| name | prd-v10-case-study-builder |
| description | Build customer case studies as marketing and chasm-crossing reference assets during PRD v1.0 Market Adoption. Triggers on requests to build case studies, produce customer stories, create reference content, or when user asks "build a case study", "customer story", "reference account", "case study interview", "before/after story", "social proof page", "logo wall". Outputs CFD-CASE-* evidence entries, GTM-CASE-* marketing assets, and updates ADO-REF-* with story status.
|
| context | fork |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Write","Edit","Glob","Grep"] |
| execution_modes | {"default":"standard","supports":["quick","standard","deep"]} |
Case Study Builder
Position in workflow: v1.0 Mom Test Interview → v1.0 Case Study Builder → v1.0 Testimonial Collector, GTM channels
Execution Mode
Default is standard. See .claude/rules/08-skill-execution-modes.md for selection logic.
| Mode | What this skill produces |
|---|
| quick | Short-format case (testimonial + 1-paragraph story + logo); single placement |
| standard | Full case study (1,500 words) + short and medium derivatives + customer-approved + 3 channel placements |
| deep | Long-form case (2,500–4,000 words) + multi-format derivatives (PDF, blog, video, conference talk) + measurable outcome quantified + outcome-attribution interview |
What This Does
Turns customer success — already documented as CFD-* evidence and ADO-REF-* candidates — into structured case studies. Case studies are the pragmatist buyer's #1 reference signal: they need to see a customer in their segment achieving the outcome they want, with enough detail to make it credible.
This is an operational "doing" skill, not a strategy skill. The strategic question (which segment, what story angle, what outcome to highlight) was answered by prd-v10-chasm-adoption-moore. This skill produces the artifact.
How It Works
- Identify candidate customers — Pull from ADO-REF-* candidates and CFD-* entries with strong outcome quantification. Must satisfy:
- In-beachhead (or in an adjacent segment where the story would still resonate)
- Has a quantifiable outcome to talk about
- Willing to be public (consent path is clear)
- Run the case-study interview — Extended Mom Test interview (45–60 min), focused on:
- Before-state (specific past: what life was like, what tools, what cost)
- Trigger (what changed; why they evaluated alternatives)
- Evaluation (who they considered; how they chose)
- Implementation (what happened in onboarding; what was hard)
- After-state (specific present: quantified outcome, time/money saved, what they can do now they couldn't)
- Structure the story — Situation → Complication → Question → Resolution (the McKinsey SCQR pattern):
- Situation: where they were before
- Complication: what broke / changed / hit a wall
- Question: what they needed to figure out
- Resolution: how they solved it (your product as one part of the answer, ideally credibly)
- Quantify outcome — Specific numbers beat vague claims:
- "Cut tier-selection time from 3 days to 30 minutes" beats "much faster"
- "Saved $12k/year on tool consolidation" beats "saves money"
- "85% activation rate (industry average 35%)" beats "great activation"
- Get customer review — Send draft to customer for accuracy + tone + legal. Iterate until approved.
- Produce in 3 formats:
- Short (testimonial — 1–2 sentences + name + role + logo): for landing pages, pricing page, ad creative
- Medium (1-paragraph + 3 bullet outcomes + logo + linked deeper): for "Customers" page, social, email
- Long (1,500–2,500 word case study): for blog, sales enablement, sales call followup
Example
Customer: Acme Logistics (beachhead segment: freight forwarders, 50-200 employees, US PNW). ADO-REF-002.
Interview: 50 minutes with Acme's VP Operations.
Quantified outcome:
- Tier-selection time: 3 days → 30 min (90% reduction)
- Annual savings from tool consolidation: $14k
- Onboarding time per new hire: 2 weeks → 3 days (after migrating to product)
SCQR:
- Situation: Acme used 4 disjointed tools to track shipments, with manual export every Friday for ops reporting
- Complication: Two new hires + a Q3 customer surge meant the manual export bottlenecked the team; ops director was working Saturdays to keep the dashboards current
- Question: How could Acme consolidate tooling without disrupting an in-flight Q4 customer onboarding?
- Resolution: Acme migrated to [product] over 3 weeks; consolidated 4 tools to 1; automated the Friday export. VP Operations reclaimed 6 hours/week. New hires onboard in 3 days instead of 2 weeks.
Three formats produced:
- Short: "We replaced 4 tools with [product] and cut new-hire onboarding from 2 weeks to 3 days." — [Name], VP Ops, Acme Logistics
- Medium: 1-paragraph + 3 bullet outcomes + Acme logo + "Read the full story →"
- Long: 1,800-word blog case study with screenshots, quotes, before/after metrics, and an embedded testimonial video.
