30 Claude Prompts for Battlecards

You are a sales enablement lead who writes discovery questions designed to surface a competitor's known weak spots. <context> A competitor is known to have a rocky onboarding process, and I want questions a rep can ask naturally in discovery that lead the prospect to bring this up themselves. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Known onboarding weakness: [ONBOARDING WEAKNESS DETAIL] - Stage of the sales process this applies to: [SALES STAGE] - Buyer persona asking or being asked: [BUYER PERSONA] </inputs> <task> Write five open ended discovery questions that lead a prospect who has evaluated or used the competitor to describe onboarding pain in their own words, without the rep naming the competitor's flaw directly. </task> <constraints> Questions must sound like genuine curiosity, not a setup. No leading language that sounds scripted. Avoid naming the competitor's weakness in the question itself. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of five questions, each with a one line note on what answer to listen for. </format>

You are a solutions consultant who prepares discovery questions to test how well a prospect's current tools connect to a competitor's platform. <context> I want questions that reveal integration friction with a competitor's product without the rep sounding like they are attacking them. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Systems the prospect likely uses: [PROSPECT TECH STACK] - Known integration limitation of the competitor: [INTEGRATION LIMITATION] - Our integration strength on the same systems: [OUR INTEGRATION STRENGTH] </inputs> <task> Write four discovery questions about how the prospect's current tools connect together today, aimed at surfacing friction tied to the known integration limitation. </task> <constraints> Do not mention the competitor by name in the questions. Keep the tone curious and consultative, not investigative. Each question must be answerable in one or two sentences by the prospect. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of four questions, followed by a short note on how to bridge from the answer to our integration strength. </format>

You are a customer success strategist who helps sales reps uncover support quality issues during discovery calls. <context> A competitor is known for slow support response times, and I want questions that get a prospect talking about their support experience without sounding like a complaint fishing expedition. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Known support issue: [SUPPORT ISSUE DETAIL] - Prospect's role and how much they interact with support: [PROSPECT ROLE] - Our support model for comparison: [OUR SUPPORT MODEL] </inputs> <task> Write four discovery questions about the prospect's support expectations and past experiences that would naturally surface frustration with slow response times if it exists. </task> <constraints> Questions should work even if the prospect has never used the competitor, since some may be evaluating both at once. No loaded or leading phrasing. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of four questions with a one line follow up prompt for each. </format>

You are a procurement advisor who helps sales teams surface contract and data lock-in risk during evaluations. <context> A competitor is known for long contract terms and difficult data export, and I want questions that get the prospect thinking about lock-in risk before they sign anything. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Known lock-in mechanism: [LOCK-IN DETAIL, e.g. multi year contract, proprietary export format] - Prospect's contract renewal timeline: [RENEWAL TIMELINE] - Our contract terms for comparison: [OUR CONTRACT TERMS] </inputs> <task> Write four questions a rep can ask during evaluation that prompt the prospect to think through exit costs and flexibility before committing to any vendor. </task> <constraints> Frame the questions as prudent due diligence advice, not as an attack on the competitor. Keep each question under 25 words. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of four questions plus a closing sentence the rep can use to transition into our contract terms. </format>

You are a pricing strategist who helps sales reps get prospects to ask the right questions about total cost of ownership. <context> A competitor's list price looks attractive but add-on fees push the real cost higher, and I want questions that get the prospect to ask about those fees themselves. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Known add-on fees: [ADD-ON FEE LIST, e.g. implementation, premium support, API access] - Prospect's expected usage pattern: [USAGE PATTERN] - Our all-in pricing for comparison: [OUR ALL-IN PRICING] </inputs> <task> Write four questions the rep can ask the prospect about their expected usage that would naturally require the prospect to ask the competitor about the add-on fees I listed. </task> <constraints> Do not instruct the rep to name the fees directly, the goal is for the prospect to discover them independently. Keep the tone helpful, not combative. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of four questions with a short note on which fee each one is designed to surface. </format>

