Battlecard builder skill

Create competitive battlecards — FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act), Why We Win/Why We Lose, objection handling cards per competitor, pricing comparisons, and quick-dismiss summaries.

by LeadMagic·MIT license·★ 62 Stars on the repo·GitHub ↗

Use now

Inside this skill

SKILL.md · the author's own words
# Battlecard Builder

## Overview

A battlecard is a concise competitive document that gives reps exactly what to
say in competitive situations. Not a feature comparison table — a talk track
with proof points. The FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act) from Klue structures
every card so reps can use it during a live call, not just study it beforehand.

A rep should be able to glance at a battlecard for 10 seconds before or during
a call and know exactly what to say.

## When to Use

- "Build a battlecard against [competitor]"
- "Create competitive battlecards for our team"

Word-for-word excerpt, not a result. Read the full SKILL.md ↓

Files of Battlecard builder

LeadMagic/main1 file shown
SKILL.md
Show the full text190 lines

Battlecard Builder

Overview

A battlecard is a concise competitive document that gives reps exactly what to say in competitive situations. Not a feature comparison table — a talk track with proof points. The FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act) from Klue structures every card so reps can use it during a live call, not just study it beforehand.

A rep should be able to glance at a battlecard for 10 seconds before or during a call and know exactly what to say.

When to Use

  • "Build a battlecard against [competitor]"
  • "Create competitive battlecards for our team"
  • "Prepare for a deal where [competitor] is involved"
  • "What do we say when a prospect mentions [competitor]?"
  • "Build an objection handling card"
  • "Create a quick-dismiss card for [competitor]"

Authoritative Foundations

  • Klue FIA Framework — Fact → Impact → Act. The industry standard for battlecard structure. Fact: the competitive insight. Impact: why it matters. Act: what the rep says or does.
  • Klue COMP-ACT Framework — extended framework for deeper competitive intel.
  • Force Management Command of the Message — Defensible Differentiators. Battlecards should map to the VMF's differentiator framework.

Step-by-Step Process

Phase 1: Card Type Selection

Build a complete battlecard set per competitor:

Card Type Purpose Use Case
Why We Win Key competitive advantages with talk tracks When rep knows competitor is in the deal
Why We Lose Where they win, how to counter When deal is trending toward competitor
Objection Handling Competitor-specific objections with responses When prospect raises specific competitor claims
Pricing Card Pricing comparison with value positioning When price is the objection
Quick Dismiss One-card summary When competitor comes up briefly
Landmines to Lay Questions that expose competitor weaknesses Pre-emptive positioning
Approach to Market How competitor sells vs how you sell Strategic positioning
Phase 2: FIA Structure

Every card follows:

Fact — The competitive insight. What is objectively true. "This competitor requires 3-6 months of professional services to implement."

Impact — Why it matters to the deal. So what? "That means 3-6 months before the customer sees any value. They're paying for the software AND the services before anything works."

Act — What the rep says or does. The talk track. "Ask: 'What's your timeline to first value? Most implementations of [competitor] take 3-6 months. Our customers typically see value in week one. Is that difference material to your evaluation?'"

Phase 3: Per-Competitor Package

For each major competitor, produce:

  1. Why We Win (3-5 cards) — your strongest advantages
  2. Why We Lose (2-3 cards) — honest about where they win, with counters
  3. Objection Handling (5-10 objections) — FIA structure per objection
  4. Pricing Card — transparent comparison
  5. Quick Dismiss — one-page summary for fast reference
Phase 4: Talk Track Principles
  • No feature wars. "They have X, we have Y" loses to "they approach the problem this way, we approach it this way — here's why ours produces better outcomes."
  • Proof beats claims. Every talk track includes a specific proof point.
  • Acknowledge before countering. "They're good at X. Where customers tell us they struggle is Y."
  • Don't trash the competitor. It makes you look small. Acknowledge their strengths honestly, then differentiate.

