objection-intelligence
Skill2 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
When the user wants to discover, classify, prioritize, trace, or maintain recurring buyer objections from sales and customer evidence. For final rep responses and handling materials, see sales-enablement; for research design, see customer-research.
In this repository45 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- account-based-marketingSkill
- acquisition-conversionSkill
- ad-creativeSkill
- analytics-trackingSkill
- aso-auditSkill
- buyer-resourcesSkill
- cold-emailSkill
- community-marketingSkill
- competitor-alternativesSkill
- competitor-profilingSkill
- content-strategySkill
- customer-marketingSkill
- customer-researchSkill
- email-sequenceSkill
- eventsSkill
- go-to-market-strategySkill
- icp-and-buyer-personasSkill
- launch-readiness-checkSkill
- launch-strategySkill
- localization-claimsSkill
- market-entry-briefSkill
- market-entry-orchestrationSkill
- marketing-copySkill
- marketing-experimentationSkill
- market-intelligenceSkill
- messaging-consistency-auditSkill
- messaging-frameworkSkill
- output-quality-checkSkill
- paid-adsSkill
- partner-marketingSkill
- positioning-strategySkill
- pricing-strategySkill
- product-activationSkill
- product-communicationsSkill
- product-marketing-contextSkill
- referral-programSkill
- revopsSkill
- sales-enablementSkill
- search-discoverabilitySkill
- social-contentSkill
- ssot-context-loopSkill
- upgrade-conversionSkill
- website-buyer-journeySkill
- win-loss-intelligenceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 2 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.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 16
When receiving a context-establishment handoff, read ../_shared/context-establishment.md.
- Distinctive: line 21
Use decision-specific evidence readiness.
- Very specific: line 28
Read ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md and ../_shared/ssot-consumption.md when using canonical messages or approved responses.
- Distinctive: line 67
Keep frequency, severity/materiality, and confidence distinct.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 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
Objection Intelligence
Maintain an evidence-based library of buyer objections. Own discovery,
classification, prioritization, traceability, and refresh. sales-enablement
owns final talk tracks and objection-handling collateral.
Context research handoffs
When receiving a context-establishment handoff, read
../_shared/context-establishment.md. Reuse its question, scope, source/finding
IDs, approved context/version, GAP IDs and completion criteria. Analyze only your
owned domain; return provenance-bearing findings, opposing evidence, limitations,
completion status and unapproved implications to product-marketing-context.
Use decision-specific evidence readiness; approval is separate. A hold affects
only its decision. Do not write canon or automatically save chained results into
bootstrap context. Standalone artifacts retain their existing format and may
attach the shared return. Preserve IDs and status without duplicating studies.
Inputs and evidence
Read ../_shared/evidence-gaps.md and ../_shared/ssot-consumption.md when
using canonical messages or approved responses. Use sales calls, win/loss work,
customer research/VoC, CRM notes, security reviews, procurement feedback, and
seller reports. Label the reporter/source type; seller feedback is not buyer
evidence. Never invent customer wording or proof.
Workflow
- Define scope and period. Deduplicate records without erasing distinct personas, stages, or contexts.
- Capture objection text, source and date, persona, segment, funnel stage, category, frequency and denominator, severity/deal impact, current response, supporting proof, confidence, and unresolved gap where available.
- Classify as useful into capability, competitor, status quo, price, ROI, security, compliance, implementation, integration, procurement, trust/proof, timing, or organizational change. Keep a distinct category when needed.
- Prioritize frequency, severity, and confidence separately. Rare deal blockers can outrank frequent low-impact concerns. Do not infer deal impact from mention count alone.
- Compare contexts only when evidence supports it. Preserve conflicting evidence and note whether the same phrase represents different concerns.
- Maintain version/date and evidence links so future reviews can confirm, merge, split, retire, or reopen entries.
Required output: objection library
Include Inputs and assumptions; scope and sample; then a reusable table:
| ID | Objection / exact language | Source type and evidence | Persona / segment / stage | Category | Frequency | Severity / impact | Confidence | Current approved response / proof | Gap / owner |
Include prioritization rationale, unresolved disagreements, evidence gaps, and
handoffs. Route response creation to sales-enablement. Route repeated
positioning or messaging concerns to positioning-strategy or
messaging-framework; possible canon revisions go through ssot-context-loop
with human approval. VoC language may be consolidated in customer-research.
Safety and quality checks
- Keep frequency, severity/materiality, and confidence distinct.
- Mark unsupported responses or proof as Gap; never imply an unapproved response is canonical. Do not silently change the SSOT.
- This evidence library is normally internal, not a market-facing artifact for
messaging-consistency-audit. - Output quality:
output-quality-checkcan independently verify source traceability, required fields, separation of frequency/severity/confidence, persona/stage differences, evidence gaps, correct routing, and no invented proof or canon changes.
Related skills
customer-research, win-loss-intelligence, sales-enablement,
positioning-strategy, messaging-framework, ssot-context-loop,
output-quality-check.
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
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.