You are a customer marketing manager who turns raw customer stories into short proof points reps can quote on calls. <context> A customer switched from a named competitor to us and I want a short, quotable proof point for the battlecard. </context> <inputs> - Customer name or description: [CUSTOMER NAME OR DESCRIPTION] - Competitor they switched from: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Reason for switching, in their own words if possible: [SWITCH REASON] - Measurable result after switching: [MEASURABLE RESULT] </inputs> <task> Write a two sentence proof point a rep can say out loud on a call, plus a one sentence written version for the battlecard document. </task> <constraints> Use only the facts given, do not invent a number or quote. If the measurable result is vague, keep the proof point qualitative instead of forcing a fake statistic. </constraints> <format> Return two labeled sections: Spoken version and Written version. </format>

You are a sales finance partner who helps reps translate cost data into a plain spoken ROI comparison. <context> I have cost and outcome data for our product against a competitor's and want a talking point a rep can use without sounding like they are reading a spreadsheet. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Our total cost at the prospect's expected scale: [OUR COST] - Competitor's total cost at the same scale, as far as we know: [COMPETITOR COST] - Key outcome or time saved difference: [OUTCOME DIFFERENCE] </inputs> <task> Write a 3 sentence spoken talking point that compares total cost and outcome in plain terms, followed by a short written note flagging any assumptions behind the competitor's cost figure. </task> <constraints> Label any competitor cost estimate as an estimate, not a confirmed fact. Avoid absolute claims like always cheaper, use specific numbers instead. </constraints> <format> Return a Spoken version and a Written assumptions note, each under 60 words. </format>

You are a competitive intelligence researcher who summarizes public review site data for a sales team. <context> I have review site ratings and comments for us and a competitor, and I want a short summary reps can reference without reading the raw reviews themselves. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Our average rating and review count: [OUR RATING DATA] - Competitor's average rating and review count: [COMPETITOR RATING DATA] - Recurring themes in negative reviews of the competitor: [NEGATIVE THEME LIST] </inputs> <task> Summarize the rating comparison and the two most recurring negative themes from the competitor's reviews, written so a rep can mention it naturally without sounding like they memorized a report. </task> <constraints> Only use themes that appear more than once in the data given. State the review site name and date range as [REVIEW SITE] and [DATE RANGE] so the rep knows to keep it current. </constraints> <format> Return a short paragraph plus a two bullet list of recurring negative themes with suggested rep phrasing for each. </format>

You are a customer success writer who documents migrations from competitor products for sales enablement. <context> A customer migrated from a competitor's platform to ours and I want a short migration story snippet that addresses the fear of switching costs. </context> <inputs> - Customer name or description: [CUSTOMER NAME OR DESCRIPTION] - Competitor migrated from: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Migration timeline in days or weeks: [MIGRATION TIMELINE] - Biggest concern before migrating and how it was resolved: [CONCERN AND RESOLUTION] </inputs> <task> Write a four sentence migration story snippet that names the timeline and directly addresses the concern a prospect is likely to share. </task> <constraints> Keep the tone factual, not promotional. Do not claim the migration was effortless if the concern and resolution notes suggest otherwise, describe it honestly instead. </constraints> <format> Return one four sentence paragraph, followed by a single sentence a rep can use to introduce it on a call. </format>

You are a security compliance liaison who helps sales reps explain certification differences to technical buyers. <context> A prospect's security team is comparing our certifications against a competitor's and I need a talking point the rep can use without misrepresenting either side. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Our certifications: [OUR CERTIFICATIONS LIST] - Competitor's known certifications: [COMPETITOR CERTIFICATIONS LIST] - Certification the prospect specifically asked about: [REQUESTED CERTIFICATION] </inputs> <task> Write a short talking point confirming our status on the requested certification and noting, only if true from the data given, any gap in the competitor's coverage. </task> <constraints> Never claim a competitor lacks a certification unless it is explicitly absent from the list provided, otherwise say status unconfirmed. Keep the language precise, not dismissive of the competitor's security posture. </constraints> <format> Return a two sentence talking point plus a one line disclaimer for the rep about verifying current certification status before the call. </format>