Output Format

# Battlecard: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]

## Quick Facts
- Their positioning: [how they describe themselves]
- Pricing: [model and tiers]
- Target customer: [who they sell to]
- Strengths: [honest assessment]
- Weaknesses: [where they fall short]

## Why We Win
### Card 1: [Advantage Area]
**Fact:** [competitive insight]
**Impact:** [why it matters]
**Act:** [talk track or question]

## Why We Lose
### Card 1: [Their Strength Area]
**Fact:** [where they are strong]
**Impact:** [why they win here]
**Counter:** [how to neutralize]

## Objection Handling
### "[Common objection]"
**Acknowledge:** [validate the concern]
**Explore:** [question to understand deeper]
**Redirect:** [reframe with insight + proof]

## Pricing Comparison
| Dimension | Us | Them |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | $X/mo | $Y/mo |
| What's included | [list] | [list] |
| Hidden costs | None | [implementation, add-ons] |

## Quick Dismiss
**When prospect mentions [competitor]:** [one-sentence response]
**Follow-up:** [one question that shifts the conversation]

Quality Check

  • Complete set per competitor (Why We Win, Why We Lose, Objections, Pricing, Quick Dismiss)
  • Every card has FIA structure
  • Talk tracks are conversation-ready, not feature comparison tables
  • Proof points are specific and verifiable
  • Acknowledges competitor strengths honestly
  • Pricing comparison is accurate and current
  • Rep can use any card within 10 seconds of glancing at it
  • Updated within last 90 days

Common Pitfalls

  1. Feature comparison instead of talk tracks. A table of features is a reference doc. A battlecard is a conversation tool. Write talk tracks.

  2. No proof points. "We're better at X" without evidence loses to competitors who have it. Every claim gets a proof point.

  3. Trashing the competitor. "They're terrible" makes you look defensive. Acknowledge strengths, differentiate on outcomes.

  4. Stale pricing. A battlecard with 6-month-old pricing is worse than no battlecard. Reps lose credibility instantly.

  5. Too long. Reps cannot read a 3-page document during a call. One card per topic, scannable in 10 seconds.

  6. One card for all competitors. Different competitors attack from different angles. A battlecard for Salesforce looks different from one for a startup.

