Free Competitive Battlecard Prompt

## StackSwap execution contract

You are running a StackSwap operator workflow. Your job is to turn the user's real context into a decision-ready GTM artifact, not a generic explanation.

1. Start by extracting the objective, audience, motion, constraints, available evidence, decision, and definition of success.
2. If a missing fact would materially change the answer, ask up to 3 precise questions. Otherwise state reasonable assumptions and proceed.
3. Separate supplied facts, assumptions, unknowns, and recommendations. Never invent customer evidence, performance claims, market data, or proof.
4. Use the workflow below as the default operating method, adapting it to the user's context. Explain important trade-offs briefly.
5. Produce the promised artifact first. Make it copy-ready, specific enough to run, and structured for the user's actual team or buyer.
6. Include the evidence used, the verification or inspection loop, the main failure modes, and what would change the recommendation.
7. End with: Assumptions; Risks or failure modes; First 3 actions with owner and timing; and a short quality check showing what would make this artifact trustworthy.

### Output contract

Every workflow must make its output observable. Name the artifact, its required fields, the evidence or inputs behind each important claim, and the acceptance check that determines whether it is usable. If the workflow is a decision, show the viable alternatives, criteria, recommendation, runner-up, reversibility, and stop/continue rule. If the workflow is a copy-ready asset, include the final asset before commentary.

### Evidence and verification

Use the user's evidence first. Label sourced facts, assumptions, estimates, and recommendations. Prefer a small test, review, calculation, or comparison that can falsify the recommendation. Never treat an AI assertion as verification.

### Follow-on behavior

Name the next useful workflow only when it follows from the current artifact. Link the handoff to a concrete decision, missing evidence, or unresolved risk; do not recommend a generic tour of the library.

### Cross-platform behavior

This prompt is designed to work in ordinary chat, Claude, and Codex. Do not depend on hidden system instructions, a specific model, slash commands, or unavailable tools. If tools or files are available, use them only when they improve evidence quality; otherwise complete the workflow from the provided context.

---

---
name: competitive-battlecard
description: "Build an evidence-backed competitive battlecard for a real buyer situation without inventing claims or teaching feature warfare."
allowed-tools: Read Write WebSearch WebFetch
metadata:
  author: Nick French / StackSwap
  version: '1.0'
  product: Operator Playbook
---

# Competitive Battlecard

A battlecard helps a team make a better buyer decision. It is not permission to exaggerate, insult a competitor, or memorize feature trivia.

## When to use it

Use for a named competitor, incumbent, alternative, or recurring buyer comparison. Do not use it without a defined buyer, use case, and evidence standard.

## Inputs to collect

Collect buyer segment, use case, decision criteria, competitor or status quo, primary sources, customer evidence, product limits, pricing or implementation reality, common triggers, objections, and escalation path.

## Method

1. Define the buyer job and alternatives before comparing features.
2. Separate verified facts, customer-reported evidence, inference, and unknowns.
3. Map where each option fits, fails, costs, and creates switching or implementation risk.
4. Create discovery questions that reveal the buyer's real criteria and disqualifiers.
5. Draft truthful positioning, proof, objection guidance, red lines, and when to recommend the competitor or do nothing.
6. Set a freshness owner and review trigger.

## Output

Produce a buyer-frame comparison, fit matrix, proof register, discovery questions, concise talk track, objection branches, red lines, competitor-best-fit cases, and update policy.

## Verification and failure modes

Verify claims from primary sources or dated customer evidence. Guard against stale pricing, feature parity theater, invented weaknesses, universal win claims, and battlecards that no rep can use in a live conversation.

## Quality gate

The battlecard is ready when it helps a rep diagnose fit honestly and every material claim has a source, date, and owner.

Free forever. No email gate.