battle-card-builder · diff
git:20260803.db14631 to git:20260803.88cd167
169 added, 2 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: battle-card-builder
- argument-hint: "[your product vs which competitor, and the deal context]"
- description: "Research and draft a competitive battle card from public evidence — every claim labeled and sourced. Use when a rep needs a field-action card, not a research report.
+ description: >-
+ Research and draft a competitive battle card from public evidence — every claim labeled
+ and sourced. Use when a rep needs a field-action card, not a research report.
---
+
+ # Battle Card Builder
+
+ ## Purpose
+
+ Build a field-action competitive battle card from public evidence: **use or gather evidence → search
+ plan (if gathering) → draft card with per-claim labels → appendix → next-step options.** A battle
+ card is the artifact a rep opens mid-deal, not a delegated-research report — it must fit thirty seconds, every
+ claim must survive being said out loud to a hostile audience, and every claim therefore carries a
+ source URL, a date, and a Fact/Inference/Assumption label. Most battle cards in the wild are unlabeled
+ inference; this skill exists because of what it costs a rep when one of those turns out wrong.
+
+ ## Input
+
+ **Works best with:** your product and its primary differentiation, and **the one competitor** this
+ card targets.
+ **Also useful:** the deal context (segment, buyer, common objections or the loss reason that triggered
+ this card), and any [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) or
+ [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) output in session — the skill uses
+ existing evidence and searches only for gaps and anything older than one quarter.
+
+ Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
+ appended `ARGUMENTS:` line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
+ don't re-ask.
+
+ **Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The skill opens with at most 3 questions (product +
+ competitor, segment + buyer, triggering objection) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go
+ unanswered.
+
+ **Example invocation:** `Build a battle card: our workflow platform vs [Competitor A], mid-market ops
+ buyers — triggered by three straight losses on "their integrations are deeper."`
+
+ ## Key Concepts
+
+ - **Governing protocol:** honors the [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md)
+ contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
+ Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step.
+ - **Discipline mix:** SIGINT (pricing pages, site diffs — the freshest layer, what keeps cards from
+ going stale) + OSINT (review mining for objection handling) + HUMINT (win/loss ground truth when
+ you have it) — see [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md).
+ - **Field-action criterion.** Every element earns its place by being usable mid-conversation. Depth
+ goes in the appendix; the card fits a rep's thirty seconds.
+ - **Trap questions are evidence work.** A trap question is only safe to ask when you *know the
+ documented answer* — offense is built from citations, not bravado. "Never ask what you cannot
+ evidence" is the section's law.
+ - **The "Do Not Say" section is protection.** Claims you can't evidence, or that invite a counter,
+ are listed explicitly — the card protects the rep from the team's own folklore.
+ - **Two modes, one artifact.** This skill builds the card from *the world's* evidence
+ (investigation); a facilitated workshop builds it from *your team's* evidence (win/loss knowledge,
+ deal experience). The mode choice depends on where the evidence lives — bring rich internal
+ win/loss knowledge to a facilitated session instead, and use this skill when the public record is
+ the stronger source.
+ - **Do-not-invent list:** features, pricing, market share, customer wins, roadmap items, **quotes**.
+
+ ## Application
+
+ 1. **Check session for existing evidence** — a competitive snapshot or watch report. If present, use
+ it as the evidence base; search only for gaps and freshness (older than one quarter).
+ 2. **Credit inline context**, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
+ 1. Your product, and the one competitor this card targets?
+ 2. What segment and buyer do these deals involve?
+ 3. What objection or loss reason triggered this card?
+ If unanswered, proceed with labeled assumptions.
+ 3. **If researching fresh, show the 3-bullet search plan** — what you'll check (pricing pages,
+ release notes, reviews, customer stories, comparison content), source types, how facts will be
+ separated from inference. Continue unless revised.
+ 4. **Draft the card in the schema below exactly** — cards are diffable across runs, and the watch
+ skill's update flags name these sections.
