| name | battle-card-builder |
| argument-hint | [your product vs which competitor, and the deal context] |
| description | Research and draft a competitive battle card from public evidence — every claim labeled and sourced. Use when a rep needs a field-action card, not a research report. |
| intent | Autonomous battle card construction: given your product and one competitor, the AI does the fieldwork — pricing pages, reviews, release notes, customer stories — and produces a field-action card with a source URL and Fact/Inference/Assumption label on every claim, sized to a rep's thirty seconds. |
| type | workflow |
| theme | market-intelligence |
| best_for | ["Arming sales against one competitor with claims they can actually defend","Turning a competitive snapshot or watch report into a field-action artifact","Building trap questions whose documented answers favor you"] |
| scenarios | ["We keep hitting the same rival in enterprise deals — build the battle card from public evidence","Our battle card is six months old and sales stopped trusting it; rebuild it with sources"] |
| estimated_time | 20-35 min per run |
Battle Card Builder
Purpose
Build a field-action competitive battle card from public evidence: use or gather evidence → search
plan (if gathering) → draft card with per-claim labels → appendix → next-step options. A battle
card is the artifact a rep opens mid-deal, not a research report — it must fit thirty seconds, every
claim must survive being said out loud to a hostile audience, and every claim therefore carries a
source URL, a date, and a Fact/Inference/Assumption label. Most battle cards in the wild are unlabeled
inference; this skill exists because of what it costs a rep when one of those turns out wrong.
Input
Works best with: your product and its primary differentiation, and the one competitor this
card targets.
Also useful: the deal context (segment, buyer, common objections or the loss reason that triggered
this card), and any competitive-research-snapshot or
competitive-intel-watch output in session — the skill uses
existing evidence and searches only for gaps and anything older than one quarter.
Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended ARGUMENTS: line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
don't re-ask.
Arriving empty-handed? That works too. The skill opens with at most 3 questions (product +
competitor, segment + buyer, triggering objection) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go
unanswered.
Example invocation: Build a battle card: our workflow platform vs [Competitor A], mid-market ops buyers — triggered by three straight losses on "their integrations are deeper."
Key Concepts
- Governing protocol: honors the
autonomous-investigation
contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step.
- Discipline mix: SIGINT (pricing pages, site diffs — the freshest layer, what keeps cards from
going stale) + OSINT (review mining for objection handling) + HUMINT (win/loss ground truth when
you have it) — see
intelligence-collection-disciplines.