You are a sales negotiation coach who prepares pointed questions for prospects deep in a competitive evaluation. <context> The prospect is close to signing with a competitor and I want one sharp, fair question about contract terms that could change their decision. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Known contract term concern: [CONTRACT TERM DETAIL, e.g. auto-renewal, minimum seat count] - Prospect's stated priorities: [PROSPECT PRIORITIES] - Stage of the deal: [DEAL STAGE] </inputs> <task> Write one landmine question the prospect should ask the competitor directly about the contract term concern, worded so it sounds like reasonable due diligence rather than a planted attack. </task> <constraints> The question must be answerable with a fact, not an opinion. It should not name us or imply we suggested it. Keep it to one sentence. </constraints> <format> Return the question itself, followed by a one sentence note on what answer would be a red flag. </format>

You are an implementation consultant who helps sales teams set realistic expectations against a competitor's promised timelines. <context> The competitor is promising a fast implementation timeline that I believe is unrealistic, and I want a question that tests this claim. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Competitor's promised timeline: [PROMISED TIMELINE] - Our typical timeline for a similar scope: [OUR TYPICAL TIMELINE] - Complexity factors in this specific deal: [COMPLEXITY FACTORS] </inputs> <task> Write one landmine question the prospect can ask the competitor about how the promised timeline accounts for the complexity factors listed. </task> <constraints> The question must reference a specific complexity factor, not a generic doubt. Avoid sounding like we are afraid of losing on speed. </constraints> <format> Return the question, then a short note on what a vague answer would signal. </format>

You are a data governance advisor who helps sales teams surface data portability risk during vendor evaluations. <context> I want a question that gets the prospect thinking about how hard it would be to leave the competitor's platform later, without sounding paranoid. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Data types the prospect would store: [DATA TYPES] - Known export limitation, if any: [EXPORT LIMITATION] - Prospect's industry and any related compliance concern: [INDUSTRY AND COMPLIANCE CONCERN] </inputs> <task> Write one landmine question about data export and portability that the prospect can ask the competitor directly, tied to their specific compliance concern. </task> <constraints> Frame it as standard vendor risk management, common in the prospect's industry. Do not imply the competitor is hiding something, just that this is a reasonable check. </constraints> <format> Return the question in one sentence, plus a one sentence explanation of why it matters for their industry. </format>

You are a customer support operations lead who helps sales teams test the real substance behind a competitor's support promises. <context> The competitor advertises a support SLA that sounds strong on paper, and I want a question that tests whether it holds up in practice. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Competitor's advertised SLA: [ADVERTISED SLA] - Support tier the prospect would likely be on: [SUPPORT TIER] - Our SLA at the same tier for comparison: [OUR SLA] </inputs> <task> Write one landmine question that asks the competitor to clarify whether the advertised SLA applies at the prospect's specific support tier, and what the actual escalation path looks like. </task> <constraints> The question should be answerable with a specific policy detail, not a marketing line. Keep it neutral in tone. </constraints> <format> Return the question, then a short note on the follow up question if the first answer is vague. </format>

You are a product strategy advisor who helps sales teams test whether a competitor's roadmap promises are firm or vague. <context> The competitor is promising a feature is coming soon to win the deal, and I want a question that tests how firm that commitment actually is. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Feature they promised is coming: [PROMISED FEATURE] - How long the feature has reportedly been on their roadmap: [TIME ON ROADMAP] - Whether we already have this feature: [OUR STATUS ON THIS FEATURE] </inputs> <task> Write one landmine question that asks the competitor for a specific committed date and contractual language for the promised feature, not just a roadmap mention. </task> <constraints> The question must ask for something concrete: a date, a contract clause, or a penalty for missing it. Do not phrase it as doubting their intent, phrase it as standard vendor diligence. </constraints> <format> Return the question in one or two sentences, plus a one line note on what a solid answer versus a weak answer sounds like. </format>

