jumpstart-mode 1.1.13 → 1.1.14

package/.github/skills/gtm-ai-gtm/templates/jumpstart-to-pod-recommendation-matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Jump Start To Pod Recommendation Matrix
+
+## Opportunity Snapshot
+| Dimension | Notes |
+| --- | --- |
+| Client / account | |
+| Business problem | |
+| AI use case maturity | |
+| Delivery urgency | |
+| Existing team landscape | |
+
+## Recommendation Matrix
+| Decision Factor | Evidence | Implication | Recommendation |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Clarity of use case | | | |
+| Technical feasibility confidence | | | |
+| Stakeholder alignment | | | |
+| Need for hands-on build support | | | |
+| Need for adjacent teams | | | |
+| Operational readiness | | | |
+
+## Recommended Motion
+- Recommended entry point:
+- Why:
+- Suggested tier or phase:
+- What this motion should produce in 2-6 weeks:
+
+## Scope Boundaries
+- In scope:
+- Out of scope:
+- Follow-on scope candidates:
+
+## Handoff Or Expansion Path
+- If starting with Jump Start:
+- If moving into Pod:
+- If hybrid with adjacent teams:

package/.github/skills/gtm-enterprise-account-planning/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,169 @@
+---
+name: gtm-enterprise-account-planning
+description: Build or repair an enterprise account plan for a Jump Start or AI Innovation Pod opportunity, including account hypothesis, stakeholder map, MEDDICC evidence, personal wins, route recommendation, and mutual action plan. Use this whenever the user is planning a complex AI deal, qualifying a strategic opportunity, checking whether a deal is real, preparing for account strategy reviews, or deciding between Jump Start, Pod, adjacent Sogeti teams, or a pause.
+argument-hint: Provide account context, deal stage, known stakeholders, client asks, and any existing notes, emails, or MAP.
+license: MIT
+metadata:
+  author: Smit Patel (https://linkedin.com/in/smitkpatel)
+  source: https://github.com/beingsmit/technical-product-gtm
+---
+
+# Enterprise Account Planning
+
+## Positioning
+
+Use this skill to turn rough account context into a defensible enterprise account plan that is useful for Jump Start and AI Innovation Pod work, not just generic pipeline commentary.
+
+The core job is to help the team decide whether the account should move into a Jump Start, a Pod tier, a broader Sogeti motion, or a pause, then show what must happen next for the deal to stay real.
+
+## When To Use This
+
+- The team needs an account plan for a strategic or messy enterprise AI opportunity.
+- A deal has multiple stakeholders, a non-trivial buying process, or signs of stalling.
+- The user needs a MEDDICC view tied to actual evidence rather than hopeful assumptions.
+- The team must decide whether the next move is Jump Start, Ignition, Turbo, Overdrive, adjacent-team pursuit, or no-go.
+- The user needs a mutual action plan, deal-health check, exec prep brief, or recovery plan.
+
+## Typical Need Shapes
+
+- "Turn these account notes into an account plan and tell me whether to sell Jump Start or go straight to the Pod."
+- "This deal has been warm for two months. Is it actually moving or are we fooling ourselves?"
+- "Map the stakeholders, their personal wins, and where the political risk sits."
+- "Draft a MAP for the next three weeks and show what the client has to own."
+- "Prepare me for an account review with leadership and make the route recommendation defensible."
+
+## When Not To Use This
+
+- Do not use this as pure company research. Route to `company-research` when the main need is account intelligence gathering.
+- Do not use this as a pricing calculator. Pull in pricing or proposal assets when the core task is commercial modeling.
+- Do not use this to draft a full proposal or SOW. Route to proposal or SOW skills once the opportunity path is qualified.
+- Do not force-fit every AI conversation into an account plan. If the ask is still vague, use intake or discovery-oriented skills first.
+
+## Required Inputs
+
+- Account name, industry, and what the client appears to care about
+- Current stage, recent interactions, and any urgency signal
+- Known stakeholders and their roles
+- Client ask, pain points, success criteria, or budget/timeline signals if known
+- Existing MAP, notes, emails, meeting recap, or qualification artifacts if available
+
+## Working Rules
+
+1. Separate confirmed facts from hypotheses and unknowns.
