// Generate discovery call prep materials, qualification checklists, and scoring frameworks to determine if a lead should be pursued based on problem fit, authority, budget, urgency, and solution fit. Use when preparing for discovery calls.
| name | sales-qualification-support |
| description | Generate discovery call prep materials, qualification checklists, and scoring frameworks to determine if a lead should be pursued based on problem fit, authority, budget, urgency, and solution fit. Use when preparing for discovery calls. |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write"] |
Generate discovery call prep materials, qualification checklists, and scoring frameworks to determine if a lead should be pursued.
Operates on: ONE product per invocation Input: ICP qualification criteria + discovery call scripts + company context Output: Call prep document with qualification framework, scoring, and next steps
research/customer/icp/{segment}-icp.md (qualification criteria)artifacts/sales/{segment}/materials/call-scripts.md (discovery framework)research/customer/prospects/{segment}-prospects-{date}.csv (optional - for company context)threads/sales/calls/prep-{company}-{date}.md (call prep)threads/sales/calls/qualification-{company}-{date}.md (qualification log)Generate research checklist for specific company:
Company Website Research:
LinkedIn Research:
Industry Context:
Problem Signal Validation:
Load qualification questions from ICP:
research/customer/icp/{segment}-icp.mdqualification_questions sectiondisqualification_criteria sectionLoad discovery call script:
artifacts/sales/{segment}/materials/call-scripts.mdOrganize by qualification dimension (Pete Kazanjy BANT + Problem/Solution Fit):
Goal: Do they have the problem we solve?
Questions:
Scoring rubric:
Goal: Can they make buying decisions?
Questions:
Scoring rubric:
Goal: Will they pay our price?
Questions:
Scoring rubric:
Goal: Is this a priority now?
Questions:
Scoring rubric:
Goal: Should we sell to them?
Questions:
Scoring rubric:
Scoring formula:
Total Score = (Problem ร 0.3) + (Authority ร 0.2) + (Budget ร 0.2) + (Urgency ร 0.15) + (Solution Fit ร 0.15)
Example calculation:
Company: {Company Name}
Problem: 0.9 (clear problem: "{X}% {key metric} rates, costing $400K/year")
Authority: 0.7 ({Role} on call, needs {Approver Role} approval for >${threshold})
Budget: 0.8 (budget allocated, need to show ROI)
Urgency: 0.6 (important for {timeframe}, {N}-day timeline)
Solution Fit: 1.0 (perfect fit: {required platform}, {employees} employees, {industry})
Total = (0.9 ร 0.3) + (0.7 ร 0.2) + (0.8 ร 0.2) + (0.6 ร 0.15) + (1.0 ร 0.15)
= 0.27 + 0.14 + 0.16 + 0.09 + 0.15
= 0.81
Interpretation: High qualification (>0.8) โ Schedule demo immediately
Qualification tiers:
High qualification (>= 0.8):
Medium qualification (0.5 - 0.8):
Low qualification (< 0.5):
Load common objections:
references/objection-patterns.mdResponse frameworks:
Objection type 1: Price ("Too expensive"):
Objection type 2: Timing ("Need to think about it"):
Objection type 3: Competition ("Already have a solution"):
Objection type 4: Urgency ("Not right now"):
Objection type 5: Authority ("Need to run this by my boss"):
Based on qualification score tier:
Immediate action: Schedule demo
Script:
"Based on what you've shared, I think a 30-minute demo would be really valuable. We can show you exactly how {solution} addresses {their specific problem}. How does Tuesday at 2pm look?"
Next steps checklist:
Timeline: Demo within 1 week of discovery call
Action depends on which dimension scored low:
If Authority scored low (<0.7):
If Budget scored low (<0.7):
If Urgency scored low (<0.7):
If Problem scored low (<0.7):
If Solution Fit scored low (<0.7):
Timeline: Follow-up in 2-4 weeks (depending on gap)
Action: Disqualify politely, add to nurture
Script:
"Based on what you've shared, I don't think we're the right fit for you right now. [Specific reason: wrong size, no budget, different problem, etc.] I'd love to stay in touch and check back in {timeline} to see if things have changed. Can I add you to our quarterly newsletter?"