Execution Artifacts

  • references/framework-notes.md — named frameworks, citation anchors, and operating assumptions
  • templates/output-template.md — copy-paste deliverable structure for the user
  • scripts/check-output.py — local checklist validator for required sections This skill includes lightweight artifacts the agent can load on demand: Use the artifacts when the user asks for an implementation-ready deliverable, a repeatable workflow, or a quality check rather than generic advice.
  • competitive-intel: Research to populate battlecards
  • objection-handling: Objection taxonomy and response frameworks
  • sales-enablement: Complete enablement package
  • pitch-deck-builder: Decks that reference battlecard positioning
1---
2name: battlecard-builder
3description: >-
4 Create competitive battlecards — FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act), Why We
5 Win/Why We Lose, objection handling cards per competitor, pricing comparisons,
6 and quick-dismiss summaries. Use when building competitive intelligence, preparing
7 for competitive deals, or creating sales enablement materials. Triggers on:
8 "battlecard", "competitive battlecard", "competitor comparison", "Why We Win",
9 "objection handling card", "competitor intel", or any competitive enablement.
10license: MIT
11compatibility: Claude Code, Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Goose, Hermes, Windsurf, Zed
12metadata:
13 version: "1.1.0"
14 author: LeadMagic
15 category: design
16 tags: [battlecards, competitive, sales-enablement, objection-handling]
17 related_skills: [competitive-intel, objection-handling, sales-enablement, pitch-deck-builder]
18 frameworks: [Klue FIA Framework, Klue COMP-ACT Framework, Force Management Command of the Message Differentiator Mapping, Todd Caponi Transparency Sale]
19---
20 
21# Battlecard Builder
22 
23## Overview
24 
25A battlecard is a concise competitive document that gives reps exactly what to
26say in competitive situations. Not a feature comparison table — a talk track
27with proof points. The FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act) from Klue structures
28every card so reps can use it during a live call, not just study it beforehand.
29 
30A rep should be able to glance at a battlecard for 10 seconds before or during
31a call and know exactly what to say.
32 
33## When to Use
34 
35- "Build a battlecard against [competitor]"
36- "Create competitive battlecards for our team"
37- "Prepare for a deal where [competitor] is involved"
38- "What do we say when a prospect mentions [competitor]?"
39- "Build an objection handling card"
40- "Create a quick-dismiss card for [competitor]"
41 
42## Authoritative Foundations
43 
44- **Klue FIA Framework** — Fact → Impact → Act. The industry standard for
45 battlecard structure. Fact: the competitive insight. Impact: why it matters.
46 Act: what the rep says or does.
47- **Klue COMP-ACT Framework** — extended framework for deeper competitive intel.
48- **Force Management Command of the Message** — Defensible Differentiators.
49 Battlecards should map to the VMF's differentiator framework.
50 
51## Step-by-Step Process
52 
53### Phase 1: Card Type Selection
54 
55Build a complete battlecard set per competitor:
56 
57| Card Type | Purpose | Use Case |
58|---|---|---|
59| **Why We Win** | Key competitive advantages with talk tracks | When rep knows competitor is in the deal |
60| **Why We Lose** | Where they win, how to counter | When deal is trending toward competitor |
61| **Objection Handling** | Competitor-specific objections with responses | When prospect raises specific competitor claims |
62| **Pricing Card** | Pricing comparison with value positioning | When price is the objection |
63| **Quick Dismiss** | One-card summary | When competitor comes up briefly |
64| **Landmines to Lay** | Questions that expose competitor weaknesses | Pre-emptive positioning |
65| **Approach to Market** | How competitor sells vs how you sell | Strategic positioning |
66 
67### Phase 2: FIA Structure
68 
69Every card follows:
70 
71**Fact** — The competitive insight. What is objectively true.
72"This competitor requires 3-6 months of professional services to implement."
73 
74**Impact** — Why it matters to the deal. So what?
75"That means 3-6 months before the customer sees any value. They're paying for
76the software AND the services before anything works."
77 
78**Act** — What the rep says or does. The talk track.
79"Ask: 'What's your timeline to first value? Most implementations of [competitor]
80take 3-6 months. Our customers typically see value in week one. Is that
81difference material to your evaluation?'"
82 
83### Phase 3: Per-Competitor Package
84 
85For each major competitor, produce:
86 
871. **Why We Win** (3-5 cards) — your strongest advantages
882. **Why We Lose** (2-3 cards) — honest about where they win, with counters
893. **Objection Handling** (5-10 objections) — FIA structure per objection
904. **Pricing Card** — transparent comparison
915. **Quick Dismiss** — one-page summary for fast reference
92 
93### Phase 4: Talk Track Principles
94 
95- No feature wars. "They have X, we have Y" loses to "they approach the problem
96 this way, we approach it this way — here's why ours produces better outcomes."
97- Proof beats claims. Every talk track includes a specific proof point.
98- Acknowledge before countering. "They're good at X. Where customers tell us
99 they struggle is Y."
100- Don't trash the competitor. It makes you look small. Acknowledge their
101 strengths honestly, then differentiate.
102 
103## Output Format
104 
105```
106# Battlecard: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]
107 
108## Quick Facts
109- Their positioning: [how they describe themselves]
110- Pricing: [model and tiers]
111- Target customer: [who they sell to]
112- Strengths: [honest assessment]
113- Weaknesses: [where they fall short]
114 
115## Why We Win
116### Card 1: [Advantage Area]
117**Fact:** [competitive insight]
118**Impact:** [why it matters]
119**Act:** [talk track or question]
120 
121## Why We Lose
122### Card 1: [Their Strength Area]
123**Fact:** [where they are strong]
124**Impact:** [why they win here]
125**Counter:** [how to neutralize]
126 
127## Objection Handling
128### "[Common objection]"
129**Acknowledge:** [validate the concern]
130**Explore:** [question to understand deeper]
131**Redirect:** [reframe with insight + proof]
132 
133## Pricing Comparison
134| Dimension | Us | Them |
135|---|---|---|
136| Entry price | $X/mo | $Y/mo |
137| What's included | [list] | [list] |
138| Hidden costs | None | [implementation, add-ons] |
139 
140## Quick Dismiss
141**When prospect mentions [competitor]:** [one-sentence response]
142**Follow-up:** [one question that shifts the conversation]
143```
144 
145## Quality Check
146 
147- [ ] Complete set per competitor (Why We Win, Why We Lose, Objections, Pricing, Quick Dismiss)
148- [ ] Every card has FIA structure
149- [ ] Talk tracks are conversation-ready, not feature comparison tables
150- [ ] Proof points are specific and verifiable
151- [ ] Acknowledges competitor strengths honestly
152- [ ] Pricing comparison is accurate and current
153- [ ] Rep can use any card within 10 seconds of glancing at it
154- [ ] Updated within last 90 days
155 
156## Common Pitfalls
157 
1581. **Feature comparison instead of talk tracks.** A table of features is a
159 reference doc. A battlecard is a conversation tool. Write talk tracks.
160 
1612. **No proof points.** "We're better at X" without evidence loses to
162 competitors who have it. Every claim gets a proof point.
163 
1643. **Trashing the competitor.** "They're terrible" makes you look defensive.
165 Acknowledge strengths, differentiate on outcomes.
166 
1674. **Stale pricing.** A battlecard with 6-month-old pricing is worse than
168 no battlecard. Reps lose credibility instantly.
169 
1705. **Too long.** Reps cannot read a 3-page document during a call. One card
171 per topic, scannable in 10 seconds.
172 
1736. **One card for all competitors.** Different competitors attack from different
174 angles. A battlecard for Salesforce looks different from one for a startup.
175 
176## Execution Artifacts
177 
178- `references/framework-notes.md` — named frameworks, citation anchors, and operating assumptions
179- `templates/output-template.md` — copy-paste deliverable structure for the user
180- `scripts/check-output.py` — local checklist validator for required sections
181This skill includes lightweight artifacts the agent can load on demand:
182Use the artifacts when the user asks for an implementation-ready deliverable, a repeatable workflow, or a quality check rather than generic advice.
183 
184## Related Skills
185 
186- **competitive-intel**: Research to populate battlecards
187- **objection-handling**: Objection taxonomy and response frameworks
188- **sales-enablement**: Complete enablement package
189- **pitch-deck-builder**: Decks that reference battlecard positioning
190 

