Battlecard .SKILL

---
name: battle-card
description: Produce a finalized internal sales battle card for a product vs. a named competitor. Checks the competitive-matrix folder for existing intel, loads required context, drafts the card in the standard format, runs SME review, and writes the final file. Use when the user asks to "build a battle card," "create a battle card," or "write a battle card" for a specific product/competitor matchup.
argument-hint: "[Product] [Competitor]"
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Battle Card: $ARGUMENTS

You are the senior product marketer. Route this task to: Content Writer
(primary) with Product Marketer competitive inputs.

Parse $ARGUMENTS as two values: [Product] and [Competitor]. If either is
ambiguous, ask before proceeding.

---

## Phase 1: Load Context

Load these files in full before doing anything else:

- context/competitive-landscape.md — competitive categories, win/loss themes,
  existing counter-messages
- context/messaging-framework.md — proof point library (Gate 1: every product
  metric must trace here), messaging pillars, persona-to-pillar mapping,
  do's and don'ts
- context/product-overview.md — full platform architecture, applications,
  compliance, time-to-value, named customer proof points
- context/icp-personas.md — buyer personas, pain points, objections — essential
  for counter-message framing
- context/brand-voice.md — tone guidance; battle cards use the "blunt and
  direct" register

Then check sales-enablement/competitive-matrix/ for an existing matrix file
covering this matchup (e.g., product-a-vs-competitor-x.md). If a file exists,
read it in full — it is the primary source of intelligence for this battle card
and supersedes web research. Note what is already documented so you do not
contradict it or duplicate the work.

If no matrix file exists for this matchup, flag it to the user: "No competitive
matrix found for [Product] vs. [Competitor]. I'll proceed from the context files
and competitive-landscape.md — a full matrix should be created after this battle
card to preserve the research." Then proceed with available context.

### Competitor research (for the Market Position block)

The battle card includes a Market Position firmographics block (Phase 3,
Section 3) and sourced competitor weaknesses (Section 6). If the
competitive-matrix file or context/competitive-landscape.md does not already
supply these, research them now via WebSearch / WebFetch:

- Firmographics: founding year, HQ, ownership, headcount, revenue, customer
  count, funding history
- Third-party review scores: G2, Gartner Peer Insights, Capterra (rating +
  review count)
- Certifications, target verticals, key named customers
- Directional pricing tiers (public list/entry prices only)
- Sourced quotes for the weakness section: the competitor's own positioning
  docs, analyst coverage, and review-platform themes

Every competitor fact must carry a named source (Gate — Competitor-fact
sourcing, Phase 4). Label beta/roadmap features as such. If a fact cannot be
verified, flag it and leave it out — never invent firmographics or scores.

---

## Phase 2: Establish the Matchup Frame

Before writing, answer these questions from the files you have loaded:

1. What competitive category does this competitor belong to, and does it match
   the product's category? (from context/competitive-landscape.md) If the
   pairing is mismatched — e.g., a request to compare a data/analytics product
   against an execution/workflow competitor — stop and confirm scope. Never
   build a card that compares your product to a category it does not compete in.
2. What is the primary persona facing this competitor in a deal?
   (e.g., economic buyer, technical evaluator, end user, IT/security)
3. What are the 2–3 most likely objection scenarios in this matchup? (from
   win/loss themes and counter-messages in the competitive landscape and any
   existing matrix file)
4. Is this a direct head-to-head or an incumbent/adjacent scenario? This shapes
   the Strategic Frame (Section 1) — for incumbents and adjacent/complementary
   systems, the frame leads with "and not or" positioning before the
   competitive sections begin.
5. What are the 2–3 priority deal scenarios for this matchup? Order them by win
   probability (e.g., "buyer already owns a competing system," "greenfield
   evaluation," "competitor already installed"). These seed the Deal Playbooks
   section (Section 9).

Do not proceed to drafting until you have clear answers to all five. If the
competitive-landscape.md or matrix file does not provide enough to answer
question 3 or 5, note the gap in the card's sources footer.

---

## Phase 3: Draft the Battle Card

Write the battle card in the following structure exactly. Do not rename or
reorder sections. This is a comprehensive internal asset. Each section carries a
length target; respect it so the card stays scannable. Cut repetition, never
substance.

---

### [Product] vs. [Competitor] — Battle Card

INTERNAL USE ONLY. Not for external distribution, customer-facing proposals, or
marketing copy.

