@miranda0808/maya-claude 0.1.0

package/payload/.agents/skills/sales-enablement/references/objection-library.md

@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+# Objection Library
+
+Common B2B SaaS objections with response frameworks. Organized by category for quick reference.
+
+## Quick-Reference Table
+
+For live calls. Find the objection, scan the response, reference the proof.
+
+| Objection | Response (1-line) | Proof Point |
+|-----------|--------------------|-------------|
+| "Too expensive" | "Compared to what? Let's look at what the problem costs you today." | ROI case study showing payback in X months |
+| "No budget" | "When budget opens up, what would need to be true for this to be a priority?" | Customer who started with a pilot to prove value |
+| "Competitor is cheaper" | "They are — here's what you give up at that price point." | Feature comparison + customer who switched |
+| "Not the right time" | "What changes next quarter that makes it better timing?" | Cost-of-delay calculation |
+| "Maybe next quarter" | "Happy to reconnect. What would a pilot look like before then?" | Customer who started small and expanded |
+| "We use X already" | "How's that working for [specific pain area]?" | Customer who switched from X |
+| "What makes you different?" | "For teams like yours, the biggest difference is [specific differentiator]." | Side-by-side comparison for their use case |
+| "Need to check with my boss" | "Absolutely. What would help you make the case? I can send materials." | Champion one-pager, ROI calculator |
+| "The committee decides" | "Who's on the committee and what does each person care about?" | Multi-persona case study |
+| "What we have works fine" | "It does work — the question is whether it's costing you more than it should." | Benchmark data showing efficiency gaps |
+| "Not broken, don't fix it" | "Agreed — this isn't about fixing, it's about the opportunity cost of the current approach." | Customer who didn't know what they were missing |
+| "Does it integrate with X?" | "Yes / Let me check and get you specifics by end of day." | Integration documentation, customer using same stack |
+| "Security concerns" | "Completely fair. Here's our security overview — happy to loop in our team." | SOC 2 report, security whitepaper |
+| "Can it scale?" | "We serve companies from [small] to [large]. Here's an example at your scale." | Case study at similar scale |
+| "We tried something like this before" | "What went wrong? Understanding that helps me show how we're different." | Customer with same failed experience who succeeded with you |
+
+---
+
+## Detailed Objection Responses
+
+### Price Objections
+
+#### "It's too expensive"
+
+**Why they say it:** May be genuine budget constraint, sticker shock, or negotiation tactic. Often means they don't yet see enough value to justify the cost.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Don't defend the price immediately. Ask "Compared to what?"
+2. Reframe from cost to investment — what does the problem cost them today?
+3. Walk through the ROI calculation together
+4. If budget is real, explore smaller starting points
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "I hear that. Let me ask — what's the cost of the problem we discussed? You mentioned your team spends [X hours] on [task] every week. At your team's loaded cost, that's roughly [$ amount] per year. Our solution runs [$ price] — so the question is whether eliminating that problem is worth the investment."
+
+**Proof point:** ROI calculator or case study showing payback period.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "If the ROI was clear, is this something you'd prioritize this quarter?"
+
+---
+
+#### "We don't have budget for this"
+
+**Why they say it:** Budget may genuinely be allocated. Or they haven't identified budget because priority isn't established.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Validate — budget constraints are real
+2. Understand timing — when does budget cycle reset?
+3. Explore alternatives — pilot, smaller scope, different budget line
+4. Help them build the business case to create budget
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "Totally understand. Two questions: When does your next budget cycle open? And — if we could show clear ROI with a limited pilot, is that something you could fund from a different line item? Sometimes teams fund this from the efficiency savings it creates."
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who started with a small pilot and expanded after proving ROI.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Would it help if I put together an ROI brief you could share with your finance team?"
+
+---
+
+#### "Competitor X is cheaper"
+
+**Why they say it:** They're comparing prices, possibly without comparing capabilities. May be using competitor price as leverage.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Acknowledge the price difference — don't pretend it doesn't exist
+2. Shift to total cost of ownership and value delivered
+3. Highlight what they lose at the lower price point
+4. Share proof from customers who evaluated both
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "You're right, [Competitor] is less expensive. Here's what I've seen from teams who evaluated both: [Competitor] works well for [their strength]. Where it falls short is [specific gap]. Customers like [name] actually switched to us after starting with [Competitor] because [specific reason]. The question is whether [specific capability] is worth the difference for your team."
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who switched from the competitor, with specific reasons.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What's most important to your team — the lowest price or the best fit for [their specific need]?"
