agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/win-loss-review/SKILL.md

win-loss-review

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use after a deal, project, pitch, proposal, or client pursuit to learn why the outcome happened. Use when applying the Win Loss Review consulting method and when a user asks for Win Loss Review, method execution, structured diagnosis, or action planning.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Use this skill to run Win Loss Review as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

    line 9
  2. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, do not block automatically.

    line 26
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not use as a blame review.

    line 30
  4. Distinctive:

    Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

    line 86

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Win Loss Review

Use this skill to run Win Loss Review as a practical consulting method, not as a generic framework explanation.

Method Notes

  • Separate factual timeline from interpretation.
  • Classify drivers as controllable, influenceable, or external.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • opportunity history
  • outcome
  • buyer feedback
  • competitor information
  • sales actions

If an input is missing, do not block automatically. Mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use as a blame review. Use it to improve the next pursuit, decision, or operating process.

Adjacent Methods

  • deal-strategy-map: plan a live opportunity before the outcome.
  • competitive-positioning: improve buyer-facing differentiation from repeated decision evidence.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Reconstruct timelineOpportunity data, meetings, proposal, feedback, outcome.Write factual chronology without interpretation.Win/loss timeline.
Map decision driversBuyer criteria, stakeholders, competitors, price, proof.Identify why the buyer chose the outcome.Decision driver map.
Classify driversDecision driver map.Mark each driver as controllable, influenceable, or external.Controllability view.
Extract lessonsControllability view and future pursuits.Convert drivers into specific behavior or asset changes.Lessons learned.
Update playbookLessons, owners, next opportunities.Define qualification, messaging, proof, pricing, or relationship changes.Improvement action plan.

Output Template

### 1. Decision Timeline
Opportunity:
Outcome:
Buyer decision date:
Sources:

### 2. Decision Drivers
| Driver | Buyer evidence | Our performance | Competitor / alternative |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 3. Controllability
| Factor | Controllable / influenceable / external | Confidence | Lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### 4. Playbook Changes
| Change | Owner | Apply when | Success signal |
|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |

### Evidence And Next Decision
- Confirmed facts:
- Assumptions:
- Missing evidence:
- Next action, owner, and timing:
- Expected signal and decision threshold:

Quality Gate

  • Produce the method-specific outputs for Decision Timeline, Decision Drivers, Controllability; do not substitute a generic framework summary.
  • Tie every material score, causal claim, or stakeholder judgment to evidence or label it as an assumption.
  • Include at least one disconfirming check, sensitivity, alternative explanation, or failure condition appropriate to the method.
  • Convert the result into a named action or decision with an owner or stakeholder, timing, and observable signal.
  • State missing inputs and the smallest validation action instead of inventing precision.
  • Keep wording professional and plain enough that a smart non-specialist can use the output directly.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

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.