battlecard-builder

name	battlecard-builder
description	Create competitive battlecards — FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act), Why We Win/Why We Lose, objection handling cards per competitor, pricing comparisons, and quick-dismiss summaries. Use when building competitive intelligence, preparing for competitive deals, or creating sales enablement materials. Triggers on: "battlecard", "competitive battlecard", "competitor comparison", "Why We Win", "objection handling card", "competitor intel", or any competitive enablement.
license	MIT
compatibility	Claude Code, Jesse, Codex, Hermes, Windsurf, OpenCode, Gemini CLI, Copilot, Zed, VS Code, Goose
metadata	{"version":"1.1.0","author":"LeadMagic","category":"design","tags":["battlecards","competitive","sales-enablement","objection-handling"],"related_skills":["competitive-intel","objection-handling","sales-enablement","pitch-deck-builder"],"frameworks":["Klue FIA Framework","Klue COMP-ACT Framework","Force Management Command of the Message Differentiator Mapping","Todd Caponi Transparency Sale"]}

Battlecard Builder

Overview

A battlecard is a concise competitive document that gives reps exactly what to say in competitive situations. Not a feature comparison table — a talk track with proof points. The FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act) from Klue structures every card so reps can use it during a live call, not just study it beforehand.

A rep should be able to glance at a battlecard for 10 seconds before or during a call and know exactly what to say.

When to Use

• "Build a battlecard against [competitor]"
• "Create competitive battlecards for our team"
• "Prepare for a deal where [competitor] is involved"
• "What do we say when a prospect mentions [competitor]?"
• "Build an objection handling card"
• "Create a quick-dismiss card for [competitor]"

Authoritative Foundations

• Klue FIA Framework — Fact → Impact → Act. The industry standard for battlecard structure. Fact: the competitive insight. Impact: why it matters. Act: what the rep says or does.
• Klue COMP-ACT Framework — extended framework for deeper competitive intel.
• Force Management Command of the Message — Defensible Differentiators. Battlecards should map to the VMF's differentiator framework.

Step-by-Step Process

Phase 1: Card Type Selection

Build a complete battlecard set per competitor:

Card Type	Purpose	Use Case
Why We Win	Key competitive advantages with talk tracks	When rep knows competitor is in the deal
Why We Lose	Where they win, how to counter	When deal is trending toward competitor
Objection Handling	Competitor-specific objections with responses	When prospect raises specific competitor claims
Pricing Card	Pricing comparison with value positioning	When price is the objection
Quick Dismiss	One-card summary	When competitor comes up briefly
Landmines to Lay	Questions that expose competitor weaknesses	Pre-emptive positioning
Approach to Market	How competitor sells vs how you sell	Strategic positioning

Phase 2: FIA Structure

Every card follows:

Fact — The competitive insight. What is objectively true. "This competitor requires 3-6 months of professional services to implement."

Impact — Why it matters to the deal. So what? "That means 3-6 months before the customer sees any value. They're paying for the software AND the services before anything works."

Act — What the rep says or does. The talk track. "Ask: 'What's your timeline to first value? Most implementations of [competitor] take 3-6 months. Our customers typically see value in week one. Is that difference material to your evaluation?'"

Phase 3: Per-Competitor Package

For each major competitor, produce:

1. Why We Win (3-5 cards) — your strongest advantages
2. Why We Lose (2-3 cards) — honest about where they win, with counters
3. Objection Handling (5-10 objections) — FIA structure per objection
4. Pricing Card — transparent comparison
5. Quick Dismiss — one-page summary for fast reference

Phase 4: Talk Track Principles

• No feature wars. "They have X, we have Y" loses to "they approach the problem this way, we approach it this way — here's why ours produces better outcomes."
• Proof beats claims. Every talk track includes a specific proof point.
• Acknowledge before countering. "They're good at X. Where customers tell us they struggle is Y."
• Don't trash the competitor. It makes you look small. Acknowledge their strengths honestly, then differentiate.

Output Format

# Battlecard: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]

## Quick Facts
- Their positioning: [how they describe themselves]
- Pricing: [model and tiers]
- Target customer: [who they sell to]
- Strengths: [honest assessment]
- Weaknesses: [where they fall short]

## Why We Win
### Card 1: [Advantage Area]
**Fact:** [competitive insight]
**Impact:** [why it matters]
**Act:** [talk track or question]

## Why We Lose
### Card 1: [Their Strength Area]
**Fact:** [where they are strong]
**Impact:** [why they win here]
**Counter:** [how to neutralize]

## Objection Handling
### "[Common objection]"
**Acknowledge:** [validate the concern]
**Explore:** [question to understand deeper]
**Redirect:** [reframe with insight + proof]

## Pricing Comparison
| Dimension | Us | Them |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | $X/mo | $Y/mo |
| What's included | [list] | [list] |
| Hidden costs | None | [implementation, add-ons] |

## Quick Dismiss
**When prospect mentions [competitor]:** [one-sentence response]
**Follow-up:** [one question that shifts the conversation]

Quality Check

• Complete set per competitor (Why We Win, Why We Lose, Objections, Pricing, Quick Dismiss)
• Every card has FIA structure
• Talk tracks are conversation-ready, not feature comparison tables
• Proof points are specific and verifiable
• Acknowledges competitor strengths honestly
• Pricing comparison is accurate and current
• Rep can use any card within 10 seconds of glancing at it
• Updated within last 90 days

Common Pitfalls

1. Feature comparison instead of talk tracks. A table of features is a reference doc. A battlecard is a conversation tool. Write talk tracks.

2. No proof points. "We're better at X" without evidence loses to competitors who have it. Every claim gets a proof point.

3. Trashing the competitor. "They're terrible" makes you look defensive. Acknowledge strengths, differentiate on outcomes.

4. Stale pricing. A battlecard with 6-month-old pricing is worse than no battlecard. Reps lose credibility instantly.

5. Too long. Reps cannot read a 3-page document during a call. One card per topic, scannable in 10 seconds.

6. One card for all competitors. Different competitors attack from different angles. A battlecard for Salesforce looks different from one for a startup.

Execution Artifacts

• references/framework-notes.md — named frameworks, citation anchors, and operating assumptions
• templates/output-template.md — copy-paste deliverable structure for the user
• scripts/check-output.py — local checklist validator for required sections This skill includes lightweight artifacts the agent can load on demand: Use the artifacts when the user asks for an implementation-ready deliverable, a repeatable workflow, or a quality check rather than generic advice.

Related Skills

• competitive-intel: Research to populate battlecards
• objection-handling: Objection taxonomy and response frameworks
• sales-enablement: Complete enablement package
• pitch-deck-builder: Decks that reference battlecard positioning