battle-card-builder

# Battle Card Builder

## Purpose

Build a field-action competitive battle card from public evidence: **use or gather evidence → search
plan (if gathering) → draft card with per-claim labels → appendix → next-step options.** A battle
card is the artifact a rep opens mid-deal, not a research report — it must fit thirty seconds, every
claim must survive being said out loud to a hostile audience, and every claim therefore carries a
source URL, a date, and a Fact/Inference/Assumption label. Most battle cards in the wild are unlabeled
inference; this skill exists because of what it costs a rep when one of those turns out wrong.

## Input

**Works best with:** your product and its primary differentiation, and **the one competitor** this
card targets.
**Also useful:** the deal context (segment, buyer, common objections or the loss reason that triggered
this card), and any [`competitive-research-snapshot`](../competitive-research-snapshot/SKILL.md) or
[`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) output in session — the skill uses
existing evidence and searches only for gaps and anything older than one quarter.

Input supplied inline with the invocation — text after the skill name, a pasted context dump, or an
appended `ARGUMENTS:` line — counts as answers already given. Use it against the question budget;
don't re-ask.

**Arriving empty-handed? That works too.** The skill opens with at most 3 questions (product +
competitor, segment + buyer, triggering objection) and proceeds on labeled assumptions if they go
unanswered.

**Example invocation:** `Build a battle card: our workflow platform vs [Competitor A], mid-market ops
buyers — triggered by three straight losses on "their integrations are deeper."`

## Key Concepts

- **Governing protocol:** honors the [`autonomous-investigation`](../autonomous-investigation/SKILL.md)
  contract — question budget of 3, search-plan gate, Fact/Inference/Assumption labels, Just Enough
  Mode, stable schema, 4-option Final Step.
- **Discipline mix:** SIGINT (pricing pages, site diffs — the freshest layer, what keeps cards from
  going stale) + OSINT (review mining for objection handling) + HUMINT (win/loss ground truth when
  you have it) — see [`intelligence-collection-disciplines`](../intelligence-collection-disciplines/SKILL.md).
- **Field-action criterion.** Every element earns its place by being usable mid-conversation. Depth
  goes in the appendix; the card fits a rep's thirty seconds.
- **Trap questions are evidence work.** A trap question is only safe to ask when you *know the
  documented answer* — offense is built from citations, not bravado. "Never ask what you cannot
  evidence" is the section's law.
- **The "Do Not Say" section is protection.** Claims you can't evidence, or that invite a counter,
  are listed explicitly — the card protects the rep from the team's own folklore.
- **Two modes, one artifact.** This skill builds the card from *the world's* evidence
  (investigation); a facilitated workshop builds it from *your team's* evidence (win/loss knowledge,
  deal experience). The mode choice depends on where the evidence lives — bring rich internal
  win/loss knowledge to a facilitated session instead, and use this skill when the public record is
  the stronger source.
- **Do-not-invent list:** features, pricing, market share, customer wins, roadmap items, **quotes**.

## Application

1. **Check session for existing evidence** — a competitive snapshot or watch report. If present, use
   it as the evidence base; search only for gaps and freshness (older than one quarter).
2. **Credit inline context**, then ask only the unanswered questions (max 3):
   1. Your product, and the one competitor this card targets?
   2. What segment and buyer do these deals involve?
   3. What objection or loss reason triggered this card?
   If unanswered, proceed with labeled assumptions.
3. **If researching fresh, show the 3-bullet search plan** — what you'll check (pricing pages,
   release notes, reviews, customer stories, comparison content), source types, how facts will be
   separated from inference. Continue unless revised.
4. **Draft the card in the schema below exactly** — cards are diffable across runs, and the watch
   skill's update flags name these sections.

### Card schema (do not reorder)

~~~markdown
# Battle Card: [Your Product] vs [Competitor]
**As-of date:** | **Deal context:** [segment, buyer]

## 1. Thirty-Second Read
- **They win when:** [1-2 bullets, labeled]
- **We win when:** [1-2 bullets, labeled]
- **The one thing to say:** [a single defensible sentence]

## 2. Say This
- [Talking point] — [evidence: URL, date, label]
- [Max 4; every one sourced]

## 3. Ask This (trap questions)
- "[Question whose documented answer favors us]" — [the documented answer: URL, label]
- [Max 3; never ask what you cannot evidence]

## 4. Watch Out For
- [Their strength a rep should not walk into] — [URL, label]
- [Their likely counter to our pitch] — [Inference, basis]

## 5. Pricing & Packaging Snapshot
- [Their tiers/pricing as published] — [URL, as-of date]
- [Where "contact sales" hides the number] — [labeled]

## 6. Do Not Say
- [Claims we cannot evidence, or that invite a counter]

## Appendix: Evidence Table
| Claim | Label | Source | Date |
|---|---|---|---|

### Assumptions to Validate
- [Assumption 1] / [Assumption 2] / [Assumption 3]
~~~

A copy/paste fill-in version of this schema, with quality checks, lives in [`template.md`](template.md).

### Final Step (offer exactly 4 options)

1. Pressure-test the card: role-play the competitor's rep against it
2. Build the card for a second competitor
3. Set up [`competitive-intel-watch`](../competitive-intel-watch/SKILL.md) to keep this card current
4. Compress to a one-screen mobile version for the field

Accept `1`, `2`, `3`, `4`, `1 and 3`, `Verbose Mode`, or a custom path.

## Examples

**A trap question built correctly (fictional):**

> **Ask this:** "How does your migration handle c