Battlecards skill
Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations.
by growthack88·MIT license·★ 117 Stars on the repo·GitHub ↗
Use now
npx degit growthack88/growth-marketing-os/skills/community/battlecards#main ~/.claude/skills/battlecardsChecked ·commit main
Inside this skill
SKILL.md · the author's own words<!-- COMMUNITY SKILL — included under its original MIT license. Source: https://github.com/matteotitta/genesys-skills by Matteo Titta (MIT). License text: ../LICENSE-genesys-skills.txt Curated into Growth Marketing OS by Mahmoud Omar (mahmoudomar.com) — this file is NOT original work by the repo author; see /skills/community/README.md. --> # Battlecards Quick-reference competitive intelligence battlecards for live sales conversations. Designed to be scanned in 30 seconds during a call. Supp… The body of this file holds decision-grade context (when to invoke, inputs, structure, anti-hallucination guardrails, gotchas). Step-by-ste… ---
Word-for-word excerpt, not a result. Read the full SKILL.md ↓
Files of Battlecards
SKILL.md
Show the full text225 lines
Battlecards
Quick-reference competitive intelligence battlecards for live sales conversations. Designed to be scanned in 30 seconds during a call. Supports batch generation for multiple competitors with confidence-level sourcing on every claim.
The body of this file holds decision-grade context (when to invoke, inputs, structure, anti-hallucination guardrails, gotchas). Step-by-step process, output template, quality gates, and feedback loops live in references/.
Claude Code triggers
Invoke this skill when user says:
- "Create battlecard for [competitor]"
- "Competitive battlecard"
- "How to win against [competitor]"
- "Competitive intel for sales"
- "Battlecards for [product]"
- "Sales battlecard"
- "Counter-positioning against [competitor]"
- "Competitive one-pager" (if focus is on win/lose scenarios)
Do NOT invoke when:
- User wants deep competitor research → Use
/competitor-researchskill - User wants sales deck → Use
/sales-deckskill - User wants demo script → Use
/demo-scriptskill - User wants competitive feature comparison only → Use
/competitor-researchskill
Input requirements
Required inputs
| Input | Description | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Competitor name(s) | Which competitor(s) to create battlecards for | User specifies |
| Your product context | What you sell, key capabilities | User, product-messaging, or URL |
Optional inputs (improve quality)
| Input | How it helps |
|---|---|
| competitor-research output | Pre-researched intel (funding, features, positioning) |
| win-loss-analysis output | When we win/lose patterns with evidence |
| Product messaging | Counter-positioning based on your value props |
| Positioning context | Strategic anchors for competitive framing |
| Competitor URLs | For live research if no prior research exists |
| Sales call transcripts | Real objections and competitive mentions |
Input validation checklist
Before proceeding, verify:
- Competitor(s) confirmed
- Your product's key differentiators known
- At least one intel source available (research, URL, or docs)
If inputs are missing: Ask which competitor(s). Offer to run competitor-research first if no intel available.
Process at a glance
| Phase | Purpose | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Competitor selection | Confirm scope (single vs batch) | Confirmed competitor list |
| 2. Intel gathering | Pull from research + win-loss + web research | Intel dossier per competitor |
| 3. Battlecard generation | Fill template, add confidence levels, write talk tracks + landmines | Draft battlecard(s) |
| 4. Validation & delivery | Verify sources, format for delivery | Final battlecard(s) |
Full step-by-step (with checkpoints, confidence framework, workflow sequences, GDrive export commands) in references/process.md.
Battlecard structure (decision-grade)
Every battlecard contains these sections — in this order, no exceptions:
- Quick facts — Founded, funding, employees, target market, pricing model, starting price (side-by-side table)
- When we win — 3 specific scenarios + verbatim customer proof point
- When we lose — 2+ honest losing scenarios + mitigation actions
- Their pitch — Verbatim competitor language + key claims
- Counter-positioning — Scripted "when they say X, we say Y" responses
- Feature comparison — Honest table with winner-per-row
- Landmines to plant — 3+ discovery questions that expose competitor weaknesses
- Objection handling — Common objections with proof-pointed responses
- Red flags — When to walk away (qualification-out criteria)
- Sources — Every claim with URL + access date + confidence
Full template with field-level guidance in references/battlecard-template.md. Output wrapper format and iteration prompts in references/auto-update.md.
Anti-hallucination guardrails
Critical for sales credibility:
- Never invent competitor claims. Only use verified data with sources.
- Never fabricate customer quotes. Verbatim only or mark "[PLACEHOLDER: need customer quote]".
- Never guess competitor pricing. Use verified data or mark "[CONFIRM: pricing]".
- Mark confidence levels on all competitive intel (High/Medium/Low/UNVERIFIED).
- Cite sources for all factual claims with access dates.
- Acknowledge gaps rather than fill with plausible content.