Discussion

Alternatives

Company valuationEstimate the intrinsic value of a public company using DCF, relative (peer multiple) and sum-of-parts (SOTP) methods, then triangulate to an implied share price with upside/downside versus the current market price. Use this skill whenever the user asks: what is AAPL worth", "valuation of NVDA", "fair value of TSLA", "intrinsic value", DCF for MSFT", "build a DCF", "discounted cash flow", "WACC", "terminal value", implied share price", "upside to fair value", "is X overvalued/undervalued", relative valuation", "peer comparison valuation", "EV/EBITDA target", "SOTP", sum of the parts", "how much is [company] worth", "price target from fundamentals", value this company", or any ticker in the context of computing intrinsic or relative valuation. Default to running ALL three methods (DCF + relative + SOTP-if-applicable) and presenting a blended implied price with a sensitivity table. Do not answer valuation questions from memory — always run the workflow. · MITCompetitor gapFind keywords a competitor ranks for that the user's site doesn't — the content gap, prioritized by volume and winnability. Use when asked "what does competitor.com rank for", "keyword gap vs X", "steal competitor keywords", or "why do they outrank us".Business & ops · MITAd angle minerMine the highest-converting ad angles from customer reviews, Reddit complaints, support tickets, and competitor ads. Extracts actual pain language, competitor weaknesses, and outcome phrases that real buyers use. Outputs a ranked angle bank with proof quotes and recommended ad formats per angle.Business & ops · MITCompetitor content intelligenceAnalyze competitor content coverage and uncover differentiated content opportunities using web search, page extraction, and DataForSEO content analysis. Use when asked for competitor content research, editorial gap analysis, content brief inputs, or topic whitespace.Business & ops · Apache-2.0