Battlecard

Input: the competitor and the situation (mid-call, drafting a reply, prepping a meeting). Output: a card you can act on in the next five minutes. The prime directive: approved claims and fresh intel are different substances — the first goes in emails, the second stays on calls with a hedge ("last I looked...").

Before you build the card

Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/messaging.md if not already in context — the approved competitive claims live there and they are the ceiling. This skill never invents a claim; it packages approved ones and adds current context. Never invent a competitor name.

Step 1 — Approved foundation (from messaging.md)

The organizing frame: [your organizing competitive frame from messaging.md] — use exactly the framing approved there, never a version you improvise.

Map each competitor to its category, then pull only the approved angle for that category:

• The legacy incumbent (often acquired) → roadmap subject to a parent's strategy; slow post-acquisition velocity; built for an earlier era. Lean on your product-velocity / independence angle, per messaging.md.
• The native / status-quo tool → built for a narrower, earlier use case; doesn't cover what the modern problem requires. Lean on your breadth angle, per messaging.md.
• A point solution that owns one narrow slice → NEVER claim you beat them at their specialty. Position your coverage of that slice as "included," and win on the whole-platform contrast.
• A single-capability point solution → don't claim deeper depth in their one area; your claim is that capability as part of the whole platform.
• Modern point solutions → narrower coverage and shallower depth than a full platform. Still no disparaging tone — these are credible products and Tier 1 buyers know it; win on the contrast, not contempt.
• A DIY / in-house build → eng-time cost; the build decays. Lean on the "stop maintaining this yourself" angle, per messaging.md.

The banned-claims list (applies against everyone): there are claims you must not make. They live in messaging.md's "Do NOT claim" section — do not claim to be best-at anything a point solution specializes in, and do not use any superlative messaging.md hasn't cleared. Also banned: every item on messaging.md's "Never mention" list (unreleased features). If the winning move requires one of these claims, the honest card says "this one's a knife fight — bring your admin or an AE in."

Step 2 — Fresh intel (Exa, 2-3 searches)

Current-quarter context only: pricing/packaging changes, acquisition or leadership news, G2/Reddit sentiment shifts, renewal-relevant events. Tag every fresh item [unverified — say it hedged, don't write it]. Recent complaints from real users (community forums, G2) are the most useful find — they tell you which pain to ask about.

Step 3 — The card

# Battlecard: [Competitor] · [date] · situation: [call/email/meeting]

## Say this (approved, 2 sentences)
[the talk track — differentiator framed for the persona at hand]

## Ask this (the trap question)
[ONE question whose honest answer exposes the gap — e.g. legacy incumbent:
"when's the renewal, and has the roadmap changed since the acquisition?" ·
point solution: "[the trap question that exposes the point solution's coverage
gap — see messaging.md]" · DIY: "how many eng-hours a month keep the dashboard
alive?"]

## Don't claim
[banned claims relevant here + anything messaging.md is silent on]

## Landmines (where they're genuinely strong)
[concede-and-reframe lines: "if [strength] is the whole requirement, they're a
fine choice — the question is [reframe to our ground]." Never argue a true point.]

## Fresh intel [unverified — calls only, hedged]
[current items + sources]

## One-liner for email
[a single approved sentence safe to put in writing]

Step 4 — Offer the next move

Mid-call situation → offer to drill it: "want to run this in the dojo — I'll play the [Competitor] fan?" Drafting situation → hand off to write-email/handle-reply with the card in context. Meeting tomorrow → fold the card into meeting-prep.

If the same competitor keeps appearing (3+ times in a stretch), flag it for the what-works weekly and for your marketing lead — a pattern in competitive mentions is market intel, not just a sales obstacle (guardrail #7 escalation applies to anything that smells like a positioning question).