+2. Treat MAP freshness as a primary health signal. A stale MAP is stronger evidence than verbal enthusiasm.
+3. Do not recommend a direct Pod motion when clarity, sponsorship, or technical readiness are too weak to support it.
+4. Make personal wins and personal risk explicit for major stakeholders.
+5. Be direct about blockers, ownership gaps, and where the pursuit should pause.
+6. Protect delivery teams by naming adjacent-team dependencies, client responsibilities, and out-of-scope assumptions.
+
+## Workflow
+
+1. Clarify the motion.
+Determine whether the account is early qualification, active pursuit, proposal-stage, or recovery-stage.
+
+2. Build the account hypothesis.
+Summarize what the client is really buying, why now, and why Sogeti is plausibly relevant.
+
+3. Map stakeholders and buying reality.
+Identify the economic buyer, champion, blockers, users, and adjacent teams. Add personal wins, personal risk, and influence level.
+
+4. Assess opportunity strength with evidence.
+Use MEDDICC, Jump Start versus Pod route logic, MAP freshness, and delivery-fit signals. Mark weak evidence plainly.
+
+5. Decide the route.
+Recommend one of: Jump Start, Ignition, Turbo, Overdrive, Pod plus adjacent teams, broader Sogeti motion without Pod, or pause/no-go.
+
+6. Produce the right artifact.
+Match the output to the ask: full account plan, simplified pursuit memo, deal-health readout, mutual action plan, or executive prep note.
+
+## Resource Map
+
+- Use [references/jumpstart-account-planning-guide.md](./references/jumpstart-account-planning-guide.md) for the default decision rules, deal-health logic, and route patterns.
+- Use [templates/account-plan-template.md](./templates/account-plan-template.md) when the user wants a full account plan or a structured internal review artifact.
+- Use [templates/mutual-action-plan-template.md](./templates/mutual-action-plan-template.md) when the immediate need is a working MAP or recovery cadence.
+- Use [examples/example-account-plan.md](./examples/example-account-plan.md) as the tone and structure model for a strong output.
+- Use [../../../01-sell/qualification/qualification-scorecard.md](../../../01-sell/qualification/qualification-scorecard.md) when the route recommendation needs a more explicit go or no-go basis.
+- Use [../../../01-sell/qualification/ai-innovation-pod-tier-internal-routing-guide.md](../../../01-sell/qualification/ai-innovation-pod-tier-internal-routing-guide.md) when selecting Ignition, Turbo, or Overdrive.
+- Use [../../../01-sell/engaging-clients-conversation-guide.md](../../../01-sell/engaging-clients-conversation-guide.md) and [../../../02-scope-and-propose/discovery/discovery-questions.md](../../../02-scope-and-propose/discovery/discovery-questions.md) when discovery is too shallow to support confident planning.
+- Use [../../../05-reference/jumpstart-vs-ai-pod.md](../../../05-reference/jumpstart-vs-ai-pod.md) and [../../../05-reference/understanding-the-ai-innovation-pod.md](../../../05-reference/understanding-the-ai-innovation-pod.md) when the output must explain why the route is Jump Start first, direct Pod, or Pod inside a broader program.
+
+## Output Modes
+
+### Full Account Plan
+
+Use the account plan template and include:
+
+- Executive summary
+- What the client is really asking for
+- Account hypothesis and why now
+- Stakeholder map with personal wins and risk
+- MEDDICC status with evidence and gaps
+- Route recommendation and rationale
+- Risks, dependencies, and next actions
+- Mutual action plan
+
+### Simplified Pursuit Memo
+
+Use when the deal is earlier or lower-investment. Include:
+
+- Situation snapshot
+- Confirmed signals and missing evidence
+- Route recommendation
+- Top three risks
+- Next meeting objective and asks
+
+### Deal Health Readout
+
+Use when the concern is whether the deal is moving. Include:
+
+- Health status: green, yellow, or red
+- MAP freshness and ownership analysis
+- Stakeholder momentum or absence
+- Reset, escalate, or pause recommendation
+
+### Executive Prep Brief
+
+Use when someone needs to enter a client or leadership meeting quickly. Include:
+
+- Account snapshot
+- Stakeholders and likely motivations
+- Current route recommendation
+- Questions that must get answered in the meeting
+- Failure modes to avoid
+
+## Quality Bar
+
+- Show the route logic rather than just naming a recommendation.