Disqualification reasons (be specific):
Next steps checklist:
threads/sales/disqualified-{date}.csvTimeline: Re-engage in 6-12 months (if they're in ICP, just bad timing)
Required:
product: Product name (e.g., "{Your Product}")company_name: Target company for call prepcompany_domain: Company domain for researchOptional:
call_type: "discovery" | "demo" | "follow-up" (default: "discovery")decision_maker_name: If known (for LinkedIn research)decision_maker_title: If known (for authority assessment)thread_id: Sales thread ID (to log qualification)File 1: threads/sales/calls/prep-{company}-{date}.md
File 2 (post-call): threads/sales/calls/qualification-{company}-{date}.md
File 3 (if disqualified): threads/sales/disqualified-{date}.csv
# Discovery Call Prep: {Company Name}
**Segment**: {segment}
**Date**: {date}
**Call Type**: Discovery
**Company**: {company_name} ({company_domain})
**Decision-Maker**: {decision_maker_name} - {decision_maker_title}
---
## Pre-Call Research
**Company Website** ({company_domain}):
- [ ] Review homepage (product offerings, value prop)
- [ ] Check About Us page (size, mission, team)
- [ ] Look for problem signals:
- [ ] FAQ mentions {problem}
- [ ] Support section addresses {problem}
- [ ] Blog discusses {problem}
- [ ] Check technology stack (footer, page source)
- [ ] Review team page (employee count, roles)
**LinkedIn Research**:
- [ ] Company page: linkedin.com/company/{company}
- [ ] Employee count (ICP match?)
- [ ] Location (ICP geography?)
- [ ] Recent posts (priorities, challenges)
- [ ] Decision-maker profile: linkedin.com/in/{person}
- [ ] Current role and tenure
- [ ] Recent posts (interests, challenges)
- [ ] Background (previous experience)
**Industry Context**:
- [ ] Industry trends: {relevant trends for segment}
- [ ] Competitive landscape: {competitors they might be using}
- [ ] Recent news: Google "{company} news" (last 3 months)
**Problem Signal Validation**:
- [ ] {Specific signal 1 from ICP}: e.g., "Check return policy (60+ days suggests high returns)"
- [ ] {Specific signal 2 from ICP}: e.g., "Check for job postings (Returns Coordinator = high volume)"
- [ ] {Specific signal 3 from ICP}: e.g., "Look for sizing guide (existing but insufficient)"
---
## Qualification Framework
### Problem Fit (Weight: 0.3)
**Goal**: Do they have the problem we solve?
**Questions to ask**:
1. "Walk me through your current {process}" *(open-ended, let them talk)*
2. "What's your biggest challenge with {problem area}?" *(identify pain)*
3. "What percentage of {metric} do you experience?" *(quantify problem)*
4. "How does this impact your team/business?" *(understand cost)*
5. "What have you tried so far to solve this?" *(alternatives, urgency)*
**Scoring guide**:
- 1.0 = Clear, quantified problem (e.g., "20-30% return rates, costing $500K/year")
