Use when a deal needs its discovery plan, its qualification score, or both before it moves stage.
Instructions your experts follow when using this skill.
Use this when a deal needs its discovery plan, its qualification score, or both before it moves stage. Start from the deal sheet or call transcript, the account brief, and which qualification framework the user runs — MEDDICC, MEDDPICC, or SPICED, each a checklist whose letters are spelled out under Met bars below (MEDDICC when unset, MEDDPICC on long multi-stakeholder cycles).
Build the discovery plan first: the outcome as one ask, an agenda with buyer buy-in up top, eight to ten ordered questions — including one implication question, one quantified-impact question, and one consequence-of-inaction question — the two objections most likely to surface, and the dual close: qualified gets the fit summary plus a dated next step, unqualified gets a polite no plus a referral ask. Ground every question in the brief; no generic checklist.
Score the deal against the framework after the call. Each letter is met only with a buyer quote or a sourced FACT — no partial credit, no seller activity dressed as evidence. Quote the line that meets each letter; letters without a quote stay open with the exact question the next call must answer.
Advance, stay, or close. Advance needs every must-have letter met. Anything else names the gap and the dated next step that closes it.
MEDDICC: Metrics (a number they said out loud, like "close the books in five days instead of twelve"; "more efficient" is a wish, not a metric), Economic buyer (the approver named, on a call or confirmed by someone who knows), Decision criteria (how they will judge options, in their words), Decision process (steps and owners to signature, with a timeframe), Identified pain (the problem and its cost, as they put it; a pain we described to them and they nodded at is not theirs yet), Champion (someone by name who told you they want this and will spend their own political capital inside the company to get it; a friendly contact is not the same thing), Competition (alternatives named, including do nothing).
SPICED: Situation (current setup, stated), Pain (in their words), Impact (cost or upside quantified by them), Critical event (a date forcing a decision, tested — name what happens if the date slips; a date with no consequences is a wish, and a customer deadline is not your quarter-end), Decision (process and people).
MEDDPICC adds Paper process (procurement, legal, and security steps with owners and dates — required on cycles over three months or five-plus stakeholders). A letter met on evidence 90 or more days old stays open until re-confirmed.
The discovery plan before the call, and the scored framework with quotes plus the verdict after.
No transcript means you score from the user's notes: a letter already backed by a sourced FACT in those notes keeps it, and only the letters resting on unsourced recollection are marked INFERENCE until a quote lands. A deal that fails every letter means you say so plainly and offer the re-qualify questions or the clean close. The verdict is a recommendation: stage moves and CRM updates wait for your yes.
Phrases that help your experts find this skill.
When the user wants to create or update their product marketing context document. Also use when the user mentions 'product context,' 'marketing context,' 'set up context,' 'positioning,' 'who is my target audience,' 'describe my product,' 'ICP,' 'ideal customer profile,' or wants to avoid repeating foundational information across marketing tasks. Use this at the start of any new project before using other marketing skills — it creates `.agents/product-marketing.md` that all other skills reference for product, audience, and positioning context.
When the user wants to research, profile, or analyze competitors from their URLs. Also use when the user mentions 'competitor profile,' 'competitor research,' 'competitor analysis,' 'profile this competitor,' 'analyze competitor,' 'competitive intelligence,' 'competitor deep dive,' 'who are my competitors,' 'competitor landscape,' 'competitor dossier,' 'competitive audit,' or 'research these competitors.' Input is a list of competitor URLs. Output is structured competitor profile markdown files. For creating comparison/alternative pages from profiles, see competitors. For sales-specific battle cards, see sales-enablement.
When the user wants to conduct, analyze, or synthesize customer research. Use when the user mentions "customer research," "ICP research," "talk to customers," "analyze transcripts," "customer interviews," "survey analysis," "support ticket analysis," "voice of customer," "VOC," "build personas," "customer personas," "jobs to be done," "JTBD," "what do customers say," "what are customers struggling with," "Reddit mining," "G2 reviews," "review mining," "digital watering holes," "community research," "forum research," "competitor reviews," "customer sentiment," "PMF survey," "product/market fit survey," "customer interview questions," "interview outreach," "Sales Safari," or "find out why customers churn/convert/buy." Use for analyzing existing research assets, mining online sources, AND running primary research (interviews and surveys). For writing copy informed by research, see copywriting. For acting on research to improve pages, see cro.