| name | battlecards |
| version | 1.0 |
| last_updated | "2026-02-06T00:00:00.000Z" |
| author | marketing-team |
| description | Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. Produces win themes, landmines to plant, objection handlers, and competitive positioning per competitor. Outputs a structured markdown battlecard with quick-reference sections for live sales calls. Depends on competitor-research for competitive intelligence and consumes product-messaging, win-loss-analysis, and positioning for framing. Feeds into sales-deck, outreach-emails, and demo-script. Triggered by "battlecard", "competitive intel", "win against [competitor]", or "how do we beat [competitor]". |
| goal | Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. |
| outcome | Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. Produces win themes, landmines to plant, objection handlers, and competitive positioning per competitor. Outputs a structured markdown battlecard with quick-reference sections for live sales calls. Depends on competitor-research for... |
| primitive | sales-enablement |
| ontology_type | battlecard |
| review_gate | 2 |
| inputs | {"required":[],"recommended":["competitor-research","product-messaging","win-loss-analysis","positioning"]} |
| outputs | [{"type":"battlecard","feeds_into":["sales-deck","outreach-emails","demo-script"]}] |
| depends_on | [] |
| feeds_into | ["demo-script","outreach-emails","sales-deck"] |
| owned_by_agent | sales |
| mcps_used | [] |
| push_targets | ["gdrive"] |
| triggers | {"slash_commands":[],"natural_language":[]} |
| status | draft |
| locked_by | null |
| locked_date | null |
| lock_version | null |
| sources_count | 0 |
| context | fork |
| effort | high |
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 references/.
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:
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 references/process.md.
Battlecard structure (decision-grade)
Every battlecard contains these sections — in this order, no exceptions:
- Quick facts — Founded, funding, employees, target market, pricing model, starting price (side-by-side table)
- When we win — 3 specific scenarios + verbatim customer proof point
- When we lose — 2+ honest losing scenarios + mitigation actions
- Their pitch — Verbatim competitor language + key claims
- Counter-positioning — Scripted "when they say X, we say Y" responses
- Feature comparison — Honest table with winner-per-row
- Landmines to plant — 3+ discovery questions that expose competitor weaknesses
- Objection handling — Common objections with proof-pointed responses
- Red flags — When to walk away (qualification-out criteria)
- Sources — Every claim with URL + access date + confidence
Full template with field-level guidance in references/battlecard-template.md. Output wrapper format and iteration prompts in references/auto-update.md.
Anti-hallucination guardrails
Critical for sales credibility:
- Never invent competitor claims. Only use verified data with sources.
- Never fabricate customer quotes. Verbatim only or mark "[PLACEHOLDER: need customer quote]".
- Never guess competitor pricing. Use verified data or mark "[CONFIRM: pricing]".
- Mark confidence levels on all competitive intel (High/Medium/Low/UNVERIFIED).
- Cite sources for all factual claims with access dates.
- Acknowledge gaps rather than fill with plausible content.
- 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 |
Reference files
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.
Changelog
| Version | Date | Changes |
|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-02-06 | Initial skill creation. Extracted from sales-enablement with dedicated process, confidence framework, batch support, and Google Docs/PDF export |
| 1.1 | 2026-05-01 | Slim refactor: extracted process, quality, and auto-update protocol to references/ (Phase 4.5.1.C) |