- 0.7 = Problem exists but not quantified
- 0.5 = Problem exists but not prioritized
- 0.3 = Vague problem
- 0.0 = No problem or already solved
**Your score**: ____ / 1.0
**Notes**:
{Space for notes during call}
---
### Authority (Weight: 0.2)
**Goal**: Can they make buying decisions?
**Questions to ask**:
1. "Who else would be involved in evaluating this?" *(identify stakeholders)*
2. "What's your typical process for bringing on new tools?" *(buying process)*
3. "Do you have budget authority for this?" *(direct authority question)*
4. "Who would ultimately sign off on this?" *(find economic buyer)*
5. "Have you made similar purchases before?" *(gauge experience)*
**Scoring guide**:
- 1.0 = Decision-maker on call, has budget authority
- 0.7 = Strong influencer, can champion
- 0.5 = Influencer, multiple stakeholders
- 0.3 = Low influence, exploring only
- 0.0 = No authority
**Your score**: ____ / 1.0
**Notes**:
{Space for notes}
---
### Budget (Weight: 0.2)
**Goal**: Will they pay our price?
**Questions to ask**:
1. "What's the cost of this problem currently?" *(quantify pain)*
2. "How much would solving this be worth to you?" *(value perception)*
3. "Have you allocated budget for solving this?" *(budget exists?)*
4. "What's your typical budget range for tools like this?" *(price sensitivity)*
5. "What ROI would you need to see to justify this?" *(decision criteria)*
**Scoring guide**:
- 1.0 = Clear budget, can justify cost
- 0.7 = Budget exists but needs approval
- 0.5 = Budget unclear, needs business case
- 0.3 = Budget concern, price-sensitive
- 0.0 = No budget
**Your score**: ____ / 1.0
**Notes**:
{Space for notes}
---
### Urgency (Weight: 0.15)
**Goal**: Is this a priority now?
**Questions to ask**:
1. "When do you need this solved by?" *(timeline)*
2. "What happens if you don't solve this in next 30/60/90 days?" *(consequence)*
3. "What other priorities are competing for attention?" *(relative urgency)*
4. "What triggered you to look into this now?" *(catalyst event)*
5. "Is there a deadline or event driving this?" *(external pressure)*
**Scoring guide**:
- 1.0 = Urgent, needs solution within 30 days
- 0.7 = Important, 30-60 day timeline
- 0.5 = Important but not urgent, 60-90 days
- 0.3 = Low urgency, 90+ days
- 0.0 = Nice to have, no timeline
**Your score**: ____ / 1.0
**Notes**:
{Space for notes}
---
### Solution Fit (Weight: 0.15)
**Goal**: Should we sell to them?
**Questions to ask**:
1. "Are you on {required platform}?" *(technical fit)*
2. "Do you have {required capability}?" *(infrastructure fit)*
3. "What's your {relevant metric}?" *(size/volume fit)*
4. "How technical is your team?" *(implementation fit)*
5. "What's your ideal solution look like?" *(expectation alignment)*
**Scoring guide**:
- 1.0 = Perfect fit for our solution
- 0.7 = Good fit, minor gaps
- 0.5 = Can work but requires customization
- 0.3 = Poor fit, significant gaps
- 0.0 = We can't help effectively
**Your score**: ____ / 1.0
**Notes**:
{Space for notes}
---
## Qualification Scoring
**Calculation**:
Total Score = (Problem ร 0.3) + (Authority ร 0.2) + (Budget ร 0.2) + (Urgency ร 0.15) + (Solution Fit ร 0.15)
Total Score = (____ ร 0.3) + (____ ร 0.2) + (____ ร 0.2) + (____ ร 0.15) + (____ ร 0.15) = ____
**Interpretation**:
- **>= 0.8**: High qualification โ Schedule demo immediately
- **0.5 - 0.8**: Medium qualification โ Address gaps, schedule follow-up
- **< 0.5**: Low qualification โ Disqualify politely, add to nurture
**Your score**: ____ โ **Tier: ____**
---
## Objection Handling
### "Too expensive"
**Framework**: Reframe to ROI
**Response**: "I understand price is a concern. Let's look at the cost of the problem - you mentioned ${X} in {problem}. Our solution costs ${Y}/month, and we typically see {Z}% reduction. That's a ${ROI} savings. Does that math work for you?"
**Follow-up**: "What ROI would you need to see to justify the investment?"
### "Need to think about it"
**Framework**: Identify specific concern
**Response**: "Absolutely, it's an important decision. What specifically would you need to evaluate? Is it budget, getting other stakeholders involved, or understanding the solution better?"
**Follow-up**: "What would make this a clear 'yes' for you?"
### "Already have a solution"
**Framework**: Differentiate, don't bash
**Response**: "That's great you're addressing this. How does your current solution handle {specific problem}? [Listen for gap] We've found that {differentiator} is what makes the difference."
**Follow-up**: "If you could improve one thing about your current solution, what would it be?"
### "Not right now"
**Framework**: Create urgency through consequence
**Response**: "I understand. What would need to change to make this a priority? [Listen] You mentioned the problem is costing ${X}/year - that's ${X/12}/month you're losing. What's the cost of waiting?"
**Follow-up**: "Is there an upcoming event that would make this more urgent?"
### "Need to run this by my boss"
**Framework**: Offer to include decision-maker
**Response**: "That makes sense. Who else should be involved? I'm happy to present to your team or CFO directly. What information would they need?"
**Follow-up**: "Would it be helpful if I joined your internal discussion?"
---
## Next Steps Based on Score
### High (>= 0.8):
- [ ] **Schedule demo**: "Based on what you've shared, I think a 30-min demo would be valuable. How does Tuesday at 2pm look?"