+
+---
+
+### Timing Objections
+
+#### "Not the right time"
+
+**Why they say it:** Competing priorities, organizational change, genuine capacity constraint, or lack of urgency.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Understand what's competing for their attention
+2. Quantify the cost of waiting
+3. Explore low-commitment next steps that keep momentum
+4. Set a concrete follow-up date
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "I get it — timing matters. Can I ask what's taking priority right now? The reason I bring up timing is that every month of [problem], based on our earlier conversation, costs your team roughly [$ amount]. A 3-month delay is [$ amount]. What if we mapped out a start date that works with your calendar so you're not losing that value?"
+
+**Proof point:** Cost-of-delay calculation based on their specific numbers.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What would need to change for this to move up in priority?"
+
+---
+
+#### "Maybe next quarter"
+
+**Why they say it:** Genuine scheduling, or a polite way of saying "not interested enough right now."
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Accept the timeline gracefully
+2. Propose a small action now that maintains momentum
+3. Get a specific date for follow-up
+4. Send value in the meantime (content, benchmarks, insights)
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "Next quarter works. To make sure we hit the ground running, would it make sense to do [small next step] now? That way when Q[X] starts, you're not starting from scratch. I'll also send over [relevant content] in the meantime. Can we lock in [specific date] to reconnect?"
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who started the evaluation process early and was live by their target date.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Is there anything I can send between now and then that would be helpful?"
+
+---
+
+### Competition Objections
+
+#### "We already use X"
+
+**Why they say it:** They have an existing solution and switching has real costs. May be satisfied, or may have frustrations they haven't voiced.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Don't trash the competitor — ask how it's working
+2. Probe for specific pain points with their current solution
+3. Position as complementary if possible, replacement if not
+4. Offer a side-by-side comparison or trial
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "How's that working for you? Specifically, when it comes to [area where you're stronger] — is that meeting your needs? The reason I ask is that most teams who come to us from [Competitor] tell us [specific pain point] was the tipping point. Not saying that's you, but worth exploring."
+
+**Proof point:** Customer who switched from that specific competitor.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "If you could change one thing about your current setup, what would it be?"
+
+---
+
+#### "What makes you different?"
+
+**Why they say it:** They're evaluating options and want a clear differentiator. Sometimes a genuine question, sometimes a test.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Don't list features — give the one thing that matters most for their situation
+2. Tie the differentiator to their specific pain
+3. Back it up with proof
+4. Offer to show, not just tell
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "For teams like yours — [their industry/size/use case] — the biggest difference is [specific differentiator]. That matters because [connection to their pain]. For example, [Customer] was evaluating us alongside [Competitor] and chose us because [specific reason]. Want me to walk you through how that works?"
+
+**Proof point:** Case study of a customer who chose you over alternatives.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What's the most important criteria for your decision?"
+
+---
+
+### Authority Objections
+
+#### "I need to check with my boss"
+
+**Why they say it:** They may not be the decision maker, or they need internal buy-in to proceed. Could also be a stall tactic.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Support them, don't pressure them
+2. Arm them with materials to sell internally
+3. Offer to join a meeting with their boss
+4. Understand what their boss cares about
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "Absolutely — what would help you make the case? I can put together a one-pager that covers the ROI and addresses the concerns your boss is likely to have. Also happy to jump on a quick call with them if that would be helpful. What does your boss typically prioritize — cost savings, risk reduction, or efficiency?"
+
+**Proof point:** Champion enablement one-pager, ROI calculator.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What questions do you think your boss will ask?"
+
+---
+
+#### "A committee decides this"
+
+**Why they say it:** Enterprise buying involves multiple stakeholders. Genuine process, not a brush-off.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Map the buying committee — who's involved and what each person cares about
+2. Provide persona-specific materials
+3. Offer to present to the committee
+4. Help your champion navigate the internal process
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "That makes sense. Can you walk me through who's on the committee and what each person cares about? I can tailor materials for each stakeholder so you're not doing all the heavy lifting. I've also got a deck designed for executive presentations if that would be useful."
+
+**Proof point:** Multi-stakeholder case study showing how different personas were addressed.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Who on the committee is most likely to push back, and what would their concern be?"
+
+---
+
+### Status Quo Objections
+
+#### "What we have works fine"
+
+**Why they say it:** Inertia is real. The current solution may be adequate, and change has real costs.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Agree — don't argue with their experience
+2. Shift from "broken vs. fixed" to "good vs. great"
+3. Introduce the concept of opportunity cost
+4. Show what peers are achieving
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "It probably does work — and I wouldn't suggest changing something that's truly meeting your needs. The question I'd ask is: is 'works fine' the bar? Teams using [your product] are seeing [specific outcome]. If you're leaving [X% improvement] on the table, is that worth exploring?"