+- Keep evidence, assumptions, and unknowns visibly separate.
+- Name who owns each next step. A plan with no owner is not a plan.
+- Make the client's work explicit in the MAP. If only our side has actions, the deal is not real yet.
+- Keep Jump Start and Pod positioning realistic. Discovery outputs are not implementation commitments.
+
+## Common Failure Modes
+
+### Mistaking Interest For Progress
+
+Excitement, compliments, and "this looks great" do not count as progress unless stakeholders are doing work and dates are moving.
+
+### Skipping Economic Buyer Validation
+
+Do not let the team confuse champion enthusiasm with budget authority.
+
+### Selling Turbo Into Ambiguity
+
+If the client still needs prioritization, business case support, or architecture confidence, Jump Start or Ignition is usually the more honest route.
+
+### Hiding Delivery Dependencies
+
+If the opportunity clearly needs ACE, DAE or I&D, QET, CIS, security, or another team, say so. Do not hide enterprise delivery work inside a Pod recommendation.
+
+## Related Skills
+
+- `company-research` for account intelligence and external context
+- `qualification-scorecard` for a more formal go or no-go assessment
+- `client-email-writer` when the next step is a seller follow-up email
+- `proposal-narrative` or `sow-proposal-reviewer` once the pursuit is qualified and moves into proposal or SOW drafting
+
+## Regression Evals
+
+Regression prompts live in [evals/evals.json](./evals/evals.json). Keep them realistic and biased toward messy enterprise AI opportunity planning, route decisions, and MAP recovery instead of generic sales theory.

package/.github/skills/gtm-enterprise-account-planning/evals/evals.json

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+{
+  "skill_name": "gtm-enterprise-account-planning",
+  "evals": [
+    {
+      "id": 0,
+      "prompt": "I need help with an account review for a manufacturing client called ForgePeak. We had two discovery calls about using AI for plant maintenance and technician knowledge search. The VP of Operations is interested, the CIO joined one call, and a plant systems director keeps asking whether their internal data team could just do this themselves. They want something moving this quarter, but they still have at least three candidate use cases and nobody has agreed on success metrics. Budget sounds possible but not locked. Please turn this into an account plan and tell me whether we should sell Jump Start, Ignition, Turbo, or something else.",
+      "expected_output": "A structured account plan that separates facts from hypotheses, maps stakeholders and personal wins, and recommends a realistic route that does not over-accelerate into build without enough clarity.",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The output clearly recommends Jump Start and explicitly explains why Turbo is premature or not yet justified.",
+        "The output separates confirmed facts from hypotheses or unknowns rather than blending them together.",
+        "The output includes a stakeholder map or equivalent stakeholder section that names motivations, personal wins, or risks.",
+        "The output includes a mutual action plan with at least one client-owned action."
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 1,
+      "prompt": "Tell me if this deal is actually alive and draft the next move. Client is a regional health system exploring an AI contact center copilot. We demoed three weeks ago. Champion said leadership loved it, but our MAP has not been updated since then. The only open items are on our side: revised deck, security FAQ, and sample architecture. We still have not met the economic buyer. Their director of digital experience keeps saying she is trying to get time with the COO. I need a deal-health readout and a recovery-oriented mutual action plan.",
+      "expected_output": "A candid deal-health assessment that treats the stale MAP as a warning signal, explains why the deal is at risk, and produces a MAP with client-owned actions plus a recovery recommendation.",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The output labels the deal as red, at risk, or equivalent and ties that judgment to the stale MAP or lack of customer-owned actions.",
+        "The output produces a mutual action plan with client-owned actions and dates.",
+        "The output advises against advancing to a direct Pod build recommendation before buyer validation."
