Claude Prompts Built for Sales Managers

You are a sales manager building a coaching plan for a rep who is behind quota. <context> A rep on my team is behind quota and I want a structured coaching plan for our 1:1s instead of a generic pep talk. </context> <inputs> - Rep name, quota attainment, and time in role: [NAME, ATTAINMENT %, TENURE] - What's known about where they're struggling (activity volume, conversion rate, deal size): [OBSERVED GAP] - What they've done well recently: [STRENGTH] </inputs> <task> Build a 4-week coaching plan with one specific focus area per week tied to the observed gap, a measurable target for each week, and one thing to reinforce from their strength so the plan doesn't feel purely corrective. </task> <constraints> - Each week's target must be measurable (a number or a specific behavior), never "improve mindset". - Include the strength-reinforcement note in at least one week, not as an afterthought at the end. - Keep the tone direct and supportive, not punitive. </constraints> <format> A 4-week table (Week, Focus Area, Measurable Target, Coaching Action) plus one closing note on the strength to reinforce. </format>

You are a sales manager giving feedback on a rep's sales call. <context> I listened to (or have a transcript of) a rep's call and want specific, actionable feedback instead of vague "good job" comments. </context> <inputs> - Rep name and call type (discovery, demo, negotiation): [NAME, CALL TYPE] - Call transcript or detailed notes: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT/NOTES] </inputs> <task> Review the transcript and identify 2 specific things the rep did well and 2 specific things to improve, each backed by a direct quote or moment from the call, plus one rewritten line showing how a weak moment could have been handled better. </task> <constraints> - Every point (positive or improvement) must cite a specific moment or quote from the transcript, no generic praise or criticism. - Limit to 2 strengths and 2 improvements, do not overload the feedback. - The rewritten line must be something the rep could say verbatim next time. </constraints> <format> Two short sections: What Worked (2 bullets with quotes) and What to Improve (2 bullets with quotes and a rewritten line each). </format>

You are a sales manager onboarding a newly hired account executive. <context> I just hired a new AE and want a structured 30-60-90 day ramp plan instead of throwing them into the pipeline unguided. </context> <inputs> - Product and typical sales cycle length: [PRODUCT, CYCLE LENGTH] - Rep's prior experience level (new to sales, experienced but new to our product, etc.): [EXPERIENCE LEVEL] - Full ramped quota and timeline expectation: [FULL QUOTA, RAMP TIMELINE] </inputs> <task> Build a 30-60-90 day plan with specific milestones per phase (training/shadowing in days 1-30, supervised pipeline building in 31-60, first independent deals in 61-90), and a partial quota ramp schedule matching the timeline. </task> <constraints> - Milestones must be specific and checkable (e.g. "complete 5 shadowed discovery calls"), not vague ("learn the product"). - The quota ramp must be a specific percentage schedule (e.g. 25/50/75/100), not just "gradual". - Adjust expectations if the rep's experience level suggests a faster or slower ramp. </constraints> <format> A table with columns Phase (Days), Milestones, Quota Ramp %, Support Provided. </format>

You are a sales manager assessing skill gaps across your team. <context> I want to look across my whole team's performance data and figure out which specific skill, not just "more effort", is holding back the reps who are missing quota. </context> <inputs> - Reps with key metrics (quota attainment, calls booked, close rate, average deal size): [REP METRICS TABLE] - Any known qualitative context per rep (new, strong prospector but weak closer, etc.): [QUALITATIVE NOTES] </inputs> <task> Analyze the metrics to identify which stage of the funnel (prospecting, discovery, proposal, negotiation/close) each underperforming rep is weakest at, and recommend one team-wide training topic that would help the most reps. </task> <constraints> - Base each rep's weak-stage diagnosis on their actual metrics (e.g. low close rate with high call volume points to a closing gap, not a prospecting gap). - The team-wide recommendation must address the gap shared by the most reps, not just the worst-performing individual. - Do not recommend firing or PIP action, this is a skill-gap analysis only. </constraints> <format> A table (Rep, Likely Weak Stage, Evidence) followed by one "Team Training Recommendation" paragraph. </format>

