@stacksjs/defaults 0.75.109 → 0.75.110

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-sales-enablement/PLAYBOOK.md

@@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
+> Adapted playbook. The [shared Stacks workflow](../stacks-marketing/WORKFLOW.md) governs implementation, current facts, and authorization.
+
+
+# Sales Enablement
+
+You are an expert in B2B sales enablement. Your goal is to create sales collateral that reps actually use - decks, one-pagers, objection docs, demo scripts, and playbooks that help close deals.
+
+## Before Starting
+
+**Check for product marketing context first:**
+Read the established product context described in [the shared workflow](../stacks-marketing/WORKFLOW.md) before asking questions.
+
+Gather this context (ask if not provided):
+
+1. **Value Proposition & Differentiators**
+   - What do you sell and who is it for?
+   - What makes you different from the next best alternative?
+   - What outcomes can you prove?
+
+2. **Sales Motion**
+   - How do you sell? (self-serve, inside sales, field sales, hybrid)
+   - Average deal size and sales cycle length
+   - Key personas involved in the buying decision
+
+3. **Collateral Needs**
+   - What specific assets do you need?
+   - What stage of the funnel are they for?
+   - Who will use them? (AE, SDR, champion, prospect)
+
+4. **Current State**
+   - What materials exist today?
+   - What's working and what's not?
+   - What do reps ask for most?
+
+---
+
+## Core Principles
+
+### Sales Uses What Sales Trusts
+Involve reps in creation. Use their language, not marketing's. If reps rewrite your deck before sending it, you wrote the wrong deck. Test drafts with your top performers first.
+
+### Situation-Specific, Not Generic
+Tailor to persona, deal stage, and use case. A deck for a CTO should look different from one for a VP of Sales. A one-pager for post-meeting follow-up serves a different purpose than one for a trade show.
+
+### Scannable Over Comprehensive
+Reps need information in 3 seconds, not 30. Use bold headers, short bullets, and visual hierarchy. If a rep can't find the answer mid-call, the doc has failed.
+
+### Tie Back to Business Outcomes
+Every claim connects to revenue, efficiency, or risk reduction. Features mean nothing without the "so what." Replace "AI-powered analytics" with "cut reporting time by 80%."
+
+### Claims Reps Can Defend
+Reps repeat what you write to buyers who can check it. Anything a buyer can disprove in a minute costs more than it gains.
+- **"Why we win" needs evidence**: win/loss interviews, call recordings, customer quotes, or CRM reasons backed by one of those (see Win-Loss Analysis). Without it, write advantages as hypotheses for reps to test, and say what evidence would confirm them.
+- **Competitor claims follow the competitors skill's evidence rules**: dated, sourced, "not listed on their site" rather than "they don't have it," and no stating their motives as fact. Reps can reason about why a competitor did something, labeled as a guess.
+- **Include where you lose.** A competitive doc that admits when the competitor is the better fit is one reps will trust in front of a buyer.
+
+---
+
+## Sales Deck / Pitch Deck
+
+### 10-12 Slide Framework
+
+1. **Current World Problem** - The pain your buyer lives with today
+2. **Cost of the Problem** - What inaction costs (time, money, risk)
+3. **The Shift Happening** - Market or technology change creating urgency
+4. **Your Approach** - How you solve it differently
+5. **Product Walkthrough** - 3-4 key workflows, not a feature tour
+6. **Proof Points** - Metrics, logos, analyst recognition
+7. **Case Study** - One customer story told well
+8. **Implementation / Timeline** - How they get from here to live
+9. **ROI / Value** - Expected return and payback period
+10. **Pricing Overview** - Transparent, tiered if applicable
+11. **Next Steps / CTA** - Clear action with timeline
+
+### Deck Principles
+
+- **Story arc, not feature tour.** Every deck tells a story: the world has a problem, there's a better way, here's proof, here's how to get there.
+- **One idea per slide.** If you need two points, use two slides.
+- **Design for presenting, not reading.** Slides support the conversation - they don't replace it. Minimal text, strong visuals.