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "id": 2,
+      "prompt": "Can you prep me for an internal strategy call on a retail account? The client wants enterprise search for store operations and merchant teams, but they are also asking if the AI Innovation Pod could sit inside a larger modernization program they already have with another Sogeti team. Sponsor is the SVP of Digital Operations, procurement is known to be slow, and there is pressure to show a path from a quick workshop to a funded next phase. I need a concise executive prep brief that explains the likely route, stakeholders, risks, and what questions we need answered next.",
+      "expected_output": "A concise exec prep brief that connects Jump Start and Pod options, recognizes adjacent-team dependency, and highlights the key unanswered questions before proposal work.",
+      "files": [],
+      "expectations": [
+        "The output recommends a Jump Start-first route and connects it to a likely follow-on motion.",
+        "The output explicitly explains how the Pod would fit inside the broader modernization program alongside adjacent Sogeti teams or delivery owners.",
+        "The output identifies procurement or buying-path risk and names questions that still need answers."
+      ]
+    }
+  ]
+}

package/.github/skills/gtm-enterprise-account-planning/examples/example-account-plan.md

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+# Example Account Plan
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+- Account: NorthRiver Mutual
+- Industry: Insurance
+- Current stage: Late discovery / early route decision
+- Recommended route: Jump Start followed by likely Ignition or Turbo
+- Confidence level: Medium
+- Why now: Claims operations leaders are under pressure to reduce manual document handling before the next renewal cycle.
+
+## What The Client Is Really Asking For
+
+- Stated ask: "We want to use AI to speed up claims intake and determine whether an AI Innovation Pod could help us this quarter."
+- Underlying business need: Reduce manual triage, shorten claim handling times, and create a defendable roadmap without overcommitting to production scope too early.
+- Why this matters now: The COO is pushing for operational efficiency targets and the CIO wants a low-risk starting point after a prior vendor overpromised.
+
+## Recommended Motion
+
+- Route: Jump Start
+- Why this route fits: The pain is real and funded, but the client still has multiple candidate workflows, uneven data clarity, and no aligned success metric across claims operations and IT.
+- What evidence supports the route: Engaged VP sponsor, explicit urgency, willingness to workshop, and appetite for architecture guidance before MVP spend.
+- What evidence is still missing: Named economic buyer confirmation, usable baseline metrics, and agreement on which claims sub-process should be the first target.
+
+## Confirmed Facts
+
+- Claims teams manually review unstructured documents from email and portal submissions.
+- The VP of Claims Operations wants faster first-touch triage.
+- The CIO is supportive but cautious because a previous automation pilot failed.
+- The client can provide SMEs and workshop participation within two weeks.
+
+## Hypotheses And Assumptions
+
+- The COO is likely the economic buyer or has direct influence on final funding.
+- Security and compliance review will matter early because PII is involved.
+- If the workshop aligns on one bounded intake workflow, the follow-on could start in Ignition or Turbo depending on data access readiness.
+
+## Unknowns That Block Confident Pursuit
+
+- Whether the claims platform APIs can expose the right data quickly
+- Who owns model-risk and compliance approvals
+- Whether budget is approved only for discovery or also for a post-workshop build phase
+
+## Stakeholder Map
+
+| Stakeholder | Role | Influence | Current Stance | Personal Win | Personal Risk | Evidence Quality |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Dana Shah | VP Claims Operations | High | Supporter | Faster cycle time and fewer escalations | Another failed transformation initiative | Confirmed |
+| Luis Romero | CIO | High | Cautious supporter | Show disciplined innovation without governance surprises | Repeating a prior vendor mistake | Confirmed |
+| Megan Holt | Claims Transformation Director | Medium | Champion candidate | Modernize intake and become visible change leader | Team resistance if workflow disruption is too high | Inferred |
+| COO unknown | Likely EB | High | Unknown | Efficiency gains and operating leverage | Funding something not ready for enterprise scrutiny | Missing |
+
+## MEDDICC Status
+
+| Dimension | Current State | Evidence | Gap | Next Validation Step |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Metrics | Need baseline on claim triage time and manual touch effort | VP cited "too much manual review" | No quantified target yet | Ask for current SLA and throughput metrics |
+| Economic Buyer | Likely COO with CIO influence | Sponsor references COO pressure | No direct access | Confirm buyer and request intro before any proposal |
+| Decision Criteria | Wants low-risk, governed, business-relevant start | Prior vendor failure raised trust concerns | Security and procurement criteria unclear | Ask for evaluation criteria in workshop prep |
+| Decision Process | Discovery can move fast; follow-on approval likely committee based | CIO and operations both involved | Approval path unconfirmed | Map approval sequence in workshop prep |
+| Identified Pain | Manual claims intake is slow and inconsistent | Multiple leaders raised it | Need sharper workflow boundaries | Use Jump Start to narrow target workflow |
+| Champion | Megan could become champion | She is coordinating SMEs | Internal selling behavior not proven | Test whether she can secure EB and data owners |
+| Competition | Status quo plus internal build bias | CIO asked if internal team could absorb it later | No active vendor named | Ask directly about alternatives and timing |
+
+## Deal Health
+
+- Health status: Yellow
+- MAP freshness: No formal MAP yet; follow-up actions currently sit in email threads.