You are a sales manager drafting a formal performance improvement plan with HR guidance in mind. <context> A rep has been below quota for multiple periods despite coaching, and I need a formal, fair performance improvement plan (PIP) draft to review with HR before delivering it. </context> <inputs> - Rep name, role, and quota attainment over the last 2 to 3 periods: [NAME, ROLE, ATTAINMENT HISTORY] - Coaching or support already provided: [PRIOR COACHING] - Specific, measurable targets for the improvement period: [TARGETS] - Length of the PIP period: [DURATION] </inputs> <task> Draft a PIP document with a factual performance summary, the specific measurable targets for the period, the support the manager will provide, and the review checkpoints, written in a fair and professional tone. </task> <constraints> - State facts and numbers only in the performance summary, no subjective character judgments. - Every target must be measurable and time-bound. - Include a clear statement that this draft must be reviewed with HR before being delivered to the rep. </constraints> <format> A formal PIP document with sections: Performance Summary, Improvement Targets, Manager Support, Review Checkpoints, plus a bolded note to route through HR before delivery. </format>

You are a sales manager designing fair territories for the next planning period. <context> I need to carve territories across my reps in a way that's defensible as fair, based on real account data, not arbitrary geography splits. </context> <inputs> - Number of reps and any existing constraints (e.g. must keep certain accounts with current owner): [REP COUNT, CONSTRAINTS] - Account list with size or potential value (or segments if account-level data isn't available): [ACCOUNT DATA] - Carving method preference (geography, industry vertical, account size, or a mix): [METHOD] </inputs> <task> Propose a territory split across the reps using the stated method, balancing total potential value as evenly as possible across reps, and flag any account that's a clear outlier worth a special exception. </task> <constraints> - Show the total potential value assigned to each rep so the balance is visible. - Respect any stated constraints about keeping specific accounts with their current owner. - Flag outlier accounts (unusually large or unusually far from the rep's other accounts) explicitly. </constraints> <format> A table (Rep, Assigned Accounts/Segment, Total Potential Value) followed by an "Outliers to Review" list. </format>

You are a sales manager allocating team quota across individual reps. <context> I have a total team quota for the period and need to allocate it across reps in a way I can defend as fair given their territory size and tenure. </context> <inputs> - Total team quota for the period: [TOTAL QUOTA] - Reps with territory size/potential and tenure (new, ramping, tenured): [REP LIST WITH DATA] </inputs> <task> Allocate the total quota across reps weighted by territory potential, applying a reduced ramp quota for any rep flagged as new or ramping, and show that the allocations sum exactly to the total team quota. </task> <constraints> - The sum of all individual quotas must exactly equal the total team quota, show the check. - New or ramping reps get a stated ramp discount (e.g. 50% in month 1), applied consistently and explained. - Show the weighting logic used, not just the final numbers. </constraints> <format> A table (Rep, Tenure Status, Weighting Logic, Allocated Quota) with a final row confirming the total matches team quota. </format>

You are a sales manager segmenting accounts into tiers to guide rep focus. <context> I want my team's accounts sorted into Tier 1, 2, and 3 so reps know where to spend the most time instead of treating every account the same. </context> <inputs> - Account list with revenue potential, current spend (if existing customer), and strategic fit: [ACCOUNT DATA] - Criteria I want to weigh most (e.g. revenue potential vs. strategic logo value): [WEIGHTING PREFERENCE] </inputs> <task> Sort the accounts into Tier 1 (highest focus), Tier 2, and Tier 3 based on the stated weighting, and recommend a different minimum touch cadence for each tier (e.g. weekly, monthly, quarterly). </task> <constraints> - Justify each account's tier placement in one short phrase, not just a label. - Recommend a specific touch cadence per tier, not a vague "more attention" for Tier 1. - Flag any account where the data given is too thin to confidently tier it. </constraints> <format> A table (Account, Tier, Justification, Recommended Touch Cadence). </format>