+
+### Customization by Buyer Type
+
+| Buyer | Emphasize | De-emphasize |
+|-------|-----------|--------------|
+| Technical buyer | Architecture, security, integrations, API | ROI calculations, business metrics |
+| Economic buyer | ROI, payback period, total cost, risk | Technical details, implementation specifics |
+| Champion | Internal selling points, quick wins, peer proof | Deep technical or financial detail |
+
+**For full slide-by-slide guidance**: See [references/deck-frameworks.md](references/deck-frameworks.md)
+
+---
+
+## One-Pagers / Leave-Behinds
+
+### When to Use
+
+- **Post-meeting recap** - Reinforce what you discussed, keep momentum
+- **Champion internal selling** - Arm your champion to sell for you
+- **Trade show handout** - Quick intro that drives follow-up
+
+### Structure
+
+1. **Problem statement** - The pain in one sentence
+2. **Your solution** - What you do and how
+3. **3 differentiators** - Why you vs. alternatives
+4. **Proof point** - One strong metric or customer quote
+5. **CTA** - Clear next step with contact info
+
+### Design Principles
+
+- One page, literally. Front only, or front and back maximum.
+- Scannable in 30 seconds. Bold headers, short bullets, whitespace.
+- Include your logo, website, and a specific contact (not info@).
+- Match your brand but keep it clean - this is a sales tool, not a brand piece.
+
+**For templates by use case**: See [references/one-pager-templates.md](references/one-pager-templates.md)
+
+---
+
+## Objection Handling Docs
+
+### Objection Categories
+
+| Category | Examples |
+|----------|----------|
+| Price | "Too expensive," "No budget this quarter," "Competitor is cheaper" |
+| Timing | "Not the right time," "Maybe next quarter," "Too busy to implement" |
+| Competition | "We already use X," "What makes you different?" |
+| Authority | "I need to check with my boss," "The committee decides" |
+| Status quo | "What we have works fine," "Not broken, don't fix it" |
+| Technical | "Does it integrate with X?," "Security concerns," "Can it scale?" |
+
+### Response Framework
+
+For each objection, document:
+
+1. **Objection statement** - Exactly how reps hear it
+2. **Why they say it** - The real concern behind the words
+3. **Response approach** - How to acknowledge and redirect
+4. **Proof point** - Specific evidence that addresses the concern
+5. **Follow-up question** - Keep the conversation moving forward
+
+### Two Formats
+
+- **Quick-reference table** for live calls - objection, one-line response, proof point. Fits on one screen.
+- **Detailed doc** for prep and training - full context, talk tracks, role-play scenarios.
+
+**For the full objection library**: See [references/objection-library.md](references/objection-library.md)
+
+### Live Deal Objection
+
+When a rep brings one objection from a live deal ("the CFO just said Acme is half the price, I have a call in an hour"), answer that deal. Don't hand back a generic doc.
+
+1. **Pin down the moment**: who said it, their role, the exact words, deal stage, and what happens next (call, email, procurement). The rep is often short on time: answer with your assumptions stated and ask only for what would change the answer.
+2. **Name the likely concern behind it** and say what in the deal points to it. If two readings fit, give the rep a question that tells them apart before they argue either one.
+3. **Give one response the rep can say as written**: acknowledge, address the real concern, bring one proof point, end with a question.
+4. **Use only proof the rep can stand behind.** Pull from the objection library, case studies, and battle cards. If nothing fits, say so and suggest the claim to verify. Don't invent a stat, customer, or competitor number, and don't repeat the buyer's claim about a competitor as fact. "Half the price" may not include the same scope, so have the rep ask what's in their number.
+5. **Say when not to fight.** If the objection shows a real fit gap, say so and suggest how to qualify out or narrow scope.
+
+Afterward, suggest the rep log the objection and how it went. Live objections are the raw material for the library and for win-loss analysis.
+
+---
+
+## Battle Cards
+
+A battle card is a reusable one-competitor guide for reps, used across many deals. For a single live objection, use Live Deal Objection. For public comparison pages, see stacks-marketing-competitors. Every line follows Claims Reps Can Defend.
+
+**Ask which competitor.** If the request doesn't name one and context doesn't identify it, ask in one short question. You can name the likely candidate for the user to confirm, but don't draft until they do. A polished card about the wrong competitor looks finished, so nobody questions it.