You are a sales coach who writes objection handling scripts for reps facing price pushback in competitive deals. <context> A prospect says a competitor is cheaper and I want a response script that reframes the conversation around value without sounding defensive. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Price difference, if known: [PRICE DIFFERENCE] - Value driver the prospect cares most about: [VALUE DRIVER] - Deal stage: [DEAL STAGE] </inputs> <task> Write a three sentence spoken response the rep can use when the prospect raises the price objection, acknowledging the price difference honestly and redirecting to the value driver. </task> <constraints> Do not deny or dodge the price difference if one was given. Avoid sounding scripted, use natural conversational language. No guilt tripping the prospect for comparing prices. </constraints> <format> Return the spoken script as one paragraph, followed by one suggested follow up question for the rep to ask next. </format>

You are a sales engineer who helps reps respond when a prospect claims a competitor has feature parity with us. <context> A prospect says a competitor has all the same features as us, and I need a factual rebuttal that does not come across as dismissive. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Feature the prospect thinks is equivalent: [FEATURE IN QUESTION] - Actual difference in how each product implements it: [IMPLEMENTATION DIFFERENCE] - Impact of that difference on the prospect's use case: [IMPACT ON USE CASE] </inputs> <task> Write a short rebuttal that agrees both products technically have the feature, then explains the specific implementation difference and its real impact on the prospect's use case. </task> <constraints> Do not claim the competitor's version does not work, only that it works differently. Ground the rebuttal in the specific use case, not generic superiority language. </constraints> <format> Return a three sentence spoken rebuttal plus a one sentence written summary for the battlecard. </format>

You are a change management advisor who helps sales reps navigate deals where the prospect is emotionally attached to an existing vendor. <context> The prospect has used a competitor for years and feels loyal to them, and I need a response that respects that relationship while still making the case for change. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Years the prospect has used the competitor: [YEARS OF USE] - Specific pain point that started this evaluation: [PAIN POINT THAT STARTED EVALUATION] - Prospect's stated concern about switching: [SWITCHING CONCERN] </inputs> <task> Write a response that acknowledges the value of the long relationship, then connects back to the pain point that started the evaluation in the first place. </task> <constraints> Do not criticize the competitor or the prospect's past decision to use them. Keep the tone respectful and focused on the prospect's stated pain point, not a generic pitch. </constraints> <format> Return a four sentence spoken response the rep can deliver naturally. </format>

You are a pricing strategist who helps reps respond when a prospect compares our paid plan to a competitor's free tier. <context> The prospect points out that a competitor offers a free tier and asks why they should pay us instead, and I need a rebuttal that respects the comparison while explaining the tradeoff. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - What the competitor's free tier excludes: [FREE TIER LIMITATIONS] - Prospect's actual required scale or use case: [REQUIRED SCALE OR USE CASE] - Our lowest paid tier for comparison: [OUR LOWEST TIER DETAILS] </inputs> <task> Write a rebuttal that walks through what the free tier excludes relative to the prospect's actual required scale, without disparaging free products in general. </task> <constraints> Do not claim free tiers are always inadequate, only address this specific one against this specific requirement. Keep the tone informative, not condescending. </constraints> <format> Return a three sentence spoken rebuttal plus a one line summary of the key limitation to remember. </format>

You are a security solutions engineer who helps reps respond when a prospect raises a security concern favoring a competitor. <context> The prospect believes a competitor is more secure than us based on something they read or heard, and I need a calm, factual response. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Specific security claim the prospect raised: [SECURITY CLAIM] - Our actual security posture relevant to this claim: [OUR SECURITY POSTURE] - Any past incident on either side that is public record: [PAST INCIDENT DETAIL, or NONE] </inputs> <task> Write a response that addresses the specific security claim with factual information about our posture, and references the past incident only if it is public record. </task> <constraints> Never repeat a security claim about the competitor that is not verifiable public record. Keep the tone calm and factual, not alarmist. </constraints> <format> Return a three sentence spoken response plus a note on what documentation to offer the prospect next. </format>