You are a sales manager analyzing untapped potential in a rep's territory. <context> I want to know how much of a rep's territory is actually being worked versus sitting untouched, so I can direct their prospecting time better. </context> <inputs> - Rep name and total accounts in territory: [REP, TOTAL ACCOUNTS] - Accounts with active pipeline or existing revenue: [ACTIVE ACCOUNTS] - Total addressable accounts matching our ideal customer profile in the territory: [ICP-FIT ACCOUNT COUNT, IF KNOWN] </inputs> <task> Calculate the percentage of the territory currently being worked versus untouched, and if an ICP-fit count is given, estimate the whitespace opportunity (untouched ICP-fit accounts) the rep should prioritize. </task> <constraints> - Show the percentage calculation explicitly. - If no ICP-fit count is given, state clearly that whitespace value is unknown rather than guessing a number. - Recommend a specific weekly prospecting target into the whitespace, not just "prospect more". </constraints> <format> A short report: Territory Coverage % (with math), Whitespace Estimate (or "unknown" with why), Recommended Weekly Prospecting Target. </format>

You are a sales manager handing off a territory to a newly hired rep. <context> A new rep is inheriting a territory from a departed or reassigned rep, and I want a clean handoff brief so they don't start from zero. </context> <inputs> - New rep name and start date: [NAME, START DATE] - Territory accounts with current stage/status (active deal, dormant customer, never contacted): [ACCOUNT STATUS LIST] - Anything known about why the previous rep left the account in that state: [CONTEXT NOTES] </inputs> <task> Build a handoff brief that prioritizes which accounts the new rep should touch in week 1 (active deals and at-risk customers first), and flags any account with unclear history that needs research before outreach. </task> <constraints> - Rank week 1 priorities with active deals and at-risk renewals above cold or dormant accounts. - Flag accounts with no clear history as "research before contact", never hand them off blind. - Keep the brief to one page. </constraints> <format> A one-page brief with a prioritized Week 1 account list (Account, Status, Priority Reason) and a separate "Research First" list. </format>

You are a sales manager sending a weekly update to your team. <context> I want a weekly team email that covers wins, numbers, and focus for the week ahead without turning into a wall of text nobody reads. </context> <inputs> - Team result this week vs. target (bookings, calls, or key metric): [RESULT VS TARGET] - Notable win or rep shoutout: [WIN/SHOUTOUT] - Top priority for the coming week: [PRIORITY] </inputs> <task> Write a short weekly update email with the headline number first, one specific shoutout naming the rep and what they did, and one clear focus for next week. </task> <constraints> - Under 150 words total. - Lead with the number, not a greeting paragraph. - The shoutout must name a specific action, not just "great job team". </constraints> <format> One email with subject line and body. </format>

You are a sales manager briefing your team on a new product or pricing change. <context> Our product or pricing is changing and I need to brief my reps clearly so they don't fumble it on live customer calls. </context> <inputs> - What's changing (new feature, price increase, packaging change): [CHANGE DETAILS] - Effective date: [DATE] - Likely customer objection to the change: [LIKELY OBJECTION] </inputs> <task> Write a briefing for reps that explains the change plainly, gives one talking point for how to explain it to a customer, and a scripted response to the likely objection. </task> <constraints> - Explain the change in plain language a rep could repeat verbatim to a customer. - The objection response must acknowledge the concern before reframing, not dismiss it. - Include the effective date prominently so reps don't misquote timing. </constraints> <format> A briefing doc with sections: What's Changing, Effective Date, How to Explain It to Customers, Objection Response Script. </format>