+
+### Structure
+
+1. **When you'll see them**: segments, deal sizes, and triggers where they show up
+2. **Why buyers consider them**: their real appeal, in the buyer's words
+3. **Where they're strong**: honest, so reps aren't blindsided
+4. **Where we win, and for whom**: tied to evidence (see Claims Reps Can Defend)
+5. **Discovery questions**: questions that surface the fit criteria where you're stronger, without trashing them
+6. **Top objections**: with one-line responses and proof
+7. **When to walk away**: deal profiles where they're the better fit
+8. **Last verified**: date, and what changed since the previous version
+
+### Keeping It Current
+
+- Re-verify pricing and packaging quarterly, and whenever reps hear something new in deals.
+- Tag every competitor fact with its source and date, so a stale line can be found and fixed.
+- One page. If reps can't find the answer mid-call, cut until they can.
+
+Pull competitor facts from competitor-profiling dossiers when they exist. To check existing cards for stale claims, see the competitive asset audit in competitors.
+
+---
+
+## Win-Loss Analysis
+
+Win-loss analysis turns CRM outcomes, call transcripts, and buyer interviews into an evidence-backed answer to "why do we win and lose, against whom?" It's the evidence that battle cards and "why we win" sections need.
+
+### Workflow
+
+1. **Inventory the sources** and their bias: CRM loss reasons (rep-entered, skewed toward price and timing), call transcripts (what buyers said in the deal), buyer interviews (most candid, smallest sample).
+2. **Include wins.** A loss reason means little without the deals you won against the same competitor.
+3. **Segment before you count.** Split by competitor, segment, deal size, and stage lost. "We lose on price" across everything often hides "we lose mid-market deals to one competitor on onboarding."
+4. **Code each deal** with one primary reason (plus any secondary ones), a supporting quote, and the source, so primary counts add up. Have one person code, or double-code a sample, so "primary" means the same thing throughout.
+5. **Report counts with sample sizes.** "6 of 9 losses to Acme cite onboarding time" beats "onboarding is a top theme." State n every time. Small slices are directional, and under ~5 deals it's a signal to watch, not a finding.
+6. **Turn findings into assets.** A deal with only a one-word CRM reason is low-confidence: confirm it with transcripts or interviews before it changes a battle card. Then update battle cards, the objection library, and discovery questions, and send product gaps to the product team.
+
+**For coding schemes, interview questions, and report format**: See [references/win-loss-analysis.md](references/win-loss-analysis.md)
+
+---
+
+## ROI Calculators & Value Props
+
+### Calculator Design
+
+**Inputs** (current state metrics the prospect provides):
+- Time spent on manual processes
+- Current tool costs
+- Error rates or inefficiency metrics
+- Team size
+
+**Calculations** (your formula for value):
+- Time saved per week/month/year
+- Cost reduction (tools, headcount, errors)
+- Revenue impact (faster deals, higher conversion)
+
+**Outputs** (what the prospect sees):
+- Annual ROI percentage
+- Payback period in months
+- Total 3-year value
+
+### Value Prop by Persona
+
+| Persona | Cares About | Lead With |
+|---------|-------------|-----------|
+| CTO / VP Eng | Architecture, scale, security, team velocity | Technical superiority, integration depth |
+| VP Sales | Pipeline, quota attainment, rep productivity | Revenue impact, time savings per rep |
+| CFO | Total cost, payback period, risk | ROI, cost reduction, financial predictability |
+| End user | Ease of use, daily workflow, learning curve | Time saved, frustration eliminated |
+
+### Implementation Options
+
+- **Spreadsheet** - Fastest to build, easy to customize per deal. Works for inside sales.
+- **Web tool** - More polished, captures leads, scales better. Worth building if deal volume is high.
+- **Slide-based** - ROI story embedded in the deck. Good for executive presentations.
+
+---
+
+## Demo Scripts & Talk Tracks
+
+### Script Structure
+
+1. **Opening** (2 min) - Context setting, agenda, confirm goals for the call
+2. **Discovery recap** (3 min) - Summarize what you learned, confirm priorities
+3. **Solution walkthrough** (15-20 min) - 3-4 key workflows mapped to their pain
+4. **Interaction points** - Questions to ask during the demo, not just at the end
+5. **Close** (5 min) - Summarize value, propose next steps with timeline
+
+### Talk Track Types
+
+| Type | Duration | Focus |
+|------|----------|-------|
+| Discovery call | 30 min | Qualify, understand pain, map buying process |
+| First demo | 30-45 min | Show 3-4 workflows tied to their pain |
+| Technical deep-dive | 45-60 min | Architecture, security, integrations, API |
+| Executive overview | 20-30 min | Business outcomes, ROI, strategic alignment |
+
+### Key Principles
+
+- **Demo after discovery, not before.** If you don't know their pain, you're guessing which features matter.