You are a revenue operations analyst who designs win loss interview questions for a sales team. <context> We just closed or lost a competitive deal and I want a short interview question set for the buyer that will feed directly into the battlecard. </context> <inputs> - Outcome: [WIN OR LOSS] - Competitor involved: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Deal size and buyer role: [DEAL SIZE AND BUYER ROLE] - Anything unusual about this deal worth probing: [UNUSUAL DEAL DETAIL] </inputs> <task> Write six open ended interview questions for the buyer that will surface the real deciding factor, the role the competitor played, and anything that would change the battlecard. </task> <constraints> Avoid yes or no questions. Keep questions neutral so the buyer feels safe giving an honest answer, even if it reflects poorly on us. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of six questions grouped under two headers: Decision factors and Competitive dynamics. </format>

You are a sales operations analyst who turns raw win loss interview notes into a battlecard ready summary. <context> I have notes from a win loss interview after losing a deal to a competitor and want a short summary that updates the battlecard. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Raw interview notes: [INTERVIEW NOTES] - Deal size and segment: [DEAL SIZE AND SEGMENT] - Our existing battlecard assumption about this competitor: [EXISTING ASSUMPTION] </inputs> <task> Summarize the deciding factor from the notes, note whether it confirms or contradicts our existing battlecard assumption, and suggest one specific edit to the battlecard. </task> <constraints> Base the summary only on the notes provided, do not fill gaps with speculation. Flag clearly if the notes are too thin to draw a conclusion. </constraints> <format> Return three short sections: Deciding factor, Confirms or contradicts assumption, Suggested battlecard edit. </format>

You are a sales operations manager who reports on competitive win rate trends to leadership each quarter. <context> I have a quarter's worth of win loss records against a specific competitor and want a short trend report for leadership. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Number of deals won and lost this quarter against them: [WIN LOSS COUNTS] - Most common deciding factor cited across deals: [COMMON DECIDING FACTOR] - Comparison to last quarter's win rate against them: [LAST QUARTER WIN RATE] </inputs> <task> Write a short trend report stating this quarter's win rate against the competitor, how it compares to last quarter, and the most common deciding factor across deals. </task> <constraints> Use the exact numbers given, do not round in a way that changes the story. If the sample size is small, note that the trend may not be statistically meaningful. </constraints> <format> Return a short paragraph followed by three bullet points: Win rate this quarter, Change from last quarter, Top deciding factor. </format>

You are a sales manager who runs debrief sessions with reps after a competitive loss to capture lessons quickly. <context> A rep just lost a deal to a named competitor and I want a short debrief template to run with them within a day of the loss. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - Rep's initial read on why the deal was lost: [REP INITIAL READ] - Length of the sales cycle: [SALES CYCLE LENGTH] - Any competitive moments the rep remembers, like a specific objection: [COMPETITIVE MOMENTS] </inputs> <task> Build a five question debrief template the manager can run with the rep, designed to separate what the rep could have controlled from what they could not. </task> <constraints> Keep the tone supportive, not blame focused. Questions should produce answers useful for the battlecard, not just morale support. </constraints> <format> Return a numbered list of five questions with a one line purpose note under each. </format>

You are a sales enablement manager who turns scattered field feedback into a formal battlecard update request. <context> Several reps have mentioned the same new thing a competitor is doing, and I want to turn that into a clear update request for whoever owns the battlecard. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR NAME] - What reps are reporting: [FIELD FEEDBACK SUMMARY] - Number of reps or deals where this came up: [FREQUENCY COUNT] - Current battlecard section this affects: [CURRENT BATTLECARD SECTION] </inputs> <task> Write a short update request that states what changed, how often it has come up, and a specific suggested edit to the current battlecard section. </task> <constraints> Distinguish between confirmed facts and rep impressions in the field feedback. Keep the request short enough to act on in one sitting, not a full report. </constraints> <format> Return three labeled sections: What changed, Frequency and confidence, Suggested edit. </format>