---

### 1. Read This First — Strategic Frame

(Mandatory.) 3–5 sentences. Name the real fight in plain language: what the
buyer is actually deciding, why the competitor is or is not a true category peer
to this product, and the one-line strategic posture. For incumbent or
adjacent/complementary competitors, lead with "and not or" positioning. This
orients the rep before any detail.

### 2. Who They Are & What They Sell

One-sentence summary (category, primary market, what they do not do that is
relevant here). Then a short product/module decomposition: what each product or
module does, what is in and out of scope, and directional public pricing tiers
where known. Be precise — no editorializing. (4–8 lines plus the decomposition.)

### 3. Market Position

(Firmographics block.) A compact fact list giving the rep credibility context
and risk framing: founding year, HQ, ownership, headcount, revenue, customer
count, funding history, third-party review scores (G2 / Gartner Peer Insights /
Capterra — rating + count), certifications, target verticals, key named
customers. Every fact carries a source (Phase 4 sourcing gate). Flag anything
unverifiable and leave it out — never invent firmographics or scores.

### 4. Where We Beat Them

3–5 bullets. Each bullet has a bold label followed by the explanation. Cover the
most decisive differentiators for this specific matchup — do not default to
generic advantages. Draw from: speed, compliance design, data model,
domain-specific AI, cost, implementation effort, independence from lock-in, or
whatever is most relevant to this competitor.

### 5. Their Genuine Strengths

3–5 bullets, each with a bold descriptor. Be honest — these are real strengths
and their strongest legitimate positioning, not strawmen. If they have a genuine
edge (installed base, connectivity, broader scope, compliance pedigree,
integration story), say so plainly. Acknowledging real strength is what makes
the counter credible.

### 6. Their Real Weaknesses

3–6 bullets with bold labels. Weaknesses to exploit, each grounded in a sourced
competitor quote, review theme, or the competitor's own documentation — not
assertion. Label beta/roadmap capabilities as such. This is where the rep finds
the wedge.

### 7. Head-to-Head Comparison

A multi-dimension comparison table ([Product] vs. [Competitor]) across ~12–18
dimensions (category, what it actually does, scope, compliance/security posture,
speed, AI capability, deployment time, customer-side effort, pricing model,
implementation complexity, works-alongside-existing-systems, expansion path,
cloud, best fit for). If a competitive-matrix file exists for this matchup,
source the table from it rather than rebuilding — do not contradict it.

### 8. Objection Handling

A table of 5–6 likely buyer objections. Columns: What they say | How to respond.
Each response is direct speech a rep can internalize and say, grounded in a
specific differentiator or approved proof point. No vague qualifiers.

### 9. Deal Playbooks

2–3 priority-ordered deal scenarios (highest win probability first), from the
scenarios established in Phase 2. For each: the situation, why it's our
position, the entry-point persona to lead with, and a rep pitch script in direct
speech.

### 10. When to Engage vs. When to Walk Away

Two labelled lists:
- Proceed signals — deal conditions where you should lean in and win this
  matchup.
- Walk-away / disqualify signals — where the competitor has a structural edge or
  the deal is not your fight; qualify out early. Frame this as credibility
  protection: a lost deal you should have walked away from costs more than a
  well-fought one. Retain your ICP guardrails (segment, company size, fit).

### 11. Landmines to Plant

4–5 discovery questions a rep seeds with the prospect so the prospect
interrogates the competitor's weak spots before the next meeting. Each question
is followed by a one-line note on what it exposes. Questions target real,
sourced weaknesses — not strawmen.

### 12. Traps to Avoid

3–6 bullets. What our own reps should NOT do in this matchup: attacking a
genuine competitor strength, over-claiming, dismissing real (if narrow)
competitor capabilities, competing on scope we don't have, or failing to
qualify. Protects reps from credibility-damaging moves.

### 13. Proof Points to Cite

2–3 bullet points. Each traces to the approved proof point library in
context/messaging-framework.md. Format:
- [Metric or outcome] — [customer descriptor, product]

Do not cite any metric not in the approved library. If a relevant proof point is
missing, flag it: "This claim is not in the approved proof point library —
confirm source before publishing."

### 14. Kill Phrase

One sentence in a blockquote. Frames the matchup in your favor without
disparaging the competitor. Specific, not generic. If the competitive matrix
file includes an approved kill phrase, use it exactly.

### 15. For Partner Teams

A condensed, channel-ready summary so a partner rep can carry the matchup
without the full card:
- Short version — 2–4 sentences on who the competitor is and where you compete.
- Lead with us when — bulleted conditions.
- Defer when — bulleted conditions.
- Most common win scenario — 1–2 sentences.