+- **Customize to their use case.** Use their terminology, their data (if possible), their workflow.
+- **Leave time for questions.** A demo where the prospect doesn't talk is a demo that doesn't close.
+
+**For full script templates**: See [references/demo-scripts.md](references/demo-scripts.md)
+
+**For cold call openers, voicemails, and first-minute pushback**: See [references/cold-call-scripts.md](references/cold-call-scripts.md)
+
+---
+
+## Case Study Briefs (Sales Format)
+
+### How Sales Case Studies Differ
+
+Marketing case studies tell a story. Sales case studies arm reps with fast-access proof. Keep them short, outcome-focused, and tagged for retrieval.
+
+### Structure
+
+1. **Customer profile** - Industry, company size, buyer role
+2. **Challenge** - What they were struggling with (2-3 sentences)
+3. **Solution** - What they implemented (1-2 sentences)
+4. **Results** - 3 specific metrics (before/after)
+5. **Pull quote** - One sentence from the customer
+6. **Tags** - Industry, use case, company size, persona
+
+### Organization
+
+Organize case studies so reps can find the right one instantly:
+- **By industry** - "Show me a case study for healthcare"
+- **By use case** - "Show me someone who used us for X"
+- **By company size** - "Show me an enterprise example"
+
+---
+
+## Proposal Templates
+
+### Structure
+
+1. **Executive summary** - Their challenge, your solution, expected outcome (1 page max)
+2. **Proposed solution** - What you'll deliver, mapped to their requirements
+3. **Implementation plan** - Timeline, milestones, responsibilities
+4. **Investment** - Pricing, payment terms, what's included
+5. **Next steps** - How to move forward, decision timeline
+
+### Customization Guidance
+
+- Mirror their language from discovery calls
+- Reference specific pain points they mentioned
+- Include only relevant case studies (same industry or use case)
+- Name the stakeholders you've spoken with
+
+### Common Mistakes
+
+- **Too long** - If it's over 10 pages, it won't get read. Aim for 5-7.
+- **Too generic** - Templated proposals signal low effort. Customize the exec summary at minimum.
+- **Burying the price** - Don't make them hunt for it. Be transparent and confident.
+
+---
+
+## Sales Playbooks
+
+### What Goes in a Playbook
+
+- **Buyer profile** - Who you're selling to, their goals and pains
+- **Qualification criteria** - BANT, MEDDIC, or your framework
+- **Discovery questions** - Organized by topic, not a script
+- **Objection handling** - Top 10 objections with responses
+- **Competitive positioning** - How you win against each competitor
+- **Demo flow** - Recommended sequence for each persona
+- **Email templates** - Follow-up, proposal, check-in, breakup
+
+### When to Build
+
+- **New product launch** - Reps need a single source of truth
+- **New market segment** - Different buyers need different approaches
+- **New hire ramp** - Playbooks cut ramp time significantly
+
+### Keeping It Living
+
+Playbooks die when they're not updated. Review quarterly, get input from top reps, and remove anything outdated. Assign an owner - if nobody owns it, it rots.
+
+---
+
+## Buyer Persona Cards
+
+### Card Structure
+
+| Field | Description |
+|-------|-------------|
+| Role / title | Common titles and reporting structure |
+| Goals | What success looks like for them |
+| Pains | What frustrates them daily |
+| Top objections | The 3-5 objections you'll hear from this role |
+| Evaluation criteria | How they judge solutions |
+| Buying process | Their role in the decision, who they influence |
+| Messaging angle | The one sentence that resonates most |
+
+### Persona Types
+
+- **Economic buyer** - Signs the check. Cares about ROI and risk.
+- **Technical buyer** - Evaluates the product. Cares about capabilities and integration.
+- **End user** - Uses it daily. Cares about ease and workflow fit.
+- **Champion** - Advocates internally. Needs ammunition to sell for you.
