anticipatory-selling
Skill1 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Auto-generate 5 sales support materials for pipeline Steps 5-7 — competitive comparison table, 3-year TCO analysis, internal proposal template, objection rebuttals, phased implementation timeline. Core principle is arming the buyer to sell internally. Use when deals reach Step 5+ or when win rates at Steps 5-7 are low.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 13
When the founder asks "how do I close this deal?"
- Distinctive: line 40
Use cases where each excels
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Anticipatory Selling
When to Apply
- Deal reaches pipeline Step 5 (Overview Presented)
- Win rates at Steps 5-7 are declining
- Buyer needs internal approval or committee sign-off
- When the founder asks "how do I close this deal?"
- Proactively when pipeline has deals approaching Step 5
Core Principle
"You're not selling to the buyer — you're arming them to sell internally."
By the time a deal reaches Step 5, the buyer is often convinced. The real challenge is helping them convince their boss, CFO, procurement team, or board. Anticipatory selling provides pre-built ammunition for that internal sale.
Core Framework
5 Materials Package (Auto-Generated)
1. Competitive Comparison Table
Structure:
| Capability | Us | Competitor A | Competitor B |
|-----------------|------------|-------------|-------------|
| [Core feature] | [strength] | [strength] | [weakness] |
| [Pricing model] | [detail] | [detail] | [detail] |
| [Support] | [detail] | [detail] | [detail] |
| Best for | [use case] | [use case] | [use case] |Rules:
- Honest, not adversarial — acknowledge competitor strengths
- Use cases where each excels
- Price comparison using public data only
- "Best for" framing rather than "better than"
2. 3-Year TCO Analysis
Include ALL costs, not just license price:
- Software license/subscription (3-year total)
- Implementation and setup costs
- Training and onboarding time (monetized)
- Ongoing maintenance and administration
- Integration costs with existing stack
- Opportunity cost of alternatives (including "do nothing")
Format: side-by-side comparison with status quo and 1-2 alternatives.
3. Internal Proposal Template
Pre-written template the buyer can adapt and send to their decision-maker:
- Executive summary (2-3 sentences)
- Problem statement (grounded in buyer's specific pain)
- Proposed solution (mapped to their needs from Step 3-4)
- Expected ROI with conservative estimates
- Implementation timeline (phased, low-risk)
- Risk mitigation plan
- Next steps and decision timeline
4. Objection Rebuttals
Top 5-7 objections with evidence-based responses:
| Objection | Rebuttal Strategy | Evidence |
| "Too expensive" | Value Stick reframe: WTP vs price perception | TCO comparison, ROI projection |
| "We can build it ourselves" | Build vs buy TCO + opportunity cost | Engineering hours x rate + maintenance |
| "Not the right time" | Cost of delay calculation | Monthly cost of not solving the problem |
| "Need to see more references" | Case studies + direct intro offers | Similar company results |
| "Security/compliance concerns" | Proactive compliance documentation | Certifications, audit reports |
| "Switching costs too high" | Phased migration plan | Step-by-step with rollback at each phase |
| "Need committee approval" | Internal proposal template (material #3) | Pre-built approval package |
5. Phased Implementation Timeline
Phase 1 (Days 1-30): Quick Wins
- [Specific deliverable with measurable outcome]
- Success criteria: [metric]
- Rollback plan: [specific reversal step]
Phase 2 (Days 31-60): Core Implementation
- [Specific deliverable]
- Success criteria: [metric]
- Checkpoint: continue/adjust decision
Phase 3 (Days 61-90): Full Deployment
- [Specific deliverable]
- Success criteria: [metric]
- Transition to ongoing operationEach phase: quick wins first, clear success criteria, explicit rollback plan (reduces risk perception).
Decision Rules
- Generate proactively at Step 5 — don't wait for the buyer to ask
- Customize to buyer's stated needs — use data from Steps 3-4
- Conservative ROI estimates — credibility over optimism
- Honest comparisons — adversarial comparison tables backfire
- Phased = low risk — always include rollback at each phase
- Internal champion enablement — materials should work WITHOUT the seller present
Anti-Patterns to Detect
| Anti-Pattern | Signal | Response |
| No sales support materials | Deals stalling at Steps 5-7 | "Generate anticipatory selling package. The buyer needs ammunition." |
| Adversarial comparison | "Competitor X is terrible" | "Honest comparison builds trust. Acknowledge competitor strengths." |
| Optimistic ROI | "10x return guaranteed" | "Conservative estimates are more credible. Use realistic projections." |
| Missing TCO | Only comparing license price | "Include implementation, training, maintenance, and opportunity costs." |
| No rollback plan | Big-bang implementation proposed | "Phased approach with rollback reduces perceived risk." |
| Seller-dependent materials | Materials only work in a meeting | "The buyer's boss won't be in your meeting. Materials must stand alone." |
In this repository24 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- choice-architectureSkill
- confidenceSkill
- content-rulesSkill
- critical-chainSkill
- culture-mapSkill
- disruptionSkill
- effectuationSkill
- failure-essenceSkill
- growth-metricsSkill
- kpi-treeSkill
- network-effectsSkill
- pipelineSkill
- plan-bSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- qualificationSkill
- quest-interviewSkill
- retention-cohortsSkill
- review-engineSkill
- root-causeSkill
- strategy-kernelSkill
- stupid-gamesSkill
- unit-economicsSkill
- value-stickSkill
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
Reviews can't be read right now.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