You are a sales manager building a battlecard for a competitor that's newly showing up in deals. <context> A competitor is coming up in more deals recently and I want a battlecard my whole team can use consistently instead of everyone winging it differently. </context> <inputs> - Competitor name: [COMPETITOR] - What reps have reported hearing about them from prospects (pricing, features, positioning): [FIELD INTEL] - Our known genuine differentiators against them: [DIFFERENTIATORS] </inputs> <task> Build a one-page battlecard with the competitor's likely pitch, our top 3 differentiators against it, and 2 qualifying questions reps can ask to surface where the competitor is weaker. </task> <constraints> - Do not include unverifiable negative claims about the competitor, stick to comparable, defensible differentiators. - Keep it to one page reps can glance at mid-call. - Base the qualifying questions on surfacing facts, not on leading the prospect. </constraints> <format> A one-page battlecard: Their Likely Pitch, Our Top 3 Differentiators, Qualifying Questions to Ask. </format>

You are a sales manager planning a session for the team's sales kickoff (SKO). <context> I'm running one session at our sales kickoff and want a tight outline that drives a specific outcome, not just a slide-heavy update. </context> <inputs> - Session topic and time slot length: [TOPIC, DURATION] - What the team should be able to do differently after the session: [DESIRED OUTCOME] - Team's current skill level on the topic: [SKILL LEVEL] </inputs> <task> Outline the session with a hook to open, one core concept taught with a concrete example, a hands-on exercise the team does live, and a close that states exactly what changes starting Monday. </task> <constraints> - Time-box every section, total time must match the stated duration. - The hands-on exercise must be something the team does in the room, not a passive lecture segment. - The close must state a specific, observable behavior change, not "keep this in mind". </constraints> <format> A time-boxed outline (section, minutes, content/exercise) ending with one "Starting Monday" action line. </format>

You are a sales manager rolling out a new sales motion to your team. <context> We're adding a new motion (e.g. outbound prospecting, a new product line, a channel/partner motion) and I need a starter playbook for reps who haven't done this before. </context> <inputs> - The new motion being introduced: [MOTION, e.g. "cold outbound into enterprise accounts"] - What's different from how the team currently sells: [KEY DIFFERENCE] - Any early data or examples from a pilot, if available: [PILOT DATA] </inputs> <task> Build a starter playbook covering who to target, the first outreach step, the first qualifying question specific to this motion, and one success metric to track weekly while the motion is new. </task> <constraints> - Be explicit about what's different from the team's current motion, don't just restate general sales advice. - If pilot data exists, reference it as the evidence behind the recommended approach. - Define exactly one weekly metric to track, not a long dashboard of KPIs. </constraints> <format> A starter playbook with sections: Who to Target, First Outreach Step, First Qualifying Question, Weekly Metric to Track. </format>

You are a sales manager explaining a compensation plan to your team in plain terms. <context> My reps have the formal comp plan document but I want a plain-language explainer with a real example so they actually understand how their commission is calculated. </context> <inputs> - Base commission rate and any accelerator tiers: [RATE, ACCELERATOR TIERS] - Quota for the period: [QUOTA] - Example deal size to walk through: [EXAMPLE DEAL SIZE] </inputs> <task> Explain the comp plan in plain language, then walk through the example deal step by step showing exactly how much commission it generates at each stage of attainment. </task> <constraints> - Show the commission math explicitly for the example, not just the final number. - Avoid comp-plan jargon ("kicker", "clawback") without defining it in plain words first. - Keep the plain-language explanation to one short paragraph before the example. </constraints> <format> A short explainer paragraph followed by a step-by-step worked example with the math shown at each attainment tier. </format>

You are a sales manager launching a short-term sales incentive (SPIFF) for the team. <context> I want to run a short incentive contest to drive a specific behavior this month and need an announcement that's clear on rules and genuinely motivating. </context> <inputs> - Behavior being incentivized (e.g. new logo deals, upsells, a specific product): [TARGET BEHAVIOR] - Contest duration and prize: [DURATION, PRIZE] - Exact qualifying criteria: [CRITERIA] </inputs> <task> Write a contest announcement that states the qualifying criteria unambiguously, the exact timeframe, and how standings will be tracked and communicated during the contest. </task> <constraints> - Qualifying criteria must be stated with no ambiguity a rep could dispute later (e.g. exact deal type, exact date range). - State exactly how and how often standings will be shared (e.g. "daily in the team channel"). - Under 150 words. </constraints> <format> One announcement message with a short "Official Rules" bullet list for the criteria. </format>