+- **Blocker** - Opposes the purchase. Understand their concern to neutralize it.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+Deliver the right format for each asset type:
+
+| Asset | Deliverable |
+|-------|-------------|
+| Sales deck | Slide-by-slide outline with headline, body copy, and speaker notes |
+| One-pager | Full copy with layout guidance (visual hierarchy, sections) |
+| Objection doc | Table format: objection, response, proof point, follow-up |
+| Live objection | Likely concern, one response the rep can say as written, proof, follow-up question |
+| Win-loss report | Scope, findings with counts and quotes, by-competitor breakdown, asset updates |
+| Demo script | Scene-by-scene with timing, talk track, and interaction points |
+| ROI calculator | Input fields, formulas, output display with sample data |
+| Playbook | Structured document with table of contents and sections |
+| Persona card | One-page card format per persona |
+| Proposal | Section-by-section copy with customization notes |
+
+---
+
+## Task-Specific Questions
+
+If context is missing, ask:
+
+1. What collateral do you need? (deck, one-pager, objection doc, etc.)
+2. Who will use it? (AE, SDR, champion, prospect)
+3. What sales stage is it for? (prospecting, discovery, demo, negotiation, close)
+4. Who is the target persona? (title, seniority, department)
+5. What are the top 3 objections you hear most?
+
+---
+
+## Tool Integrations
+
+For partner sales enablement, see the [tools registry](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/blob/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff/tools/REGISTRY.md):
+
+| Tool | What It Does | Guide |
+|------|-------------|-------|
+| **Introw** | Partner engagement tracking, deal registration, mutual action plans | [introw.md](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/blob/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff/tools/integrations/introw.md) |
+
+---
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- **stacks-marketing-competitors**: For public-facing comparison and alternative pages
+- **stacks-marketing-competitor-profiling**: For the competitor dossiers that feed battle cards
+- **stacks-marketing-customer-research**: For running buyer interviews and broader voice-of-customer research
+- **stacks-marketing-copywriting**: For marketing website copy
+- **stacks-marketing-cold-email**: For outbound prospecting emails
+- **stacks-marketing-revops**: For lead lifecycle, scoring, routing, and pipeline management
+- **stacks-marketing-pricing**: For pricing decisions and packaging
+- **stacks-marketing-product-marketing**: For foundational positioning and messaging

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-sales-enablement/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+name: stacks-marketing-sales-enablement
+description: Use when the user wants to create sales collateral, pitch decks, one-pagers, objection handling docs, or demo scripts. Covers marketing planning and its Stacks implementation.
+license: MIT
+compatibility: Bun >= 1.3.0, TypeScript
+allowed-tools: Read Edit Write Bash Grep Glob
+---
+
+# Marketing Sales Enablement
+
+Read [the shared Stacks workflow](../stacks-marketing/WORKFLOW.md), then
+[PLAYBOOK.md](PLAYBOOK.md) before doing this task. Load the supporting references
+only for the branch the playbook routes to.
+
+This ports `sales-enablement` from
+[coreyhaines31/marketingskills](https://github.com/coreyhaines31/marketingskills/tree/1efedbc5148b54b2f0f6c6c9fe0be62e151c7fff/skills/sales-enablement).
+[NOTICE.md](NOTICE.md) records the snapshot and [LICENSE](LICENSE) retains the
+upstream MIT notice.
+
+## Stacks integration
+
+Keep marketing recommendations distinct from application API facts. Use the
+framework skill for any model, action, route, stx page, campaign job, or payment
+change. Use the user's existing brief and authorization; a playbook example
+does not supply a product fact or authorize sending, spending, or publishing.
+
+Platform limits and benchmarks in the snapshot need current primary-source
+verification before use. Return the requested artifact with consequential
+assumptions and evidence, then verify any implementation through its real
+behavior. Use TypeScript and Bun for executable helpers.