+
+**Proof point:** Benchmark data showing what's possible vs. status quo.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "If there were one area where your current approach could be better, what would it be?"
+
+---
+
+### Technical Objections
+
+#### "Does it integrate with X?"
+
+**Why they say it:** Integration is a real requirement. They need to know your product fits their stack.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Answer directly — yes, no, or "let me check"
+2. If yes, provide specifics (native, API, Zapier, etc.)
+3. If no, explain alternatives or workarounds
+4. Never bluff — they'll find out during evaluation
+
+**Talk track (if yes):**
+> "Yes, we integrate with [X] natively. It takes about [time] to set up. [Customer] runs the same stack and here's how they have it configured."
+
+**Talk track (if no):**
+> "We don't have a native integration with [X] today. Here's what customers typically do: [alternative]. We also have an open API that [description]. Would it help to get our technical team on a call to explore options?"
+
+**Proof point:** Customer using the same tech stack, integration documentation.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "What other tools are in your stack that we'd need to work with?"
+
+---
+
+#### "We have security concerns"
+
+**Why they say it:** Legitimate concern, especially in regulated industries or enterprise. Non-negotiable for many buyers.
+
+**Response approach:**
+1. Take it seriously — never dismiss security concerns
+2. Provide documentation proactively (SOC 2, security whitepaper)
+3. Offer to loop in your security team
+4. Ask about their specific requirements
+
+**Talk track:**
+> "That's exactly the right question to ask. Here's our security overview — we're [SOC 2 Type II / ISO 27001 / etc.] certified, and I can share our full security documentation. We also have a security team that's happy to do a review call with your infosec team. What are your specific requirements?"
+
+**Proof point:** Security certifications, compliance documentation, customers in regulated industries.
+
+**Follow-up question:** "Do you have a security questionnaire you'd like us to fill out?"

package/payload/.agents/skills/sales-enablement/references/one-pager-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,208 @@
+# One-Pager Templates
+
+Templates for different one-pager use cases, with layout guidance and copy prompts.
+
+## Product Overview One-Pager
+
+The default one-pager. Introduces your product to someone who knows nothing about you.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]                                              [Tagline]
+
+HEADLINE: One sentence describing what you do and who it's for.
+
+THE PROBLEM
+2-3 sentences describing the pain your buyer faces.
+
+THE SOLUTION
+2-3 sentences describing how your product solves it.
+
+WHY [YOUR PRODUCT]
+• Differentiator 1 — One sentence explaining the benefit
+• Differentiator 2 — One sentence explaining the benefit
+• Differentiator 3 — One sentence explaining the benefit
+
+PROOF
+"Customer quote with specific result." — Name, Title, Company
+[Optional: 2-3 metric callouts: "X% improvement", "Y hours saved"]
+
+[CTA Button/Link]                    [Contact: name@company.com]
+```
+
+### Copy Prompts
+
+- Headline: "What do you do, in one sentence, that makes someone say 'tell me more'?"
+- Problem: "What is your buyer struggling with before they find you?"
+- Differentiators: "If you could only tell them 3 things, what would make them choose you?"
+
+---
+
+## Use-Case Specific One-Pager
+
+Tailored to a specific workflow, vertical, or problem. More targeted than the product overview.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]                                    [Use Case: e.g., "For Sales Teams"]
+
+HEADLINE: How [your product] helps [persona] [achieve outcome].
+
+THE CHALLENGE
+When [persona] needs to [task], they face [specific pain].
+This leads to [consequence]: [time wasted / money lost / risk].
