sales-enablement

Produces sales enablement artifacts: objection-handling framework, talk track structure, and battlecard updates for in-deal use. Use when sales reps are losing deals to objections they can't handle, when a new competitor emerges in deals, or when onboarding new reps who need structured messaging. Requires: ICP card + competitive map as upstream inputs.

Zur Installation springen

Repository: 0xF4ng/aether-growth-fieldwork
Letzte Quellaktivität: 17. Juli 2026 um 16:44
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md: Englisch
Sterne: 5
Forks: 0

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

Zurück zur Suche Zurück zur Installation

name	sales-enablement
description	Produces sales enablement artifacts: objection-handling framework, talk track structure, and battlecard updates for in-deal use. Use when sales reps are losing deals to objections they can't handle, when a new competitor emerges in deals, or when onboarding new reps who need structured messaging. Requires: ICP card + competitive map as upstream inputs.
triggers	["/sales-enablement","sales reps are losing deals on specific objections","new competitor appearing in deals; need updated battlecard","onboarding new AEs or SDRs who need a talk track","user asks for objection handling, talk track, or sales messaging"]
role	workflow
version	1.0.0
sources	["Sales enablement frameworks synthesis (research synthesis, 2026-06-13)","MEDDIC / SPICED qualification framework","Challenger Sale — teaching buyers to think differently"]
feeds	[]
related	["pmm/competitive-map","pmm/positioning","pmm/icp-research"]

Sales Enablement

Role: Sales coach. You translate ICP research and competitive intelligence into artifacts reps can use in the room. The output is not a product brochure — it is structured decision support for live deals.

Before starting

Confirm (ask or infer):

ICP card available? Specifically: Layer D deciding language (exact customer quotes). Talk tracks built from paraphrases lose the market language.
Competitive map available? Required for battlecard content. If not available, run /competitive-map first.
Positioning statement available? Required for the talk track anchor.
Which artifact is needed? Objection handler / talk track / battlecard update / all three. Focus effort accordingly.

IF icp_card.deciding_language = empty or paraphrased →
  BLOCK. Return:
  "Talk track requires exact customer language from ICP Layer D (deciding language).
   Paraphrases produce generic pitch copy. Run /icp-research and collect
   direct quotes before building the talk track."

IF competitive_map = unavailable AND artifact_needed = battlecard →
  BLOCK. Return:
  "Battlecard requires competitor category framing and G2 weakness data from
   /competitive-map. Run that skill first, then return here."

Inputs

Input	Required?	Description
ICP card (Layer D deciding language)	Required	Exact customer quotes for talk track
Positioning statement	Required	The differentiation anchor
Competitive map	Required for battlecard	Competitor category framing + G2 weaknesses
CRM objection log	Recommended	Actual objections encountered in recent deals
Win/loss notes	Recommended	What specifically caused wins and losses

Contract

This skill guarantees:

Objection responses acknowledge the valid concern before differentiating — never dismissive
Talk track is grounded in customer language (Layer D) — not internal marketing copy
Battlecard responses are evidence-based: cite source (G2 review pattern, customer quote, benchmark)
Output is a working draft; every artifact requires pmm/content-review before customer-facing use

Type	Definition	Response approach
Price / ROI	"It's too expensive" / "I need to justify the cost"	ROI framing: what is the cost of the status quo?
Competitive displacement	"We already use [competitor]"	Acknowledge strength; surface the decision question
Timing	"Not right now / we're focused on X"	Validate; probe for the real reason; leave a door open
Trust / proof	"We haven't heard of you" / "Can I see a reference?"	Social proof: customer story, benchmark, specific name
Internal process	"I need to get buy-in from [stakeholder]"	Champion enablement: give them what they need to sell internally
Feature gap	"You don't have [feature]"	Honest assessment: is it a gap or a different design choice? When on roadmap?

IF no CRM objection log is available →
  WARN. Return:
  "No objection log provided. Using ICP Layer D (deciding language) and
   competitive map as proxies for likely objections.
   Validate this framework with sales reps before deploying."

Objection handler structure:

  Acknowledge: Validate the concern. Show you understand why it's real.
    NOT: "That's actually not true — let me explain..."
    YES: "That's fair — [competitor] has been in the market longer and a lot of
         teams already have it in their stack."

  Reframe: Shift the decision question.
    NOT: List features you have that they don't.
    YES: "The question isn't which tool has been around longer. It's whether [pain
         your product solves] is still an open problem for your team."

  Proof: One specific, named piece of evidence.
    NOT: "Our customers love us."
    YES: "[Customer name] made this exact switch. Within [timeframe], [specific
         outcome]. Happy to connect you."

  Next step: Small, specific, forward-moving ask.
    NOT: "Let me know if you want to learn more."
    YES: "Would it help to see how [proof customer] handled this decision?"

Opening (1–2 minutes):
  Reference a signal or context — not a generic pitch opener.
  "I know [Company] recently [trigger event context]. That's often when
  [the pain we solve] becomes urgent."

Discovery questions (5–10 minutes):
  Derive from ICP trigger event (Layer B) and JTBD (Layer A).
  Goal: confirm or disconfirm that the trigger event has occurred.

  Core questions (adapt to your trigger event):
  - "When did you last have a [incident/failure/bottleneck] related to [problem]?"
  - "What are you doing today to handle [problem]?"
  - "What would change if you could [desired outcome from JTBD]?"
  - "Who else cares about this — beyond you?"

Value framing (3–5 minutes):
  Use deciding language from Layer D — the exact phrases your customers use.
  NOT: "Our platform provides enterprise-grade [feature]."
  YES: "[Quote from Layer D — how customers describe the outcome]."

Competitive handling (as needed):
  Route to battlecard for this competitor.

Close / next step (1–2 minutes):
  Small, specific ask. Define what "yes" looks like.

## Champion enablement — [Competitor name]

Your champion needs to justify this internally. Give them the language:

"We chose [your product] over [competitor] because:
  [Specific, non-marketing reason — operational, economic, or risk-based]
  The proof: [Customer story or benchmark your champion can cite internally]."

What your champion should NOT say:
  [Generic claims that will be challenged by procurement / IT / leadership]

Artifact	When to produce	Requires content-review
Objection handler	Always	Yes — before use in customer-facing materials
Talk track	When onboarding reps or revamping discovery	Yes
Battlecard	When competitor appears in deals	Yes
Champion enablement card	When deals stall at internal sign-off	Yes

Anti-pattern	Why it fails	Fix
Objection responses that dismiss the objection	Loses trust; rep sounds defensive	Lead with acknowledgment; show you understand why the concern is valid
Talk track as a monologue	Rep talks; prospect disengages	Build discovery questions from ICP trigger event; rep goal is to confirm trigger occurred
Battlecard claims with no source	Sales rep can't back them up; credibility lost	Every battlecard claim cites a source (G2 review pattern, customer quote, benchmark)
Generic ROI statements ("save time and money")	Buyers have heard this; it has no proof weight	Name a specific customer, specific outcome, specific timeframe
Building talk track from marketing copy, not customer language	Marketing copy doesn't reflect how buyers describe their own problem	Use deciding language (Layer D) — the exact words, not cleaned-up paraphrases

Benchmark	Value	Source
Win rate improvement when reps have structured competitive battlecards	10–20%	Gong / Highspot research 2025
Rep ramp time with structured talk track vs. without	30–40% faster	Highspot 2024
% of deals lost to objections that were not handled	~35%	Winning by Design 2025
Champion talk track increases internal approval rate	~25%	Revenue Collective survey 2025