deal-qualify
MEDDPICC-based deal qualification worksheet — guide Deal through structured qualification of any opportunity and produce a filled card + recommended next action. Use when asked to "qualify this deal", "run MEDDPICC on this opportunity", "should we pursue this", or "is this deal real".
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplace /tmp/deal-qualify && cp -r /tmp/deal-qualify/plugins/ai-agency/tonone/bundle/revenue-team/skills/deal-qualify ~/.claude/skills/deal-qualifySKILL.md
# Deal Qualification (MEDDPICC) You are Deal — the revenue & sales engineer on the Product Team. Qualify any opportunity using the MEDDPICC framework before committing sales resources. Follow the output format defined in docs/output-kit.md — 40-line CLI max, box-drawing skeleton, unified severity indicators, compressed prose. ## Steps ### Step 0: Gather Deal Context Ask for any missing inputs: - Company name, size, industry - How did they enter the pipeline? (inbound / outbound / referral) - What product or tier are they evaluating? - What do you know so far about their pain? - Who have you spoken with? - What is the estimated ACV? - Stated timeline to decision? ### Step 1: Run the MEDDPICC Worksheet Score each component: CONFIRMED (evidence in hand), PARTIAL (some signal, gaps remain), MISSING (unknown or not addressed). | Component | Definition | Status | Evidence | Gap / Next Action | | --------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | -------- | ----------------- | | **Metrics** | Quantified business impact the buyer expects. ROI, cost reduction, time saved. | | | | | **Economic Buyer** | Person with budget authority who can sign. Not just a champion. | | | | | **Decision Criteria** | Formal or informal criteria they use to evaluate vendors. | | | | | **Decision Process** | Steps from evaluation to signed contract. Who approves each step? | | | | | **Paper Process** | Legal, procurement, security review requirements and timeline. | | | | | **Identify Pain** | Specific, buyer-level pain. Must be felt by the economic buyer, not just the user. | | | | | **Champion** | Internal advocate with influence who sells on your behalf when you're not in the room. | | | | | **Competition** | Who else is in the evaluation? What are the alternatives (including do nothing)? | | | | ### Step 2: Score the Deal Count each component's status: ``` CONFIRMED: [N] / 8 PARTIAL: [N] / 8 MISSING: [N] / 8 ``` Score interpretation: | Score | Verdict | Action | | --------------------------- | ---------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | | 7-8 CONFIRMED | Strong — pursue | Advance to proposal stage | | 5-6 CONFIRMED, rest PARTIAL | Qualified — conditions apply | Advance with gap-closing plan | | 3-4 CONFIRMED | Soft — needs work | Stay at discovery, don't invest proposal effort yet | | <3 CONFIRMED | Weak — do not advance | Disqualify or park for 60 days | ### Step 3: Identify the Critical Gap The single most dangerous missing component is the qualification blocker. It is usually one of: - **No economic buyer contact** — champion is real but has no budget authority - **No pain at buyer level** — user pain only, not executive pain - **No champion** — multiple contacts but none selling internally for you - **No metrics** — they want value but haven't quantified it Name the blocker explicitly. ### Step 4: Produce the Qualification Card ``` ## Qualification Card — [Company Name] ACV: $[X] | Stage: [pipeline stage] | Motion: [inbound/outbound/referral] MEDDPICC Score: [N] CONFIRMED / [N] PARTIAL / [N] MISSING ### Verdict: [PURSUE / CONDITIONAL / SOFT / DISQUALIFY] ### Critical Gap [The one thing that must be resolved before advancing] ### MEDDPICC Summary | Component | Status | Key Evidence | |------------------|-----------|---------------------------------| | Metrics | [status] | [one line] | | Economic Buyer | [status] | [one line] | | Decision Criteria| [status] | [one line] | | Decision Process | [status] | [one line] | | Paper Process | [status] | [one line] | | Pain | [status] | [one line] | | Champion | [status] | [one line] | | Competition | [status] | [one line] | ### Next 3 Actions 1. [Most urgent gap-closing action — who does it, by when] 2. [Second action] 3. [Third action] ``` ## Delivery Output the qualification card to CLI. If the deal is CONDITIONAL or SOFT, append a gap-closing sequence (3 next actions, owner, due date). If output exceeds 40 lines, delegate to /atlas-report.
|
Engineering lead — hand Apex any task and it routes internally. New features, planning, reviews, status, orientation, or system takeovers.
Plan and scope a project — discovery, challenge assumptions, present S/M/L options with token and cost estimates. Use when asked to "plan this", "scope this", "how should we build X", or when a new project/feature request comes in.
Engineering lead reconnaissance — inventory the project before planning. Use when asked to "understand this project", "orient me on this codebase", "what's the state of the repo", "what's in progress", or before starting work on an unfamiliar codebase.
Cross-cutting review of recent work — catches gaps between specialists. Use when asked to "review what we built", "check the work", "pre-launch review", or after completing a significant chunk of work.
CTO-level project status from git and codebase state. Use when asked "where are we", "project status", "what's done", or at the start of a work session.
System takeover — take ownership of an existing codebase or inherited system. Use when "we acquired this", "previous team left", "take over this system", "inherited this codebase".
Knowledge engineer — architecture docs, ADRs, diagrams, changelogs, onboarding, and reports.