+
+HOW IT WORKS
+1. [Step 1] — What happens and why it matters
+2. [Step 2] — What happens and why it matters
+3. [Step 3] — What happens and why it matters
+
+RESULTS
+• [Metric 1]: Before → After
+• [Metric 2]: Before → After
+• [Metric 3]: Before → After
+
+CUSTOMER SPOTLIGHT
+"Quote about this specific use case." — Name, Title, Company
+
+[CTA: "See it in action" or "Start a pilot"]       [Contact info]
+```
+
+### When to Use
+
+- Different buyer personas need different one-pagers
+- Industry-specific versions (healthcare, fintech, e-commerce)
+- Use-case versions (reporting, onboarding, security)
+
+---
+
+## Post-Meeting Leave-Behind
+
+Designed to reinforce a conversation that already happened. Summarizes what you discussed and proposes next steps.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]                                            [Date of Meeting]
+
+MEETING RECAP: [Company Name]
+
+WHAT WE DISCUSSED
+• [Pain point 1 they mentioned]
+• [Pain point 2 they mentioned]
+• [Goal they're trying to achieve]
+
+HOW [YOUR PRODUCT] HELPS
+• [Solution to pain 1] — [Specific capability or workflow]
+• [Solution to pain 2] — [Specific capability or workflow]
+• [How you help them reach their goal]
+
+RELEVANT PROOF
+"Quote from a similar customer." — Name, Title, Company
+[1-2 metrics from a similar customer]
+
+PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
+1. [Next step with date]
+2. [Follow-up action]
+3. [Decision timeline]
+
+[Your name]  |  [Your title]  |  [Email]  |  [Phone]
+```
+
+### Tips
+
+- Send within 24 hours of the meeting
+- Reference specific things they said (shows you listened)
+- Keep proposed next steps concrete and time-bound
+- This is the asset your champion forwards to their boss
+
+---
+
+## Champion Enablement One-Pager
+
+Designed specifically for your internal champion to share with their team and leadership. Written to make them look smart.
+
+### Structure
+
+```
+[Logo]
+
+WHY WE'RE EVALUATING [YOUR PRODUCT]
+
+THE SITUATION
+[2-3 sentences about the internal challenge, written as if the champion
+is explaining it to their team. Use "we" and "our" language.]
+
+WHAT [YOUR PRODUCT] DOES
+[1-2 sentences. Plain language, no jargon.]
+
+WHY THIS SOLUTION
+• [Reason 1] — How it solves our specific problem
+• [Reason 2] — How it compares to what we do today
+• [Reason 3] — How it compares to alternatives we evaluated
+
+EXPECTED IMPACT
+• [Metric]: Current state → Expected state
+• [Metric]: Current state → Expected state
+• [Time to value]: Live within [X weeks]
+
+WHO ELSE USES IT
+[2-3 recognizable company names in their industry]
+"Relevant customer quote." — Name, Title, Company
+
+NEXT STEPS
+• [What we're doing next]
+• [What we need from the team]
+• [Decision timeline]
+
+Questions? Talk to [Champion name] or [Your name at email].
+```
+
+### Why This Works
+
+- Written in the champion's voice, not yours
+- Answers the questions their boss will ask
+- Includes peer proof from companies they respect
+- Clear ask and timeline to drive internal momentum
+
+---
+
+## Layout Guidance
+
+### Visual Hierarchy
+
+1. **Headline** — Largest text, top of page, immediately communicates value
+2. **Section headers** — Bold, clear, act as scannable anchors
+3. **Body text** — Short sentences, bullet points preferred over paragraphs
+4. **Proof elements** — Metrics and quotes should visually stand out (larger font, color, or callout box)
+5. **CTA** — Prominent placement, bottom of page or bottom-right
+
+### Whitespace
+
+- Margins: at least 0.75" on all sides
+- Space between sections: enough to visually separate (don't cram)
+- If it feels crowded, cut content. Never shrink font below 9pt.
+
+### Font Sizing
+
+| Element | Suggested Size |
+|---------|---------------|
+| Headline | 18-24pt |
+| Section headers | 12-14pt bold |
+| Body text | 10-11pt |
+| Fine print / footer | 8-9pt |
+
+### Color
+
+- Use brand colors for headers and accents
+- Keep body text dark (black or near-black) on white
+- Limit accent colors to 1-2 for visual consistency
+- Use color to draw attention to metrics and CTAs
+
+### File Format
+
+- **PDF** for email attachments and leave-behinds
+- **Google Slides / PowerPoint** for editable versions reps can customize
+- Always include both — reps will customize, prospects want clean PDFs

package/payload/.agents/skills/schema-markup/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+---
+name: schema-markup
+description: When the user wants to add, fix, or optimize schema markup and structured data on their site. Also use when the user mentions "schema markup," "structured data," "JSON-LD," "rich snippets," "schema.org," "FAQ schema," "product schema," "review schema," "breadcrumb schema," "Google rich results," "knowledge panel," "star ratings in search," or "add structured data." Use this whenever someone wants their pages to show enhanced results in Google. For broader SEO issues, see seo-audit. For AI search optimization, see ai-seo.
+metadata:
+  version: 1.1.0
+---
+
+# Schema Markup
+
+You are an expert in structured data and schema markup. Your goal is to implement schema.org markup that helps search engines understand content and enables rich results in search.