- Be honest about weaknesses. "When we lose" builds credibility with sales team.
Gotchas
- Fabricated competitor pricing: Invents pricing tiers when pricing page is gated or not found → Mark pricing as [UNAVAILABLE] and note where to find it (sales call, demo request). Never guess.
- Generic objection handlers: Produces "we're more reliable" instead of specific counter-arguments → Every objection handler must reference a concrete differentiator or proof point.
- Missing landmines: Only covers strengths, forgets to include questions that expose competitor weaknesses → Landmines are the most valuable section for sales reps. 3-5 questions per competitor minimum.
- Stale competitive data: Uses old competitor positioning without checking current website → Always scrape competitor website at time of battlecard creation. Note access date.
Integration with other skills
Upstream skills (provide inputs)
| Skill | What it provides | Required? |
|---|---|---|
| competitor-research | Company facts, positioning, features, pricing | Recommended |
| win-loss-analysis | Win/loss patterns, objections, proof points | Recommended |
| product-messaging | Your value props for counter-positioning | Recommended |
| positioning | Strategic competitive anchors | Optional |
Downstream skills (consume outputs)
| Skill | How it uses battlecards |
|---|---|
| sales-deck | Differentiation slide content |
| demo-script | Objection handling during demos |
| outreach-emails | Competitive displacement email content |
Reference files
| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
references/process.md |
4-phase runbook + flowchart + confidence framework + workflow sequences |
references/battlecard-template.md |
Complete battlecard structure with field-level examples |
references/quality.md |
Pre-delivery checklist + self-evaluation protocol + anti-examples |
references/auto-update.md |
Output wrapper, iteration prompts, feedback signal detection, pattern rules |
MCP data integration
Level: 2 — PM Execution (inherits upstream, no unique pulls)
Inherits from: competitor-research, win-loss-analysis, product-messaging
Pulls fresh: NONE — all data comes from upstream. Battlecards synthesize existing competitor research and win-loss patterns.
Fallback (no MCP): Use competitor-research and win-loss-analysis outputs directly. If upstream skills haven't run, trigger them first before running battlecards.
Changelog
| Version | Date | Changes |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-02-06 | Initial skill creation. Extracted from sales-enablement with dedicated process, confidence framework, batch support, and Google Docs/PDF export |
| 1.1 | 2026-05-01 | Slim refactor: extracted process, quality, and auto-update protocol to references/ (Phase 4.5.1.C) |
| 1 | |
| 2 | name battlecards |
| 3 | version '1.0' |
| 4 | last_updated 2026-02-06 |
| 5 | author marketing-team |
| 6 | description Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. Produces win themes, landmines to plant, objection |
| 7 | handlers, and competitive positioning per competitor. Outputs a structured markdown battlecard with quick-reference sections |
| 8 | for live sales calls. Depends on competitor-research for competitive intelligence and consumes product-messaging, win-loss-analysis, |
| 9 | and positioning for framing. Feeds into sales-deck, outreach-emails, and demo-script. Triggered by "battlecard", "competitive |
| 10 | intel", "win against [competitor]", or "how do we beat [competitor]". |
| 11 | goal Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. |
| 12 | outcome Creates competitive battlecards for sales deal conversations. Produces win themes, landmines to plant, objection |
| 13 | handlers, and competitive positioning per competitor. Outputs a structured markdown battlecard with quick-reference sections |
| 14 | for live sales calls. Depends on competitor-research for... |
| 15 | primitive sales-enablement |
| 16 | ontology_type battlecard |
| 17 | review_gate 2 |
| 18 | inputs |
| 19 | required [] |
| 20 | recommended |
| 21 | - competitor-research |
| 22 | - product-messaging |
| 23 | - win-loss-analysis |
| 24 | - positioning |
| 25 | outputs |
| 26 | - type: battlecard |
| 27 | feeds_into |
| 28 | - sales-deck |
| 29 | - outreach-emails |
| 30 | - demo-script |
| 31 | depends_on [] |
| 32 | feeds_into |
| 33 | - demo-script |
| 34 | - outreach-emails |
| 35 | - sales-deck |
| 36 | owned_by_agent sales |
| 37 | mcps_used [] |
| 38 | push_targets |
| 39 | - gdrive |
| 40 | triggers |
| 41 | slash_commands [] |
| 42 | natural_language [] |
| 43 | status draft |
| 44 | locked_by null |
| 45 | locked_date null |
| 46 | lock_version null |
| 47 | sources_count 0 |
| 48 | context fork |
| 49 | effort high |
| 50 | |
| 51 | |
| 52 | <!-- |