What You Get Back
- CFD-CASE-* entries — One per case-study interview; the durable evidence record
- GTM-CASE-* entries (one per produced format) — Marketing assets with placement plan
- Updates to ADO-REF-* entries — Reference status: "draft pending" → "approved" → "published"
- Customer approval record — Signed approval + version-controlled draft history
When to Use It
| Trigger | Mode |
|---|
| First reference customer in beachhead is ready to talk | standard |
| Chasm-crossing push needs 3+ in-segment case studies | deep |
| Pricing-page logo wall expansion | quick (short format only) |
| Sales enablement asset for new segment | standard |
| Investor / partner update | standard |
| Customer success milestone (e.g., 1-year anniversary) | quick |
Do not use for: customers outside beachhead during chasm crossing (their story doesn't resonate with pragmatists); customers without consent (legal risk); customers without quantifiable outcomes (story will feel vague).
Consumes
- CFD-* customer evidence (Mom Test discipline) — Source for candidate selection
- ADO-REF-* candidates (from prd-v10-chasm-adoption-moore) — Cultivated reference targets
- ADO-BEACHHEAD-* — Defines "in-segment" for case priority
- KPI-* outcomes — Defines what "outcome" means; case quantification must speak to these
- GTM-* positioning + offer — Tone, voice, and value claims must match positioning
- BR-POS-* — Constraints (e.g., "no enterprise procurement language")
Produces
- CFD-CASE-* entries in
SoT/SoT.customer_feedback.md
- GTM-CASE-* entries (with Type=Case-Asset) for each produced format
- ADO-REF-* updates — Status, placement, consent tracking
- CFD-* gaps surfaced — If outcome can't be quantified, log as research gap
Output Template
CFD-CASE-XXX: Case Study — [Customer Name]
Type: Case-Study
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Customer: [Logo / company name]
Customer fit: [In-beachhead | Adjacent segment]
Interview length: [minutes]
Interviewer: [Name]
Quantified outcome (the proof):
Before: [Specific number / state]
After: [Specific number / state]
Delta: [%change or $ value]
Time horizon: [over what period]
Story (SCQR):
Situation: [Where they were before]
Complication: [What changed / broke / hit a wall]
Question: [What they needed to figure out]
Resolution: [How it got solved — your product as part of the answer]
Quotes (verbatim, approved):
- "[Quote]" — [Name, Role]
- "[Quote]" — [Name, Role]
Customer approval:
Approved by: [Name, Role]
Approved version: vX
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Scope: [logo only | quote | full case study | on-stage]
Linked formats:
Short: GTM-CASE-AAA
Medium: GTM-CASE-BBB
Long: GTM-CASE-CCC
Linked IDs: ADO-REF-XXX (cultivation), PER-YYY (segment fit), KPI-ZZZ (outcome), CFD-AAA (interview source)
GTM-CASE-XXX: Case-Study Asset — [Format]
Type: Case-Asset
Format: [Short | Medium | Long]
Channel: [Landing page | Pricing page | Blog | Sales deck | Email | Ad creative]
Owner: [Person / role]
Status: [Draft | In review | Approved | Live]
Content: [The actual asset content — quote, paragraph, full case]
Placement plan:
- [URL or section, e.g., "/pricing — Acme logo wall, position 3"]
Attribution: utm_campaign=case-<customer>
Linked IDs: CFD-CASE-AAA (parent case), ADO-REF-BBB (reference account), GTM-YYY (positioning)
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Signal | Fix |
|---|
| No quantified outcome | "Customer loves us!" | Specific numbers or skip; vague cases don't move pragmatists |
| Wrong segment | Featuring a startup case to a pragmatist enterprise audience | In-segment cases only during chasm crossing |
| No customer approval on record | Published with assumed approval | Always get signed approval; preserve version history |
| Marketing voice override | Customer's actual words rewritten into your marketing tone | Their voice; light edits for clarity only |
| Single-format publish | Long-form blog only | Three formats: short for placement, medium for browsing, long for depth |
| One-and-done | Case study published, never updated | Refresh quarterly with new outcome data; cases stale fast |
| Featuring failures-rebranded-as-wins | "We rebuilt their entire infrastructure" hides "we replaced a failed implementation" | Don't dress up bad stories; pragmatists smell it |
Quality Gates
Before publishing:
Downstream Connections
| Consumer | What it uses | Example |
|---|
| Launch Channels (ORB) | Cases become Owned and Borrowed channel content | Blog case = Owned; co-marketing case = Borrowed |
| Alternatives Pages | Cases anchor "when to pick us" sections with real proof | Page references Acme case for migration-from-X story |
| Cold Outreach (Tiered) | Cases referenced in Touch 3 of sequences | Tier 1 outreach mentions in-segment case study |
| Testimonial Collector | Short-format derivatives are testimonial-shaped | Auto-eligible for testimonial walls |
| AEO Audit | Cases become AI-citation sources | High-traffic case pages cited by AI search |
| Sales / Investor | Direct asset for sales calls and investor updates | "Here's how Acme uses [product]" |
Detailed References
- BrianRWagner's
case-study-builder skill (ai-marketing-claude-code-skills)
- Joe Pulizzi, Epic Content Marketing (case study as content)
- Annette Franz, Customer Understanding (interview discipline)
- McKinsey's SCQR (Situation/Complication/Question/Resolution) framework
- (No bundled
references/ — the case study itself is the artifact)