+
+## Initial Assessment
+
+**Use approved context inputs first:**
+In Maya task workflows, start with the approved `TASK-PACKET.md` inputs and listed brand sections. If `PRODUCT.md` is explicitly provided or the work is being done in consult-style standalone usage, read `PRODUCT.md` before asking questions. If `PRODUCT.md` is missing, do not pretend the output is fully brand-calibrated.
+
+Before implementing schema, understand:
+
+1. **Page Type** - What kind of page? What's the primary content? What rich results are possible?
+
+2. **Current State** - Any existing schema? Errors in implementation? Which rich results already appearing?
+
+3. **Goals** - Which rich results are you targeting? What's the business value?
+
+---
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### 1. Accuracy First
+- Schema must accurately represent page content
+- Don't markup content that doesn't exist
+- Keep updated when content changes
+
+### 2. Use JSON-LD
+- Google recommends JSON-LD format
+- Easier to implement and maintain
+- Place in `<head>` or end of `<body>`
+
+### 3. Follow Google's Guidelines
+- Only use markup Google supports
+- Avoid spam tactics
+- Review eligibility requirements
+
+### 4. Validate Everything
+- Test before deploying
+- Monitor Search Console
+- Fix errors promptly
+
+---
+
+## Common Schema Types
+
+| Type | Use For | Required Properties |
+|------|---------|-------------------|
+| Organization | Company homepage/about | name, url |
+| WebSite | Homepage (search box) | name, url |
+| Article | Blog posts, news | headline, image, datePublished, author |
+| Product | Product pages | name, image, offers |
+| SoftwareApplication | SaaS/app pages | name, offers |
+| FAQPage | FAQ content | mainEntity (Q&A array) |
+| HowTo | Tutorials | name, step |
+| BreadcrumbList | Any page with breadcrumbs | itemListElement |
+| LocalBusiness | Local business pages | name, address |
+| Event | Events, webinars | name, startDate, location |
+
+**For complete JSON-LD examples**: See [references/schema-examples.md](references/schema-examples.md)
+
+---
+
+## Quick Reference
+
+### Organization (Company Page)
+Required: name, url
+Recommended: logo, sameAs (social profiles), contactPoint
+
+### Article/BlogPosting
+Required: headline, image, datePublished, author
+Recommended: dateModified, publisher, description
+
+### Product
+Required: name, image, offers (price + availability)
+Recommended: sku, brand, aggregateRating, review
+
+### FAQPage
+Required: mainEntity (array of Question/Answer pairs)
+
+### BreadcrumbList
+Required: itemListElement (array with position, name, item)
+
+---
+
+## Multiple Schema Types
+
+You can combine multiple schema types on one page using `@graph`:
+
+```json
+{
+  "@context": "https://schema.org",
+  "@graph": [
+    { "@type": "Organization", ... },
+    { "@type": "WebSite", ... },
+    { "@type": "BreadcrumbList", ... }
+  ]
+}
+```
+
+---
+
+## Validation and Testing
+
+### Tools
+- **Google Rich Results Test**: https://search.google.com/test/rich-results
+- **Schema.org Validator**: https://validator.schema.org/
+- **Search Console**: Enhancements reports
+
+### Common Errors
+
+**Missing required properties** - Check Google's documentation for required fields
+
+**Invalid values** - Dates must be ISO 8601, URLs fully qualified, enumerations exact
+
+**Mismatch with page content** - Schema doesn't match visible content
+
+---
+
+## Implementation
+
+### Static Sites
+- Add JSON-LD directly in HTML template
+- Use includes/partials for reusable schema
+
+### Dynamic Sites (React, Next.js)
+- Component that renders schema
+- Server-side rendered for SEO
+- Serialize data to JSON-LD
+
+### CMS / WordPress
+- Plugins (Yoast, Rank Math, Schema Pro)
+- Theme modifications
+- Custom fields to structured data
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Schema Implementation
+```json
+// Full JSON-LD code block
+{
+  "@context": "https://schema.org",
+  "@type": "...",
+  // Complete markup
+}
+```
+
+### Testing Checklist
+- [ ] Validates in Rich Results Test
+- [ ] No errors or warnings
+- [ ] Matches page content
+- [ ] All required properties included
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+1. What type of page is this?
+2. What rich results are you hoping to achieve?
+3. What data is available to populate the schema?
+4. Is there existing schema on the page?
+5. What's your tech stack?
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **seo-audit**: For overall SEO including schema review
+- **ai-seo**: For AI search optimization (schema helps AI understand content)
+- **programmatic-seo**: For templated schema at scale
+- **site-architecture**: For breadcrumb structure and navigation schema planning