battlecard_craft v1.0.0

name: battlecard_craft description: "Build and maintain competitive sales battlecards backed by win-loss research: one card per rival, honest strengths, verbatim objections with tested replies, proof points, walk-away criteria, and an update cadence. Use when creating or refreshing a battlecard, preparing reps for a competitive deal, running win-loss interviews, coding why deals were won or lost, or fixing cards reps ignore."

Battlecard Craft

Purpose

A battlecard is a one-page brief a rep can use in the middle of a live call against one named rival. Most cards fail for two reasons: they are built from marketing copy instead of deal evidence, and nobody owns keeping them current. This skill fixes both. It ships the research workflow behind the card (win-loss interviews, call evidence, evidence grading) and the maintenance cadence that keeps the card true after it ships.

Workflow

1. Scope the card

• One card per rival. A card covering three rivals covers none of them in a live call.
• Build cards only for rivals that show up often enough to matter. Start with the rivals named most in recent closed deals, won and lost, plus no-decision deals where a rival was evaluated.
• Name one owner and set a review date before writing anything. A card with no owner goes stale on a schedule you can predict.

2. Gather evidence before writing

Pull from four sources, in this order of trust:

1. Buyer interviews. Short structured interviews with people who just chose you or chose the rival. This is the only source that knows the full reason. Full method in references/win-loss-research.md.
2. Call recordings. Search transcripts for the rival's name and phrases like "we also looked at" or "compared to". Write down objections in the prospect's exact words.
3. Rep debriefs. Ask top reps what they actually say when the rival comes up, and what made them lose. Treat rep accounts of why a deal was lost as a lead, not a fact: reps rarely hear the real reason.
4. Public rival material. Pricing pages, docs, changelogs, review sites, job posts. Date every item. Public claims about the rival need a source a rep could open.

Grade every fact that will land on the card:

| Grade | Meaning | Card rule | |---|---|---| | A | Buyer said it in a win-loss interview, or it is on the rival's public page today | Can go on the card as stated | | B | Two or more reps report it independently, or one buyer mentioned it once | Goes on the card hedged: "buyers report..." | | C | One rep's impression, a rumor, an old screenshot | Stays off the card. Research task, not content |

3. Run the win-loss loop

Follow references/win-loss-research.md. The short version:

• Interview wins and losses in roughly equal numbers, within 3 months of the decision, 30 minutes, run by someone who did not sell the deal.
• Ask the same core questions every time so answers can be compared: problem context, who else was evaluated, what decided it, price role, perceived risk, what would have changed the outcome.
• Code each interview against a fixed reason taxonomy (product fit, price, timing, risk and trust, sales experience, incumbent inertia, no-decision blockers). Tag quotes to codes.
• Roll up monthly. A reason named once is a story. A reason named across several interviews in a segment is a card change.

4. Write the card in Know / Say / Show layers

Keep the three layers separate. Collapsing them is why cards get too long to scan.

• Know (pre-call, can be a linked page): rival overview, target buyer, pricing model, recent moves, where they genuinely win.
• Say (the card itself, used live): talk tracks and objection replies. Each entry is 2 to 3 short lines: what to say, one proof line, where to steer next.
• Show (after the call): case studies, comparison sheets, ROI material the rep sends as follow-up.

The live card must pass the 10-second test: a rep mid-call can find the right entry and use it in under 10 seconds. If an entry needs a paragraph of reading, it belongs in Know or Show.

Required sections for the live card, in this order:

1. Header: rival name, card owner, last updated date, evidence grade note.
2. Quick intel: who they sell to, their core pitch in one line, pricing shape, one recent move that matters.
3. Where they genuinely win: 2 to 4 honest strengths. Reps who get blindsided stop trusting the card.
4. Where we win for this buyer: advantages tied to a buyer pain, each with a proof point. No feature lists without a pain attached.
5. Objections: the top 3 to 5, written the way prospects say them. Each reply follows LAER: Listen, Acknowledge, Explore, Respond. Acknowledge the rival's real strength first, then reframe to the buyer's stated priority, then offer proof. Include a concede line for cases where the objection is simply true.
6. Questions to plant: discovery questions that surface the rival's weak spots in the buyer's own evaluation, phrased as things to ask the rival too.
7. Walk away: the 2 to 3 situations where the rival is the better fit. Saying this out loud early builds more trust than winning a bad-fit deal.
8. If you hear this, say this: 3 to 5 one-line triggers for the most common live moments.

Use the fill-in file in assets/battlecard-template.md and validate the draft with bin/check_battlecard.py.

5. Handle objections with LAER

For every objection entry, draft all four moves:

• Listen: let them finish. Note the exact wording for the card.
• Acknowledge: name the concern as legitimate. Never argue with the premise in the first sentence.
• Explore: one question that finds the root. "Too expensive" can mean total price, one line item, timing of budget, or a cheaper rival quote used as leverage. Each root gets a different reply.
• Respond: answer the root, with proof, then check: "Does that cover the concern, or is there a piece I missed?"

Sort objections by root cause, not by wording: price, timing, authority, need, trust, incumbent. The same words from a prospect can hide different roots.

6. Launch and maintain

Follow references/cadence-and-ownership.md. Minimum viable rhythm:

• Field intel lands on the card within 48 hours of verification.
• Weekly: 15-minute triage of new signals and rep reports.
• Monthly: fold win-loss rollups into card changes. Publish a short note on what changed and why.
• Quarterly: full review of positioning, pricing, and proof against current rival material.
• Trigger-based, no waiting for the calendar: rival pricing or packaging change, major launch, acquisition, or a clear shift in competitive win rate. Update within a week of confirmation, pricing changes faster.

Retire cards for rivals that stop appearing in deals. A library with dead cards teaches reps to ignore live ones.

7. Measure whether the card works

• Tag opportunities in the CRM with rival and card used. Compare competitive win rate with and without card use, by rival.
• Track which objection entries reps actually use. An entry nobody uses in a quarter gets rewritten from fresh call evidence or cut.
• Ask reps after competitive deals: what worked, what fell flat, what did the buyer say back. Feed answers into the monthly rollup, not into ad hoc edits.

Output Contract

A finished job delivers:

1. One battlecard per rival, built on assets/battlecard-template.md, passing bin/check_battlecard.py with no errors.
2. An evidence log: each card claim with its grade (A, B, or cut) and its source.
3. The win-loss interview guide and coded rollup behind the card, per references/win-loss-research.md, when research was run.
4. An ownership line: named owner, review date, and the cadence from references/cadence-and-ownership.md written into the card header.
5. A change note for reps when an existing card changes: what changed, why, and which talk track to use differently.

Operating Rules

• Never invent rival facts: no pricing, dates, feature claims, or customer quotes without a source from step 2. Unverifiable claims get cut or graded C and kept off the card.
• Never write a card that pretends the rival has no strengths. Reps can smell it and buyers punish it.
• Never disparage the rival by name-calling or vague claims. Contrast on criteria the buyer cares about, with proof.
• Keep the live card to one page of scannable entries. Depth goes in linked Know and Show layers.
• Write objections in the prospect's words, replies in a top rep's words. Cleaned-up marketing phrasing helps nobody mid-call.
• Every claim on the card carries a date. Pricing and packaging claims older than one quarter must be rechecked before reuse.
• If the evidence base is thin (fewer than 3 buyer interviews and no call recordings for a rival), ship the card marked as draft grade B, say so in the header, and schedule the interviews. Do not present a draft as settled intel.
• No-decision is its own outcome category. Losing to inertia needs different card content (risk reducers, phased start, cost of delay) than losing to a rival.