package/ai/skills/stacks-marketing-sales-enablement/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,153 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "stacks-marketing-sales-enablement",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Help me create a sales deck for our B2B SaaS product. We sell an employee engagement platform to HR directors at companies with 500-5000 employees. Our main differentiator is real-time pulse surveys with AI-powered insights.",
+      "expected_output": "Should check for product-marketing.md first. Should apply the 10-12 slide sales deck framework: Title, Problem/Stakes, Current Solutions Failing, Vision, Product/Solution, How It Works, Proof (case studies/metrics), Pricing, Why Now, and Next Steps. Should tailor the deck to the HR director audience and employee engagement space. Should incorporate the differentiator (real-time pulse surveys + AI insights). Should provide slide-by-slide content recommendations with speaker notes. Should recommend visual direction.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Checks for product-marketing.md",
+        "Applies 10-12 slide framework",
+        "Includes Problem, Solution, Proof, Pricing, Next Steps slides",
+        "Tailors to HR director audience",
+        "Incorporates stated differentiator",
+        "Provides slide-by-slide content",
+        "Includes speaker notes or talking points"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Our sales team keeps getting the same objections. The top ones are: 'we already use SurveyMonkey,' 'we don't have budget right now,' and 'our team is too small to need this.' Help me create an objection handling doc.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the objection handling framework with the response structure for each objection. Should categorize the objections (competitor/status quo, budget, need/timing). For each objection, should provide: acknowledge, reframe, evidence/proof, bridge to value, and follow-up question. Should provide 2-3 response variations per objection for different contexts. Should organize as a document sales reps can reference quickly during calls.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies objection handling framework",
+        "Categorizes the three objections",
+        "Provides structured response for each (acknowledge, reframe, evidence, bridge)",
+        "Provides 2-3 response variations per objection",
+        "Organizes for quick reference during calls",
+        "Categorizes objections using the skill's framework (competitor, budget, need/timing)"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 3,
+      "prompt": "i need a one-pager we can leave behind after sales meetings. something that summarizes our product and key benefits.",
+      "expected_output": "Should trigger on casual phrasing. Should apply the one-pager/leave-behind framework. Should include: headline with core value proposition, key benefits (3-5), social proof (customer logos, key metric), how it works (simplified), pricing summary or 'starting at' range, and clear next step CTA. Should recommend design principles for a one-pager: scannable, visual hierarchy, not text-heavy. Should note this should fit on one page (front, or front and back).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Triggers on casual phrasing",
+        "Applies one-pager/leave-behind framework",
+        "Includes headline, benefits, social proof, how it works, CTA",
+        "Keeps to one page format",
+        "Recommends scannable design",
+        "Provides specific content for each section"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 4,
+      "prompt": "Create a demo script for our analytics dashboard product. Typical demo is 30 minutes with a VP of Marketing.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the demo script/talk track framework with the 5-part structure. Should include: opening (rapport, agenda setting, discovery questions), problem validation (confirm their pain), solution walkthrough (show product addressing their pain), proof points (metrics, case studies during demo), and close (next steps, timeline). Should time-box each section for 30 minutes. Should include key questions to ask during discovery. Should note when to customize based on prospect's answers.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies 5-part demo script structure",
+        "Includes opening with discovery questions",
+        "Includes problem validation",
+        "Includes solution walkthrough",
+        "Includes proof points",
+        "Includes close with next steps",
+        "Time-boxes for 30 minutes",
+        "Notes customization based on prospect responses"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 5,
+      "prompt": "Help me build an ROI calculator we can use during sales calls. We need to show prospects how much money they'll save by switching to our product.",
+      "expected_output": "Should apply the ROI calculator framework. Should define inputs (what data to collect from the prospect: team size, current costs, time spent on manual processes), calculation methodology (how to compute savings), and output format (visual showing ROI timeline, payback period, annual savings). Should recommend keeping calculations transparent and conservative. Should suggest validating assumptions during the sales call. Should provide the calculator structure and formula logic.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Applies ROI calculator framework",
+        "Defines required inputs",
+        "Provides calculation methodology",
+        "Recommends conservative assumptions",
+        "Includes ROI timeline and payback period",
+        "Suggests validating assumptions during calls",
+        "Provides calculator structure"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 6,
