Competitive Battlecard
Ship a battlecard your AEs will actually use — objections, traps, proof, in one prompt.
Objections + proof + traps in 90 seconds — every line cited
| Section | Source | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Objection | intent_category (TR reviews) | "Pricing surprises after the first year" |
| Proof | search_companies | 2.4× install share in mid-market manufacturing |
| Trap | sec_filing_section · 10-K Item 1A | "We rely heavily on third-party cloud providers" — their words |
Overview
On-the-fly battlecard for a sales rep facing a specific competitor — objections + proof points + traps, anchored on HG technographic install share, TR review intent, and language from the competitor's own 10-K.
Use cases
Battlecards your AEs will actually open
Most battlecards die in a Notion page no one reads. This one is 4 tables long, every line cites a source, and the closing 'slipping-deal question' is the kind of thing an AE will WhatsApp to a colleague. Ship one per active deal cycle; refresh quarterly as TR review intent shifts.
PMM responds to sales asks the same afternoon
When sales pings PMM with 'we keep losing to X', the response used to be 'we'll get back to you'. With this workflow it's the same afternoon: drop the competitor name + your one-sentence positioning, get the card back, paste it in the deal-review channel. PMM goes from blocker to enabler.
View workflow prompt
# Competitive Battlecard
## Parameters
- `{{competitor_name}}` *(required)* — Competitor company name (display form, used in the heading). Example: `Snowflake`
- `{{your_positioning}}` *(required)* — One-sentence statement of your own positioning relative to the competitor. Example: `We're the only data platform with native FAI and intent built in.`
## Purpose
Produce a one-page battlecard an AE can read in 90 seconds before a call against {{competitor_name}}. Frame: {{your_positioning}}. Each of the three top-level sections (Objections, Proof Points, Traps) cites real HG data — no generic battlecard talking points.
## Process
1. **Resolve to a domain** — `search_companies` to find {{competitor_name}}'s canonical domain, then `company_research` on that domain. Use the resolved domain to drive every downstream lookup.
2. **Objections** — `intent_category` for TR review intent on the competitor's category. Surface the top 4 complaint themes — those become the *objections your prospects raise about them*. Counter each with a one-line response tied to {{your_positioning}}.
3. **Proof points** — `search_companies` filtered to the competitor's installs and `company_technographic` for adjacent stack patterns. Cite 5 install-share metrics (segment x install density) that prove your relative positioning.
4. **Traps** — `sec_filing_section` for {{competitor_name}}'s most recent 10-K Risk Factors. Extract 3 risks they *themselves* disclose. Each becomes a trap an AE can lay: ask the prospect about it; they won't have a clean answer.
5. **Outro hook** — close with the *one* question to ask if a deal looks slipping toward {{competitor_name}}. Should be unanswerable without conceding {{your_positioning}}.
## Output Format
Markdown with:
- `# Battlecard — {{competitor_name}}`
- `## Objections (4)` — table: objection → one-line response (cited)
- `## Proof Points (5)` — table: claim → HG-data evidence
- `## Traps (3)` — table: trap question → competitor's 10-K admission
- `## The Slipping-Deal Question` — one line, cited
## Quality Checklist
- Every objection sources from a real TR review-intent topic
- Every proof point cites `search_companies` or `company_technographic`
- Every trap quotes the competitor's own 10-K
- AE can read the whole card in 90 seconds