You are a sales manager verifying an accelerator payout calculation before it goes to a rep. <context> A rep hit an accelerator tier this period and I want to double check the payout calculation is right before it goes to payroll, with the math shown clearly enough that the rep can verify it themselves too. </context> <inputs> - Base commission rate and accelerator tiers (e.g. 100-120% of quota pays 1.5x, 120%+ pays 2x): [RATE, TIERS] - Rep's total quota and actual attainment for the period: [QUOTA, ACTUAL ATTAINMENT] </inputs> <task> Calculate the rep's total commission by applying the correct rate to the portion of attainment in each tier separately, showing the math for each tier before summing to a total. </task> <constraints> - Calculate each tier's portion separately (do not apply the top accelerator rate to the whole attainment), then sum. - Show every multiplication step explicitly. - State the final total commission clearly at the end. </constraints> <format> A step-by-step calculation broken out by tier, ending in a clearly labeled Total Commission line. </format>

You are a sales manager communicating a change to the compensation plan to your team. <context> Our comp plan is changing next period and I need to communicate it to my reps clearly and fairly, since this is a sensitive topic that can hurt trust if handled poorly. </context> <inputs> - What's changing and why (business reason): [CHANGE, REASON] - Effective date: [DATE] - How this affects reps who are mid-deal on the old plan (grandfathered or not): [TRANSITION RULE] </inputs> <task> Write a team communication that states the change plainly, gives the business reason honestly, is explicit about the transition rule for deals in progress, and invites questions rather than just announcing. </task> <constraints> - State the transition rule for in-progress deals explicitly, this is usually the first question reps ask. - Do not bury the change in vague language, be direct about what's different and when it starts. - Invite questions with a specific channel or time (e.g. "bring questions to Thursday's 1:1"), not an open-ended "let me know". </constraints> <format> One communication message with sections: What's Changing, Why, Effective Date, How This Affects Deals in Progress, Where to Ask Questions. </format>

You are a sales manager summarizing team quota attainment for a leaderboard update. <context> I want a leaderboard-style summary of the team's quota attainment that's motivating for top performers without publicly shaming reps who are behind. </context> <inputs> - Reps with quota attainment % for the period: [REP ATTAINMENT LIST] - Period being reported: [PERIOD] </inputs> <task> Build a leaderboard ranking reps by attainment percentage, highlighting the top 3 with a specific note on what they're doing well, and frame the summary in a way that stays motivating team-wide rather than singling out low performers negatively. </task> <constraints> - Rank purely by the numbers given, no editorializing on the ranking itself. - Top 3 notes must be specific (tie to an action or deal type), not generic praise. - Do not add commentary calling out low performers by name in the summary, that happens in 1:1s, not a team-wide leaderboard. </constraints> <format> A ranked leaderboard table (Rank, Rep, Attainment %) with a short "Top 3 Highlights" note section below it. </format>

You are a sales manager writing a monthly performance report for leadership. <context> I need to submit a monthly report to leadership that's a fast, honest read, numbers first, not a narrative essay they have to dig through. </context> <inputs> - Team results this month vs. target (bookings, key metric): [RESULTS VS TARGET] - Notable wins and notable misses: [WINS, MISSES] - One risk or blocker leadership should know about: [RISK] </inputs> <task> Write a monthly report leading with the headline number and variance to target, 2 to 3 supporting facts, and one clearly flagged risk with what's being done about it. </task> <constraints> - Lead with the number and variance in the first line, not a summary paragraph. - State the risk honestly, do not soften a real miss into vague language. - Keep total length under 200 words. </constraints> <format> A short report with sections: Headline Number, Supporting Facts (bulleted), Risk to Watch (with mitigation). </format>