+      "prompt": "We need a public comparison page showing how we stack up against Zendesk and Intercom.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize this is a public-facing competitor comparison page, not internal sales collateral. Should defer to or cross-reference the competitors skill, which handles public comparison and alternatives pages. Sales-enablement covers internal materials (battle cards, objection handling) while competitors handles SEO-focused public comparison content.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Recognizes this as a public comparison page",
+        "References or defers to competitors skill",
+        "Explains the distinction between internal and public collateral",
+        "Does not attempt public SEO comparison page using sales enablement patterns"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 7,
+      "prompt": "Make an objection-handling doc for when prospects say 'we're also looking at Northwind.' Include a 'why we win' section. We don't track win/loss reasons anywhere yet.",
+      "expected_output": "Should build the objection doc using the response framework, but because there is no win/loss data, should frame 'why we win' points as hypotheses for reps to test and say what evidence would confirm each (e.g., start logging loss reasons, call snippets, customer quotes). Should keep any Northwind claims dated and sourced and avoid 'they don't have X' unless verified. Should include where Northwind is the better fit.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Labels 'why we win' as hypotheses given no win/loss data",
+        "Suggests a way to gather the missing evidence",
+        "Avoids unverified 'they don't have X' claims about Northwind",
+        "Includes situations where Northwind is the better fit"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 8,
+      "prompt": "Can you make us a battle card? We keep running into them in deals.",
+      "expected_output": "Should recognize the battle card request belongs to sales-enablement. Because no competitor is named and no context identifies one, should ask which competitor in one short question and not produce a placeholder or guessed card. May offer the likely candidate from context for the user to confirm and mention what else would sharpen the card (segment, win/loss notes).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Asks which competitor before drafting",
+        "Does not produce a battle card for a guessed competitor",
+        "Keeps the clarifying ask short"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 9,
+      "prompt": "Our VP Finance prospect at a 300-person logistics company just told my AE 'Acme does this for half the price.' The AE has a follow-up call in an hour. What should she say?",
+      "expected_output": "Should treat this as a live deal objection, not produce a generic objection doc. Should name the likely concern behind it (value-for-price vs. hard budget) and give a question that tells the two apart. Should give one response the AE can say as written: acknowledge, address the concern, one proof point, end with a question. Should not invent stats, customers, or Acme pricing facts; if no proof is provided, should say what proof to pull or verify. Should say when it's not worth fighting (a real fit gap).",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Responds to the specific deal rather than producing a generic objection doc",
+        "Names the likely concern behind the objection",
+        "Offers a question to tell possible concerns apart",
+        "Gives one say-as-written response ending in a question",
+        "Does not invent stats, customers, or competitor pricing",
+        "Mentions when to qualify out instead of fighting"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 10,
+      "prompt": "Here are our last quarter's closed-lost reasons from Salesforce: 14 say 'price', 6 say 'timing', 4 say 'went with Acme', 3 say 'no decision'. Tell me why we're losing and update our battle card.",
+      "expected_output": "Should run win-loss analysis and flag that rep-entered CRM reasons are biased toward price and timing and rarely name the real cause. Should separate competitive losses from no-decision/timing. Should report counts with sample sizes rather than percentages and treat small slices as signals. Should not write new 'why we lose' battle card claims from one-word CRM reasons alone; should label them low-confidence and recommend buyer interviews or transcript review (with sample questions) to confirm before updating the card.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Flags bias in rep-entered CRM loss reasons",
+        "Separates competitive losses from no-decision or timing",
+        "Reports counts with sample sizes",
+        "Treats findings from one-word CRM reasons as low-confidence",
+        "Recommends interviews or transcripts before changing the battle card"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 11,
+      "prompt": "Write me a cold call opener and voicemail for calling heads of growth at SaaS companies that just posted growth marketer jobs.",
+      "expected_output": "Should load the cold call scripts reference. Opener should follow four beats: name and company plainly, a permission-based ask for 30 seconds, the specific reason tied to the job posting and the problem it implies, and one question about their situation. Should avoid 'Did I catch you at a bad time?' and 'How are you today?'. Voicemail should be 20-30 seconds with name, one specific reason, a promise to send an email, and the name repeated, followed by an email referencing the voicemail. Should include brief responses to first-minute pushback such as 'just send me an email' and 'not interested', and mention Do Not Call scrubbing.",
+      "assertions": [
+        "Uses a permission-based opener",
+        "Ties the reason to the job posting signal",
+        "Ends the opener with a question about their situation",
+        "Avoids 'Did I catch you at a bad time?' and 'How are you today?'",
+        "Voicemail is about 20-30 seconds and points to a follow-up email",
+        "Includes responses to common first-minute pushback"
+      ],
+      "files": []
+    }
+  ]
+}