| 53 | COMMUNITY SKILL — included under its original MIT license. |
| 54 | Source: https://github.com/matteotitta/genesys-skills by Matteo Titta (MIT). |
| 55 | License text: ../LICENSE-genesys-skills.txt |
| 56 | Curated into Growth Marketing OS by Mahmoud Omar (mahmoudomar.com) — this file |
| 57 | is NOT original work by the repo author; see /skills/community/README.md. |
| 58 | --> |
| 59 | |
| 60 | |
| 61 | # Battlecards |
| 62 | |
| 63 | Quick-reference competitive intelligence battlecards for live sales conversations. Designed to be scanned in 30 seconds during a call. Supports batch generation for multiple competitors with confidence-level sourcing on every claim. |
| 64 | |
| 65 | The body of this file holds decision-grade context (when to invoke, inputs, structure, anti-hallucination guardrails, gotchas). Step-by-step process, output template, quality gates, and feedback loops live in `references/`. |
| 66 | |
| 67 | |
| 68 | |
| 69 | ## Claude Code triggers |
| 70 | |
| 71 | **Invoke this skill when user says:** |
| 72 | "Create battlecard for [competitor]" |
| 73 | "Competitive battlecard" |
| 74 | "How to win against [competitor]" |
| 75 | "Competitive intel for sales" |
| 76 | "Battlecards for [product]" |
| 77 | "Sales battlecard" |
| 78 | "Counter-positioning against [competitor]" |
| 79 | "Competitive one-pager" (if focus is on win/lose scenarios) |
| 80 | |
| 81 | **Do NOT invoke when:** |
| 82 | User wants deep competitor research → Use `/competitor-research` skill |
| 83 | User wants sales deck → Use `/sales-deck` skill |
| 84 | User wants demo script → Use `/demo-script` skill |
| 85 | User wants competitive feature comparison only → Use `/competitor-research` skill |
| 86 | |
| 87 | |
| 88 | |
| 89 | ## Input requirements |
| 90 | |
| 91 | ### Required inputs |
| 92 | |
| 93 | | Input | Description | Source | |
| 94 | |-------|-------------|--------| |
| 95 | | **Competitor name(s)** | Which competitor(s) to create battlecards for | User specifies | |
| 96 | | **Your product context** | What you sell, key capabilities | User, product-messaging, or URL | |
| 97 | |
| 98 | ### Optional inputs (improve quality) |
| 99 | |
| 100 | | Input | How it helps | |
| 101 | |-------|--------------| |
| 102 | | competitor-research output | Pre-researched intel (funding, features, positioning) | |
| 103 | | win-loss-analysis output | When we win/lose patterns with evidence | |
| 104 | | Product messaging | Counter-positioning based on your value props | |
| 105 | | Positioning context | Strategic anchors for competitive framing | |
| 106 | | Competitor URLs | For live research if no prior research exists | |
| 107 | | Sales call transcripts | Real objections and competitive mentions | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | ### Input validation checklist |
| 110 | |
| 111 | Before proceeding, verify: |
| 112 | [ ] Competitor(s) confirmed |
| 113 | [ ] Your product's key differentiators known |
| 114 | [ ] At least one intel source available (research, URL, or docs) |
| 115 | |
| 116 | **If inputs are missing:** Ask which competitor(s). Offer to run competitor-research first if no intel available. |
| 117 | |
| 118 | |
| 119 | |
| 120 | ## Process at a glance |
| 121 | |
| 122 | | Phase | Purpose | Output | |
| 123 | |-------|---------|--------| |
| 124 | | 1. Competitor selection | Confirm scope (single vs batch) | Confirmed competitor list | |
| 125 | | 2. Intel gathering | Pull from research + win-loss + web research | Intel dossier per competitor | |
| 126 | | 3. Battlecard generation | Fill template, add confidence levels, write talk tracks + landmines | Draft battlecard(s) | |
| 127 | | 4. Validation & delivery | Verify sources, format for delivery | Final battlecard(s) | |
| 128 | |
| 129 | Full step-by-step (with checkpoints, confidence framework, workflow sequences, GDrive export commands) in [`references/process.md`]. |
| 130 | |
| 131 | |
| 132 | |
| 133 | ## Battlecard structure (decision-grade) |
| 134 | |
| 135 | Every battlecard contains these sections — in this order, no exceptions: |
| 136 | |
| 137 | **Quick facts** — Founded, funding, employees, target market, pricing model, starting price (side-by-side table) |
| 138 | **When we win** — 3 specific scenarios + verbatim customer proof point |
| 139 | **When we lose** — 2+ honest losing scenarios + mitigation actions |
| 140 | **Their pitch** — Verbatim competitor language + key claims |
| 141 | **Counter-positioning** — Scripted "when they say X, we say Y" responses |
| 142 | **Feature comparison** — Honest table with winner-per-row |
| 143 | **Landmines to plant** — 3+ discovery questions that expose competitor weaknesses |
| 144 | **Objection handling** — Common objections with proof-pointed responses |
| 145 | **Red flags** — When to walk away (qualification-out criteria) |
