| name | write-battle-card |
| description | Write a competitive battle card — a one-page sales reference for a specific competitor. Produces a concise card with win/lose analysis, objection handling, and proof points. Use when sales needs a quick reference for competitive deals. |
| argument-hint | [competitor name or product to create battle card for] |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Glob, Grep |
Write a competitive battle card for $ARGUMENTS.
A battle card is a one-page reference a salesperson can use during a live call. It must be scannable in under 30 seconds, evidence-based, and honest about where we lose.
Step 1 — Research the competitor
Before writing anything, gather current intelligence:
- Check existing analysis. Search the codebase and docs for prior
/gtm:competitive-analysis output on this competitor. Do not duplicate work.
- Competitor profile. What do they do? Who do they sell to? What is their pricing model?
- Recent changes. New features, pricing changes, acquisitions, leadership changes — anything that affects competitive positioning.
- Win/loss data. Search for deal retrospectives, CRM notes, or customer feedback that mentions this competitor.
Rule: Every claim on the battle card must have a source. If you cannot verify it, mark it as "Unverified — needs confirmation" rather than stating it as fact.
Step 2 — Identify win/lose dynamics
Analyse head-to-head dynamics across dimensions that matter to buyers:
| Dimension | We win | They win | It's a wash |
|---|
| [Core capability 1] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] |
| [Core capability 2] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] |
| Pricing | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] |
| Ease of use | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] |
| Support | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] |
| Integration | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] | [specific evidence] |
Rules for win/lose analysis:
- Be specific. "Better UX" is not a win. "Onboarding takes 5 minutes vs. their 2-hour setup" is a win.
- Include where we lose. A battle card that claims we win everywhere is not credible. Sales will lose trust in the card and stop using it.
- Quantify where possible. Numbers beat adjectives. "3x faster" beats "much faster."
- Focus on what buyers care about. Winning on a dimension buyers ignore is not winning.
Step 3 — Build objection handling
For every common objection a prospect raises about choosing us over this competitor, provide a structured response:
### Objection: "[What the prospect says]"
**Why they say it:** [Root cause — is it a real concern, a misconception, or competitor FUD?]
**Response:** [What the salesperson should say — conversational, not scripted]
**Proof point:** [Specific evidence — customer quote, benchmark, case study, documentation link]
Build at least 4 objection-response pairs. Prioritise by frequency — the objections sales hears most go first.
For enterprise deals with multiple buyer personas: Segment objections by buyer role. The CFO's objection about TCO is different from the VP Engineering's objection about API coverage. Structure as:
### Objections by buyer persona
#### Economic buyer (e.g., CFO/VP Finance)
[Objections about cost, TCO, ROI, contract terms]
#### Technical buyer (e.g., VP Engineering/CTO)
[Objections about integration, migration, API, security]
#### End user (e.g., sales reps, account managers)
[Objections about UX, speed, mobile, workflow disruption]
TCO comparison for enterprise deals: When the competitor is an established platform (Salesforce, HubSpot, etc.), include a TCO breakdown with specific line items: licence cost per seat, implementation/migration cost, training, ongoing admin overhead, and integration maintenance. "We're cheaper" is not a TCO comparison.
Rules for objection handling:
- Never dismiss the objection. Acknowledge it, then redirect.
- Proof points are mandatory. A response without evidence is opinion. Prospects can smell it.
- If the objection is valid, say so. "That's a fair point — here's how our customers work around it" is stronger than denying reality.
Step 4 — Create landmine questions
Landmine questions are questions the salesperson asks the prospect that expose competitor weaknesses without directly attacking the competitor.
Questions to ask (expose their weaknesses)
| Question | Why it works | Expected answer if using competitor |
|---|
| "[Question that probes a known weakness]" | [What this reveals] | [What they'll likely say, and how to follow up] |
| "[Question about a capability we're strong in]" | [What this reveals] | [What they'll likely say, and how to follow up] |
| "[Question about total cost of ownership]" | [What this reveals] | [What they'll likely say, and how to follow up] |
Questions to avoid (expose our weaknesses)
| Question | Why it's dangerous | If it comes up anyway |
|---|
| "[Question that probes our known weakness]" | [What this reveals about us] | [How to handle it honestly] |
| "[Question about a capability they're strong in]" | [What this reveals about us] | [How to redirect the conversation] |
Rule: Never coach salespeople to lie or mislead. Landmine questions should reveal genuine differences, not trick the prospect.
Step 5 — Assemble the battle card
Compile the final battle card using this template:
# Battle Card: [Our Product] vs. [Competitor]
**Last updated:** [date]
**Confidence level:** [High / Medium / Low — based on data freshness and completeness]
## TL;DR
[2-3 sentences: when we win, when we lose, and the single most important thing to remember]
## Quick Comparison
| Dimension | Us | Them | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| [dimension] | [specific] | [specific] | [Win / Lose / Tie] |
## Where We Win
1. [Strongest advantage — with proof point]
2. [Second advantage — with proof point]
3. [Third advantage — with proof point]
## Where We Lose (be honest)
1. [Their advantage — with mitigation strategy]
2. [Their advantage — with mitigation strategy]
## Objection Handling
For single-persona deals, use a flat table. For enterprise deals with multiple buyer personas, segment by role:
### Economic Buyer (CFO/VP Finance)
| Objection | Response | Proof |
|---|---|---|
| "[cost/TCO objection]" | [response] | [evidence] |
### Technical Buyer (VP Eng/CTO)
| Objection | Response | Proof |
|---|---|---|
| "[integration/migration/API objection]" | [response] | [evidence] |
### End User
| Objection | Response | Proof |
|---|---|---|
| "[UX/workflow objection]" | [response] | [evidence] |
## Landmine Questions
- "[Question to ask]" — reveals [what]
- "[Question to ask]" — reveals [what]
- "[Question to ask]" — reveals [what]
## Questions to Avoid
- "[Dangerous question]" — if it comes up: [how to handle]
## Key Proof Points
- **Customer quote:** "[quote]" — [customer name/type, segment: SMB/mid-market/enterprise]
- **Benchmark:** [metric comparison with source and date]
Proof points must match the deal segment. An SMB case study doesn't carry weight in an enterprise deal. Tag each proof point with the segment it applies to so reps can pick the right one for the room they're in.
- **Case study:** [summary with link]
[Source 1 — date last checked]
[Source 2 — date last checked]
Rules
- Evidence-based only. Every claim needs a source. No unsourced assertions on a document salespeople will use in front of prospects.
- Update quarterly at minimum. A stale battle card is worse than no battle card — it gives salespeople false confidence. Include the "last updated" date prominently.
- Be honest about weaknesses. Sales reps will discover our weaknesses in live calls. If the battle card doesn't prepare them, they'll be caught flat-footed and lose the deal anyway.
- Concise enough for a sales call. If a rep can't scan the card and find what they need in 30 seconds, the card is too long. Prefer tables and bullets over paragraphs.
- One competitor per card. Do not combine multiple competitors into a single card. Each card is a focused reference for a specific competitive deal.
- Proof points must be current. A case study from 2 years ago or a benchmark on a deprecated version hurts credibility.
- All output is DRAFT until human-reviewed. Label every output with "DRAFT — requires human review" at the top and bottom. Sales-facing content must be reviewed and edited by a human before distribution to the sales team.
Related Skills
/gtm:competitive-analysis — feeds into this skill. Run a competitive analysis first to generate the research that battle cards distil into a sales-ready format./gtm:positioning — provides the positioning context that shapes how we frame our advantages on the battle card.
