roleplay-scenario-builder
Skill14 starsChanged 8 months agoMITView on GitHub
Build developmental sales role-play scenarios with facilitator-only briefs, behaviorally anchored feedback, and run protocols. Use for practice drills in discovery, demos, objections, negotiation, or executive conversations. Route consequential readiness or pass/fail decisions to certification-program-builder; this skill may supply only the scenario component of a governed certification. Route real-call coaching to call-review-coach and discovery scoring to discovery-rubric-auditor.
In this repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- account-brief-builderSkill
- battlecard-builderSkill
- call-insights-to-objectionsSkill
- call-review-coachSkill
- case-study-extractorSkill
- certification-program-builderSkill
- content-gap-analysisSkill
- content-governance-systemSkill
- deal-inspection-coachSkill
- discovery-and-demo-structureSkill
- discovery-rubric-auditorSkill
- enablement-house-styleSkill
- enablement-impact-storySkill
- enablement-metrics-and-instrumentationSkill
- enablement-program-designSkill
- enablement-routerSkill
- executive-briefing-builderSkill
- field-feedback-synthesizerSkill
- forecast-risk-briefSkill
- manager-coaching-cadenceSkill
- mutual-action-plan-builderSkill
- objection-library-builderSkill
- onboarding-program-builderSkill
- onboarding-to-value-playbookSkill
- one-pager-and-slide-outlineSkill
- partner-enablement-packageSkill
- pipeline-stage-definition-and-exit-criteriaSkill
- product-launch-enablementSkill
- proposal-rfp-orchestratorSkill
- qbr-ebr-builderSkill
- quarterly-enablement-plannerSkill
- release-notes-to-seller-updatesSkill
- renewal-and-expansion-enablementSkill
- revenue-enablement-contextSkill
- talk-track-builderSkill
- value-prop-and-positioningSkill
- win-loss-synthesisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈9
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 16
If the participant can succeed by performing confidence instead of the target behavior, it is not a drill.
- Distinctive: line 22
Ask only for the inputs that change the drill:
- Distinctive: line 34
Read references/roleplay-scenario-framework.md for tension design, reveal rules, and worked pass/fail excerpts.
- Distinctive: line 41
Add a progression only when asked, changing one difficulty variable at a time.
- Distinctive: line 46
Write the pressure the behavior has to survive.
- Distinctive: line 48
Write the run protocol. Set roles, timebox, reveal rules, observation, and debrief order.
- Distinctive: line 53
Ask the participant what they noticed.
- Distinctive: line 66
Run protocol and debrief that ends in one next-practice action
- Distinctive: line 68
Do not leak facilitator facts.
≈ “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
Roleplay scenario builder
Give sellers a realistic opportunity to practise a specific behaviour, receive evidence-based feedback, and try it again.
A scenario tests one behavior under one pressure. A recorded-call review is call-review-coach. A pass/fail gate is certification-program-builder.
Practice. Participant sees: "VP Ops, 12 minutes, they already have a process." Facilitator holds: they will not name the cost until you ask who owns the escalation. Score: did the rep diagnose before pitching.
Weak scenario. A four-page buyer bio, a memorized script, and "be more consultative" as the score.
If the participant can succeed by performing confidence instead of the target behavior, it is not a drill.
Inputs
Reuse supplied context first. If a missing company fact would change the result, check the relevant sections of .enablement/context.md when available. Preserve source dates and approval limits.
Ask only for the inputs that change the drill:
- Who is practicing, and which one behavior must change
- Segment, persona, and stage
- Difficulty: baseline, stretch, or advanced
- Timebox, participant count, and who facilitates
- Whether a pass threshold already exists. If the result controls readiness, route the standard to
certification-program-builder
Label fictional company and buyer details as invented. Do not present them as real customers, competitors, or proof.
Supporting material
Read references/roleplay-scenario-framework.md for tension design, reveal rules, and worked pass/fail excerpts. Skip it if the user already has a scenario and only wants the scorecard or run protocol.
Procedure
- Name the behavior and the evidence that would prove it. Separate a critical failure from a coachable miss. Done when a facilitator can see the behavior without inferring mindset.
- Build one focused scenario. Add a progression only when asked, changing one difficulty variable at a time.
- Ground it in field evidence when you have it. Anonymize. Invented details stay labeled.
- Split the briefs. Participant sees what a seller would reasonably know. Facilitator holds hidden blockers, reveal conditions, anchors, and escalation cues. Done when nothing in the participant brief gives away the test.
- Write the pressure the behavior has to survive. One unexpected turn. Buyer responses follow what the seller does, not a memorized dialogue.
- Write the run protocol. Set roles, timebox, reveal rules, observation, and debrief order. Choose coached practice or an unassisted observation round to suit the objective. Participants should know whether the facilitator may pause and coach; assessment conditions must follow the supplied standard.
- Anchor the score to visible behavior. Cite what happened. Use a supplied pass rule; do not invent one. In a certification, supply only the scenario and evidence prompts.
- Debrief and retry. Ask the participant what they noticed. Give evidence-based feedback on the target behaviour, then rerun the relevant moment. Compare attempts and agree where to apply the change in live work.
For a real call use call-review-coach. For a discovery baseline use discovery-rubric-auditor. For the gate itself use certification-program-builder.
What to return
For a full scenario, include the items below. For a revision or short drill, return only the material needed to run it:
- One scenario, or a progression that changes one variable at a time
- Participant brief: context, objective, constraints, visible success criteria
- Facilitator-only guide: hidden facts, reveal conditions, timing, cues
- Buyer responses tied to seller behavior
- Observable anchors, critical failures, and a pass rule only if one was supplied
- Run protocol and debrief that ends in one next-practice action
Do not leak facilitator facts. Do not issue a readiness decision.
Quality bar
- One target behavior, visible without scoring personality or confidence.
- Participant brief and facilitator guide do not share hidden facts.
- At least one turn the seller cannot script in advance.
- Feedback cites what happened and names one retry.
- Fictional proof stays labeled. No invented customer result.
- The facilitator can compare the first attempt with the retry and name what changed.
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.