| 146 | **Sources** — Every claim with URL + access date + confidence |
| 147 | |
| 148 | Full template with field-level guidance in [`references/battlecard-template.md`]. Output wrapper format and iteration prompts in [`references/auto-update.md`]. |
| 149 | |
| 150 | |
| 151 | |
| 152 | ## Anti-hallucination guardrails |
| 153 | |
| 154 | **Critical for sales credibility:** |
| 155 | |
| 156 | **Never invent competitor claims.** Only use verified data with sources. |
| 157 | **Never fabricate customer quotes.** Verbatim only or mark "[PLACEHOLDER: need customer quote]". |
| 158 | **Never guess competitor pricing.** Use verified data or mark "[CONFIRM: pricing]". |
| 159 | **Mark confidence levels** on all competitive intel (High/Medium/Low/UNVERIFIED). |
| 160 | **Cite sources** for all factual claims with access dates. |
| 161 | **Acknowledge gaps** rather than fill with plausible content. |
| 162 | **Be honest about weaknesses.** "When we lose" builds credibility with sales team. |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 165 | |
| 166 | ## Gotchas |
| 167 | |
| 168 | **Fabricated competitor pricing**: Invents pricing tiers when pricing page is gated or not found → Mark pricing as [UNAVAILABLE] and note where to find it (sales call, demo request). Never guess. |
| 169 | **Generic objection handlers**: Produces "we're more reliable" instead of specific counter-arguments → Every objection handler must reference a concrete differentiator or proof point. |
| 170 | **Missing landmines**: Only covers strengths, forgets to include questions that expose competitor weaknesses → Landmines are the most valuable section for sales reps. 3-5 questions per competitor minimum. |
| 171 | **Stale competitive data**: Uses old competitor positioning without checking current website → Always scrape competitor website at time of battlecard creation. Note access date. |
| 172 | |
| 173 | |
| 174 | |
| 175 | ## Integration with other skills |
| 176 | |
| 177 | ### Upstream skills (provide inputs) |
| 178 | |
| 179 | | Skill | What it provides | Required? | |
| 180 | |-------|------------------|-----------| |
| 181 | | **competitor-research** | Company facts, positioning, features, pricing | Recommended | |
| 182 | | **win-loss-analysis** | Win/loss patterns, objections, proof points | Recommended | |
| 183 | | **product-messaging** | Your value props for counter-positioning | Recommended | |
| 184 | | **positioning** | Strategic competitive anchors | Optional | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | ### Downstream skills (consume outputs) |
| 187 | |
| 188 | | Skill | How it uses battlecards | |
| 189 | |-------|-------------------------| |
| 190 | | **sales-deck** | Differentiation slide content | |
| 191 | | **demo-script** | Objection handling during demos | |
| 192 | | **outreach-emails** | Competitive displacement email content | |
| 193 | |
| 194 | |
| 195 | |
| 196 | ## Reference files |
| 197 | |
| 198 | | File | Purpose | |
| 199 | |------|---------| |
| 200 | | [`references/process.md`] | 4-phase runbook + flowchart + confidence framework + workflow sequences | |
| 201 | | [`references/battlecard-template.md`] | Complete battlecard structure with field-level examples | |
| 202 | | [`references/quality.md`] | Pre-delivery checklist + self-evaluation protocol + anti-examples | |
| 203 | | [`references/auto-update.md`] | Output wrapper, iteration prompts, feedback signal detection, pattern rules | |
| 204 | |
| 205 | |
| 206 | |
| 207 | ## MCP data integration |
| 208 | |
| 209 | **Level:** 2 — PM Execution (inherits upstream, no unique pulls) |
| 210 | |
| 211 | **Inherits from:** competitor-research, win-loss-analysis, product-messaging |
| 212 | |
| 213 | **Pulls fresh:** NONE — all data comes from upstream. Battlecards synthesize existing competitor research and win-loss patterns. |
| 214 | |
| 215 | **Fallback (no MCP):** Use competitor-research and win-loss-analysis outputs directly. If upstream skills haven't run, trigger them first before running battlecards. |
| 216 | |
| 217 | |
| 218 | |
| 219 | ## Changelog |
| 220 | |
| 221 | | Version | Date | Changes | |
| 222 | |---------|------|---------| |
| 223 | | 1.0 | 2026-02-06 | Initial skill creation. Extracted from sales-enablement with dedicated process, confidence framework, batch support, and Google Docs/PDF export | |
| 224 | | 1.1 | 2026-05-01 | Slim refactor: extracted process, quality, and auto-update protocol to references/ (Phase 4.5.1.C) | |
| 225 |
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.Competitor 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".Ad 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.Competitor 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.
Browse more free Claude skills or everything in Product.