+
+ ### Card schema (do not reorder)
+
+ ~~~markdown
+ # Battle Card: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]
+ **As-of date:** | **Deal context:** [segment, buyer]
+
+ ## 1. Thirty-Second Read
+ - **They win when:** [1-2 bullets, labeled]
+ - **We win when:** [1-2 bullets, labeled]
+ - **The one thing to say:** [a single defensible sentence]
+
+ ## 2. Say This
+ - [Talking point] — [evidence: URL, date, label]
+ - [Max 4; every one sourced]
+
+ ## 3. Ask This (trap questions)
+ - "[Question whose documented answer favors us]" — [the documented answer: URL, label]
+ - [Max 3; never ask what you cannot evidence]
+
+ ## 4. Watch Out For
+ - [Their strength a rep should not walk into] — [URL, label]
+ - [Their likely counter to our pitch] — [Inference, basis]
+
+ ## 5. Pricing & Packaging Snapshot
+ - [Their tiers/pricing as published] — [URL, as-of date]
+ - [Where "contact sales" hides the number] — [labeled]
+
+ ## 6. Do Not Say
+ - [Claims we cannot evidence, or that invite a counter]
+
+ ## Appendix: Evidence Table
+ | Claim | Label | Source | Date |
+ |---|---|---|---|
+
+ ### Assumptions to Validate
+ - [Assumption 1] / [Assumption 2] / [Assumption 3]
+ ~~~
+
+ A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in [`template.md`](template.md).
+
+ ### Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)
+
+ 1. Pressure-test the card: role-play the competitor's rep against it
+ 2. Build the card for a second competitor
+ 3. Set up [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) to keep this card current
+ 4. Compress to a one-screen mobile version for the field
+
+ Accept `1`, `2`, `3`, `4`, `1 and 3`, `Verbose Mode`, or a custom path.
+
+ ## Examples
+
+ **A trap question built correctly (fictional):**
+
+ > **Ask this:** "How does your migration handle custom fields over the 200-field limit?" — documented
+ > answer: their own docs state custom-field migration caps at 200 with manual re-entry beyond it —
+ > **Fact** ([docs page, checked Jul 2026](https://example.com/docs)). Safe to ask: the answer is in
+ > their documentation, so the rep isn't bluffing — they're citing.
+
+ **A "Do Not Say" entry earning its keep:**
+
+ > - Don't say "they can't do SSO on the starter tier" — they shipped it in June
+ > ([release notes](https://example.com/changelog)); a rep repeating our old card walks into a
+ > correction that costs the room's trust.
+ > - Don't lead with "we're cheaper" — true only below 50 seats ([their pricing](https://example.com/pricing),
+ > [ours](https://example.com/our-pricing)); above that the math flips, and enterprise buyers check.
+
+ See [`examples/sample.md`](examples/sample.md) for a complete worked card (fictional FSM-software
+ market) rebuilt from the `competitive-intel-watch` example's update flags — the full chain landing
+ in a field artifact. [`examples/sample-industrial.md`](examples/sample-industrial.md) builds the
+ industrial version, where the channel partner is a card audience and pricing is opaque.
+
+ ## Common Pitfalls
+
+ - **The unlabeled card.** Talking points without sources are folklore with formatting. The label is
+ what tells a rep how hard they can lean on a claim when the buyer pushes back.
+ - **The research-report card.** Two pages of landscape context a rep will never read mid-deal. Thirty
+ seconds is the budget; the appendix exists for everything else.
+ - **Trap questions on hope.** Asking a question whose answer you haven't documented hands the
+ competitor a stage. If the evidence isn't in the appendix table, the question doesn't ship.
+ - **Quote invention.** A fabricated customer quote or paraphrased review presented as verbatim is the
+ fastest way to destroy the card's credibility — and it's on the do-not-invent list for exactly that
+ reason.
+ - **The immortal card.** Cards rot at SIGINT speed — pricing pages and release notes change monthly.
+ A card without an as-of date, or without a watch feeding it update flags, is a liability wearing a
+ logo.
+ - **Skipping "Do Not Say."** The section that protects reps from the team's own stale folklore is the
+ one most often omitted — usually because nobody wants to write down which beloved claims are dead.
+
+ ## References
+
+ - [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — the governing protocol
+ - [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md) (Component) — discipline sources; SIGINT keeps this card fresh
+ - [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — upstream evidence base
+ - [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) (Workflow) — flags when this card's sections go stale
+ - [`positioning-statement`](../positioning-statement/SKILL.md) (Component) — the strategic layer the card's talking points should agree with
+ - Adapted from `market-intelligence/battle-card-builder-prompt.md` in the
+ `https://github.com/deanpeters/product-manager-prompts` repo.