trap questions must sound natural. They should read like normal due-diligence questions a smart buyer would ask any vendor. Never hostile, never loaded.
- 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.
- 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.
- Handle pricing honestly. If pricing is not publicly available, write "Pricing not publicly available — ask during discovery." Do not guess pricing.
- 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.
- 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?"
- No internal references. This skill is part of a public playbook. Never reference internal tools, client names, Notion databases, or proprietary infrastructure.
- Works universally. This skill works for any B2B company analyzing any competitor. Do not assume a specific industry, company size, or GTM motion.
- Create directories as needed. If
docs/battlecards/ does not exist, create it before writing files.
- 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.