+- Customer-owned actions completed: Workshop date hold and SME list draft.
+- Momentum signal: Sponsor engagement is real, but the buying path is still underdefined.
+- Recovery risk: Moderate if we jump to a build proposal before the workshop sharpens scope and buyer alignment.
+
+## Delivery Dependencies And Boundaries
+
+- Client responsibilities: Provide workshop participants, current-state workflow owners, and baseline operational metrics.
+- Adjacent Sogeti teams or capabilities needed: Security input and possibly data engineering support if the follow-on moves past workshop into integrated MVP delivery.
+- Out-of-scope assumptions to state early: The Pod is not implicitly taking on long-term run-state, enterprise data remediation, or managed operations.
+
+## Next Actions
+
+| Action | Owner | Due Date | Outcome Sought |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Confirm workshop objective and participant list | Sogeti seller | 2026-05-05 | Lock Jump Start framing |
+| Share current claims intake workflow and pain points | Client transformation lead | 2026-05-07 | Improve workshop prep |
+| Confirm economic buyer and budget path | Client sponsor | 2026-05-08 | Remove route ambiguity |
+| Draft post-workshop success criteria options | Sogeti architect | 2026-05-09 | Prepare follow-on decision path |
+
+## Meeting Objective
+
+- Next meeting purpose: Confirm that a Jump Start is the right discovery motion and secure the stakeholders needed for a productive session.
+- Questions that must be answered: Who is the economic buyer? What metrics matter most? Which claims intake slice should be first? What governance review is unavoidable?
+- What a good outcome looks like: Workshop approved, sponsor-backed participants named, and a clear post-workshop decision path defined.

package/.github/skills/gtm-enterprise-account-planning/references/jumpstart-account-planning-guide.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Jump Start And Pod Account Planning Guide
+
+Use this reference when the task is not just "make a sales plan" but "decide how this account should move through the Jump Start and AI Innovation Pod motions without creating false certainty."
+
+## Default Planning Lens
+
+Account planning in this repo should answer five questions:
+
+1. What is the client actually trying to solve?
+2. Why is the issue urgent enough to buy now?
+3. Which stakeholders matter, and what do they each personally need to win?
+4. What is the right engagement path from here?
+5. What work has to happen on both sides for the deal to stay real?
+
+## Route Decision Rules
+
+### Recommend Jump Start First When
+
+- The client has multiple possible AI use cases and needs prioritization.
+- The sponsor needs a roadmap, architecture direction, or internal buy-in before release of larger funds.
+- The business problem is real, but the solution path is still fuzzy.
+- The team still needs discovery on workflow, data, governance, or adoption risk.
+
+### Recommend Ignition When
+
+- The account has a clear problem and strong interest, but still needs feasibility, architecture, or risk reduction.
+- The client wants a structured assessment without jumping straight into MVP delivery.
+- The engagement may become Turbo later, but evidence is still incomplete.
+
+### Recommend Turbo When
+
+- One primary use case is prioritized.
+- The client can supply a product owner, data access, and active participation.
+- The ask is to build and learn in sprints, not just discuss options.