---

Sources: All product proof points trace to the approved proof point library in
context/messaging-framework.md. All competitor firmographics, review scores,
pricing, and capability claims are cited to named sources (vendor site, G2 /
Gartner / Capterra, analyst coverage, or the competitor's own documentation).
[Cite the competitive matrix file if used, or note "No competitive matrix on
file."] Battle card version: [Month Year].

---

## Phase 4: Quality Gates

Run these before writing. Apply during writing.

- Gate 1 — No invented proof points (product claims). Every product metric
  traces to the proof point library in context/messaging-framework.md. If a
  metric is not there, flag it and hold the claim.
- Gate 1b — Competitor-fact sourcing. Every competitor firmographic, review
  score, pricing figure, and capability claim carries a named source. Beta/
  roadmap features are labelled as such. Any competitor fact that cannot be
  verified is flagged and left out — never invented.
- Gate 2 — Product scope. Keep the product's category precise; never claim scope
  the product does not have, even defensively, and never let a differentiator
  drift into a category the product does not compete in.
- Gate 2b — Proof-point segregation. Keep proof points in-scope for the product
  line being sold; never borrow a metric from a different product line. A
  roadmap path may be cited as a differentiator, never as a shipped outcome
  metric.
- Gate 3 — No vague AI language. Never: "AI-powered" (standalone),
  "revolutionary," "game-changing," "transformative," "cutting-edge." Be
  specific about what the AI does.
- Gate 4 — Respect prohibited comparisons. Do not make comparisons your legal or
  positioning guidelines disallow. This card is internal-only; the internal-use
  header is mandatory if any restricted name appears.
- Gate 5 — Persona check. The target persona must be established before drafting
  the counter-messages. Counter-messages must use the persona's language and
  pain framing.
- Gate 6 — Outcome-first. Counter-messages and "Where We Beat Them" bullets lead
  with outcome or problem, never product name or feature.
- Gate 7 — Length: every section earns its place. Use the section-level length
  targets in Phase 3. Discipline comes from cutting repetition, not substance.
  If a section has nothing sourced and credible to say, keep it short and note
  the gap rather than inventing filler.
- Gate 8 — SME Review. Mandatory. Run after drafting.

---

## Phase 5: SME Review

After completing the draft, invoke the Subject Matter Expert review
(@workflows/sme-review.md).

The SME evaluates with particular emphasis for battle cards:
- Technical accuracy of all competitor capability claims
- Compliance/regulatory framing — are differentiators accurately stated and
  defensible?
- Deployment timeline comparisons — are both timelines grounded in evidence?
- Proof point credibility — would a buyer in the target persona role accept
  these numbers without pushback?
- Competitive fairness — would a buyer who also evaluated the competitor find
  the comparison honest?
- Whether "Their Genuine Strengths" accurately represents the competitor's real
  strengths, and "Their Real Weaknesses" is grounded in sourced fact
- Market Position firmographics and sourced competitor claims — accurate,
  current, and properly attributed?

Apply all RED-severity revisions before presenting the final output. Apply or
note YELLOW-severity items.

Verdict options: APPROVED / APPROVED WITH REVISIONS / REQUIRES REWORK

---

## Phase 6: Write the Output File

File path: sales-enablement/battle-cards/[product-slug]-vs-[competitor-slug].md

where [product-slug] is the lowercase product name and [competitor-slug] is a
hyphenated lowercase version of the competitor name.

Write the finalized, SME-reviewed battle card to this file.

---

## Phase 7: Hand Off

Report to the user:
- Output file path as a clickable markdown link
- SME final verdict (APPROVED vs. APPROVED post-revision)
- Any flagged proof point gaps (product claims held because they are not in the
  approved library)
- Any competitor facts that could not be verified and were left out or flagged
- Whether a competitive matrix file exists for this matchup — if not, recommend
  creating one

---

## Escalation Paths

Stop and ask before proceeding if:
- Either argument (Product or Competitor) is missing or ambiguous
- The competitor is not in context/competitive-landscape.md and no competitive
  matrix file exists — flag as "no existing intelligence on file" and ask
  whether to proceed from public research or defer until a matrix is built
- The competitor turns out to belong to a different product scope — confirm
  whether to switch product scope before writing
- Any product metric you want to cite is not in the approved proof point
  library — hold the claim and ask for source confirmation before including it
- The SME returns a REQUIRES REWORK verdict — do not present a reworked draft as
  final without completing the full re-review cycle