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 ↗
npx degit LeadMagic/gtm-skills/skills/design/battlecard-builder#main ~/.claude/skills/battlecard-builderChecked ·commit main
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
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:
- Why We Win (3-5 cards) — your strongest advantages
- Why We Lose (2-3 cards) — honest about where they win, with counters
- Objection Handling (5-10 objections) — FIA structure per objection
- Pricing Card — transparent comparison
- 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
Feature comparison instead of talk tracks. A table of features is a reference doc. A battlecard is a conversation tool. Write talk tracks.
No proof points. "We're better at X" without evidence loses to competitors who have it. Every claim gets a proof point.
Trashing the competitor. "They're terrible" makes you look defensive. Acknowledge strengths, differentiate on outcomes.
Stale pricing. A battlecard with 6-month-old pricing is worse than no battlecard. Reps lose credibility instantly.
Too long. Reps cannot read a 3-page document during a call. One card per topic, scannable in 10 seconds.
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 assumptionstemplates/output-template.md— copy-paste deliverable structure for the userscripts/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.
Related Skills
- 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 | |
| 2 | name battlecard-builder |
| 3 | description >- |
| 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. |
| 10 | license MIT |
| 11 | compatibility Claude Code, Codex, GitHub Copilot, Cursor, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Goose, Hermes, Windsurf, Zed |
| 12 | metadata |
| 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 | |
| 25 | A battlecard is a concise competitive document that gives reps exactly what to |
| 26 | say in competitive situations. Not a feature comparison table — a talk track |
| 27 | with proof points. The FIA Framework (Fact → Impact → Act) from Klue structures |
| 28 | every card so reps can use it during a live call, not just study it beforehand. |
| 29 | |
| 30 | A rep should be able to glance at a battlecard for 10 seconds before or during |
| 31 | a 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 | |
| 55 | Build 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 | |
| 69 | Every 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 |
| 76 | the 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] |
| 80 | take 3-6 months. Our customers typically see value in week one. Is that |
| 81 | difference material to your evaluation?'" |
| 82 | |
| 83 | ### Phase 3: Per-Competitor Package |
| 84 | |
| 85 | For each major competitor, produce: |
| 86 | |
| 87 | **Why We Win** (3-5 cards) — your strongest advantages |
| 88 | **Why We Lose** (2-3 cards) — honest about where they win, with counters |
| 89 | **Objection Handling** (5-10 objections) — FIA structure per objection |
| 90 | **Pricing Card** — transparent comparison |
| 91 | **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 | |
| 158 | **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 | |
| 161 | **No proof points.** "We're better at X" without evidence loses to |
| 162 | competitors who have it. Every claim gets a proof point. |
| 163 | |
| 164 | **Trashing the competitor.** "They're terrible" makes you look defensive. |
| 165 | Acknowledge strengths, differentiate on outcomes. |
| 166 | |
| 167 | **Stale pricing.** A battlecard with 6-month-old pricing is worse than |
| 168 | no battlecard. Reps lose credibility instantly. |
| 169 | |
| 170 | **Too long.** Reps cannot read a 3-page document during a call. One card |
| 171 | per topic, scannable in 10 seconds. |
| 172 | |
| 173 | **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 |
| 181 | This skill includes lightweight artifacts the agent can load on demand: |
| 182 | Use 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
Browse more free Claude skills or everything in Product.