- [ ] **Send calendar invite** with agenda
- [ ] **Attach one-pager**: artifacts/sales/{segment}/materials/one-pager.md
- [ ] **Prepare custom demo** based on their specific problem
- [ ] **Send reminder** 1 day before demo
### Medium (0.5 - 0.8):
- [ ] **Identify gap**: Which dimension scored low? Address in follow-up
- [ ] **If Authority low**: Schedule decision-maker call
- [ ] **If Budget low**: Send ROI/value prop email
- [ ] **If Urgency low**: Set follow-up in 2-4 weeks
- [ ] **If Problem low**: Send educational content, follow up in 30 days
- [ ] **If Solution Fit low**: Assess if gap is bridgeable
### Low (< 0.5):
- [ ] **Disqualify politely**: "Based on what you've shared, I don't think we're the right fit right now because {reason}"
- [ ] **Provide alternative**: Competitor recommendation or free resource
- [ ] **Add to nurture list**: Quarterly check-in
- [ ] **Log disqualification**: threads/sales/disqualified-{date}.csv with reason
- [ ] **Re-engagement timeline**: 6-12 months (if applicable)
---
## Call Script Reference
**Opening** (1 min):
"Hi {Name}, thanks for taking the time. I know you're busy, so I'll keep this brief. I've done some research on {Company}, and I'm curious to learn more about {problem area}. Does that sound good?"
**Qualification** (5 min):
[Ask Problem Fit questions, listen actively, take notes]
**Problem Exploration** (15 min):
[Deep dive into their problem, quantify impact, understand alternatives]
**Light Pitch** (5 min):
"Based on what you've shared, I think we might be able to help. We work with companies like {similar company} to {solve problem}. Would you be open to seeing a quick demo?"
**Next Steps** (4 min):
[Based on qualification score, propose appropriate next step]
Requirement: All qualification questions must tie back to ICP criteria
Example validation:
ICP criteria: Company size 50-200 employees
Qualification question: "How large is your team?" (Solution Fit dimension)
ICP criteria: 20%+ return rates
Qualification question: "What's your current return rate?" (Problem Fit dimension)
ICP criteria: Shopify platform
Qualification question: "What e-commerce platform are you on?" (Solution Fit dimension)
If ICP criteria not addressed: Add question to qualification framework
Requirement: Scores based on specific answers, not gut feelings
Objective scoring example:
Question: "What's your return rate?"
Answer: "25-30%"
ICP threshold: 20%+
Score: 1.0 (clear problem, quantified, above threshold)
Subjective scoring example (WRONG):
Question: "What's your return rate?"
Answer: "I'm not sure exactly"
Feeling: "They seemed really interested"
Score: 0.8 (based on feeling, not data)
โ WRONG: Should be 0.5 or lower (problem not quantified)
Rule: If answer is vague, score must be lower (0.5 or below)
Requirement: Specific action with timeline, not vague "follow up later"
Specific next step examples:
โ "Schedule demo for Tuesday 2pm"
โ "Send ROI calculator by EOD today, follow up Friday"
โ "Reconnect in 2 weeks (April 15) to see if priority has shifted"
โ "Disqualify, add to nurture list for Q3 check-in (July 1)"
Vague next step examples (WRONG):
โ "Follow up later"
โ "Send them some stuff"
โ "Check back in when they're ready"
โ "Stay in touch"
Rule: Every next step must have WHO, WHAT, WHEN
Requirement: Log specific disqualification reason for pattern detection
Good disqualification reasons:
โ "Company size: 20 employees (ICP: 50-200)"
โ "No problem: Return rate 5% (ICP threshold: 20%+)"
โ "Wrong platform: Magento (ICP: Shopify)"
โ "No budget: $0 allocated, can't justify cost"
โ "No urgency: Timeline 6+ months, no catalyst"
Vague disqualification reasons (WRONG):
โ "Not a fit"
โ "Bad timing"
โ "Didn't feel right"
โ "They said no"
Rule: Reason must reference specific ICP criteria or qualification dimension
Why: Pattern detection (are we targeting wrong companies? Do we need to adjust ICP?)
No ICP found:
research/customer/icp/{segment}-icp.md existsNo call scripts found:
artifacts/sales/{segment}/materials/call-scripts.md existsInvalid company_domain:
Missing qualification questions in ICP:
qualification_questions sectionBefore finalizing call prep, verify:
Output review:
See references/ directory for:
qualification-criteria.md: Pete Kazanjy's qualification dimensions (BANT + Problem/Solution Fit)objection-patterns.md: Common objections and response frameworks (Feel-Felt-Found, LAER, etc.)