+
+### Recommend Overdrive When
+
+- The initiative has executive sponsorship, enterprise visibility, and a compressed timeline.
+- Production controls, cross-team coordination, or multi-stream execution are becoming first-order risks.
+- Internal escalation is warranted before proposal.
+
+### Recommend Pod Plus Adjacent Teams When
+
+- The AI workstream is real, but the opportunity also depends on broader application, data, quality, security, or run-state delivery.
+- The account expects enterprise integration, production hardening, or operational ownership that the Pod should not quietly absorb alone.
+
+### Recommend Pause Or No-Go When
+
+- No sponsor or no credible path to one exists.
+- The client wants staffing rather than an outcome-oriented motion.
+- The MAP is stale, ownership is weak, and no one on the client side is doing work.
+- The opportunity lacks enough clarity to justify proposal effort.
+
+## Deal Health Signals
+
+### Green
+
+- MAP updated weekly or close to it
+- Customer-owned actions are visible and moving
+- New stakeholders are entering the conversation
+- Success metrics and route logic are getting clearer
+
+### Yellow
+
+- The deal still has sponsor interest, but dates are slipping
+- Most actions sit with our team
+- Economic buyer access is pending or indirect
+- Discovery is incomplete but recoverable
+
+### Red
+
+- MAP is stale for three weeks or more
+- All client tasks are pending or vague
+- No progress toward economic buyer validation
+- Proposal pressure is rising faster than evidence quality
+
+## The MAP Rule
+
+Treat a stale MAP as a leading indicator, not an afterthought.
+
+- Week 1 of silence: refresh the MAP with specific asks and dates.
+- Week 2 of silence: escalate to the champion and test whether urgency is still real.
+- Week 3 of silence: recommend reset, pause, or explicit blocker removal.
+
+If the client still is not doing work, say the deal is at risk rather than decorating it with optimism.
+
+## Stakeholder Map Fields
+
+For each important contact, capture:
+
+- Name and role
+- Level of influence
+- Relationship to the problem
+- Personal win
+- Personal risk
+- Current stance: champion, supporter, neutral, blocker, unknown
+- Evidence quality: confirmed, inferred, or missing
+
+## MEDDICC Discipline
+
+Use MEDDICC as evidence tracking, not as a storytelling exercise.
+
+- Metrics: what value matters and how measured
+- Economic Buyer: who approves budget and whether access is real
+- Decision Criteria: technical, business, security, political, commercial
+- Decision Process: procurement, legal, approval gates, timeline
+- Identified Pain: the client's language and consequences of delay
+- Champion: who sells internally when we are absent
+- Competition: alternatives, status quo, internal build, other vendors
+
+If a field is inferred, label it as inferred.
+
+## Personal Win Mapping
+
+Do not stop at business value. People buy for themselves as much as for the company.
+
+Ask or infer:
+
+- What would this stakeholder get credit for if it works?
+- What pain disappears for them personally?
+- What failure would they be blamed for?
+- Who is likely to challenge them internally?
+
+## Jump Start To Pod Bridge
+
+When recommending Jump Start, name what evidence it is supposed to create for the next motion.
+
+Good bridge language:
+
+- validate the use-case priority
+- align on sponsor-backed success criteria
+- clarify architecture and data constraints
+- produce a defensible roadmap and next-phase recommendation
+
+When recommending a direct Pod path, show why the account no longer needs that discovery layer.
+
+## Repo Sources To Pull In
+
+- `01-sell/qualification/qualification-scorecard.md` for go or no-go logic
+- `01-sell/qualification/ai-innovation-pod-tier-internal-routing-guide.md` for tier selection
+- `01-sell/engaging-clients-conversation-guide.md` for first-call structure and follow-up cues
+- `02-scope-and-propose/discovery/discovery-questions.md` when inputs are too thin
+- `05-reference/jumpstart-vs-ai-pod.md` for route framing
+- `05-reference/understanding-the-ai-innovation-pod.md` when the Pod role inside a broader program must be explained
+
+## Output Guidance
+
+Default to concise internal artifacts that a seller, architect, or leader can actually use:
+
+- full account plan for strategic pursuits
+- pursuit memo for lighter opportunities
+- deal-health readout for stalled opportunities
+- MAP with named owners and dates
+- exec prep note for upcoming meetings
+
+Do not bury the recommendation. Put the route, evidence strength, and next action near the top.