You are a sales manager preparing a team-level quarterly business review for leadership. <context> I need a QBR deck outline that reports on my team's performance to leadership, distinct from an account-level customer QBR, it's about the team's numbers and plan, not a single account. </context> <inputs> - Team quota attainment this quarter and trend vs. prior quarters: [ATTAINMENT, TREND] - Key wins and key challenges this quarter: [WINS, CHALLENGES] - Plan and asks for next quarter (headcount, resources, process changes): [NEXT QUARTER PLAN, ASKS] </inputs> <task> Outline a QBR deck with a results slide showing the attainment trend, a slide on key wins and challenges with root causes, and a closing slide with a specific ask for leadership tied to a stated challenge. </task> <constraints> - Every challenge listed needs a stated root cause, not just a symptom. - The leadership ask must connect directly to one of the stated challenges, not be a generic wish-list item. - Keep it to 4 slides maximum with brief speaker notes. </constraints> <format> A slide-by-slide outline (slide title, bullet points, speaker notes) for 4 slides. </format>

You are a sales manager summarizing win/loss patterns for leadership. <context> I want a clear win/loss analysis from this quarter's closed deals to share with leadership, showing patterns, not just a list of individual deals. </context> <inputs> - Closed-won deals with size and key reason cited for winning: [WON DEALS LIST] - Closed-lost deals with size and key reason cited for losing: [LOST DEALS LIST] </inputs> <task> Analyze the win and loss reasons to find the most common pattern on each side, quantify what percentage of losses share the top loss reason, and recommend one action leadership or the team could take to address the top loss reason. </task> <constraints> - Group similar stated reasons together (e.g. "too expensive" and "lost on price" are the same pattern) rather than listing every unique phrase separately. - Show the percentage of losses tied to the top reason, with the count behind it. - The recommendation must directly address the top loss reason, not be generic. </constraints> <format> A short report: Top Win Pattern, Top Loss Pattern (with % of losses), Recommended Action. </format>

You are a sales manager building a business case to hire additional reps. <context> My team is at capacity and I want to make a numbers-based case to leadership for additional headcount instead of just asking for more people. </context> <inputs> - Current team size, average quota per rep, and current pipeline coverage: [TEAM SIZE, AVG QUOTA, COVERAGE] - Revenue target for next period that current headcount can't realistically hit: [TARGET, GAP REASONING] - Ramp time for a new hire to reach full productivity: [RAMP TIME] </inputs> <task> Build a business case showing the revenue gap current headcount can't close, the number of new reps needed to close it accounting for ramp time, and the expected payback period on the new hires' fully-loaded cost if given. </task> <constraints> - Show the gap calculation explicitly (target minus realistic current-headcount capacity). - Account for ramp time when calculating how much a new hire contributes in the period, not their full quota from day one. - If cost data isn't given, state the payback period as "not calculable without cost data" rather than guessing. </constraints> <format> A business case memo with sections: Revenue Gap (with math), Reps Needed (accounting for ramp), Payback Period (or data needed). </format>

You are a sales manager writing the sales section of a board update. <context> Leadership needs a short narrative on sales performance for the board update slide, and I want it to read as a clear story around the numbers, not a raw metrics dump. </context> <inputs> - Key metrics for the period (bookings, pipeline, win rate) vs. prior period: [METRICS, PRIOR PERIOD COMPARISON] - One thing driving the trend (positive or negative): [DRIVER] - One forward-looking signal for next period (strong pipeline, risk, seasonal factor): [FORWARD SIGNAL] </inputs> <task> Write a short narrative that states the headline metric and its trend, explains the single biggest driver behind that trend in plain terms, and closes with the forward-looking signal so the board knows what to expect next. </task> <constraints> - State the trend direction explicitly (up, down, flat) with the number, never bury it in qualitative language. - Explain the driver in terms a non-sales board member would understand, no internal jargon. - Under 120 words. </constraints> <format> One short narrative paragraph (3 to 4 sentences) suitable for a board slide's speaker notes. </format>