package/.github/skills/gtm-enterprise-account-planning/templates/account-plan-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# Enterprise Account Plan Template
+
+Use this template when the user asks for an account plan, pursuit memo, or account strategy review artifact.
+
+## Executive Summary
+
+- Account:
+- Industry:
+- Current stage:
+- Recommended route:
+- Confidence level:
+- Why now:
+
+## What The Client Is Really Asking For
+
+- Stated ask:
+- Underlying business need:
+- Why this matters now:
+
+## Recommended Motion
+
+- Route: Jump Start | Ignition | Turbo | Overdrive | Pod plus adjacent teams | Broader Sogeti motion | Pause
+- Why this route fits:
+- What evidence supports the route:
+- What evidence is still missing:
+
+## Confirmed Facts
+
+-
+
+## Hypotheses And Assumptions
+
+-
+
+## Unknowns That Block Confident Pursuit
+
+-
+
+## Account Hypothesis
+
+- Why this account could buy:
+- Why Sogeti could win:
+- Why we could still lose:
+
+## Stakeholder Map
+
+| Stakeholder | Role | Influence | Current Stance | Personal Win | Personal Risk | Evidence Quality |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
+
+## MEDDICC Status
+
+| Dimension | Current State | Evidence | Gap | Next Validation Step |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+| Metrics |  |  |  |  |
+| Economic Buyer |  |  |  |  |
+| Decision Criteria |  |  |  |  |
+| Decision Process |  |  |  |  |
+| Identified Pain |  |  |  |  |
+| Champion |  |  |  |  |
+| Competition |  |  |  |  |
+
+## Deal Health
+
+- Health status: Green | Yellow | Red
+- MAP freshness:
+- Customer-owned actions completed:
+- Momentum signal:
+- Recovery risk:
+
+## Delivery Dependencies And Boundaries
+
+- Client responsibilities:
+- Adjacent Sogeti teams or capabilities needed:
+- Out-of-scope assumptions to state early:
+
+## Risks And Blockers
+
+| Risk Or Blocker | Impact | Owner | Mitigation |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+|  |  |  |  |
+
+## Next Actions
+
+| Action | Owner | Due Date | Outcome Sought |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- |
+|  |  |  |  |
+
+## Meeting Objective
+
+- Next meeting purpose:
+- Questions that must be answered:
+- What a good outcome looks like:
+
+## Mutual Action Plan
+
+Paste or adapt the MAP from `templates/mutual-action-plan-template.md`.

package/.github/skills/gtm-enterprise-account-planning/templates/mutual-action-plan-template.md

@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+# Mutual Action Plan Template
+
+Use this template when the immediate need is to create or refresh a MAP. The client side must own visible actions. If the client has no actions, say the plan is incomplete.
+
+## MAP Summary
+
+- Account:
+- Current route:
+- Last meaningful client update:
+- Health status:
+- Main blocker:
+
+## Working Rules
+
+- Keep dates realistic and near-term.
+- Include both Sogeti and client owners.
+- Tie each action to a decision, artifact, or meeting outcome.
+- Flag overdue items instead of silently rolling them forward.
+
+## Mutual Action Plan
+
+| Action | Sogeti Owner | Client Owner | Other Stakeholders | Due Date | Status | Why It Matters |
+| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+|  |  |  |  |  | Not started |  |
+
+## Health Readout
+
+- Green if both sides are completing actions and dates are moving.
+- Yellow if most progress sits with us or dates are slipping.
+- Red if the MAP is stale, client actions are unowned, or no stakeholder progress is visible.
+
+## Recovery Message Draft
+
+Use when the MAP is yellow or red:
+
+"Here is the refreshed plan based on where we left things. We have updated our side's actions and called out the client-owned decisions needed to keep the timeline real. Please confirm whether these dates and owners still hold, or if priorities have shifted and we should reset the plan together."