92 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
3.9 KiB
Markdown
# Battle Card — format spec
|
|
|
|
The Battle lane is the **6th** subagent lane in deep/deeper mode. It runs AFTER Step 5c fact-check completes — it reads only existing partials + the fact-checked `matrix.json`, **never makes new `browse cloud` calls**. This is a pure synthesis lane.
|
|
|
|
Output file: `{OUTPUT_DIR}/partials/{slug}.battle.md`. `merge_partials.mjs` unions its `## Battle Card` section into the consolidated `{slug}.md`. `compile_report.mjs` renders it as a brand-accented card on the per-competitor HTML page.
|
|
|
|
## The three sections
|
|
|
|
### Landmines (3-5 items)
|
|
|
|
Concrete, verifiable facts about the competitor that **hurt them in a deal**. Every item must cite a URL from an existing partial (Mentions, Benchmarks, or Research Findings). Prefer third-party evidence (benchmarks, reviews, news) over the competitor's own marketing — marketing claims are weak ammunition.
|
|
|
|
Format:
|
|
```
|
|
### Landmines
|
|
|
|
- **{one-line factual claim}** — {how an AE uses it in the call}. (source: {url})
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
```
|
|
- **Rival Co placed 4th of 7 on the Nov 2025 search-bench retrieval leaderboard (73% nDCG@10)** — use if prospect cares about relevance, but only after confirming their volume tier; Rival Co's reranking add-on is paywalled behind Scale ($499/mo). (source: https://github.com/example-org/search-bench)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Objection Handlers (3-5 items)
|
|
|
|
Format: "if prospect says X → you say Y, citing a real user moat from `userCompany.winningSummary`." Every response must reference a feature/integration the fact-checked matrix confirms the user has. Never respond with a claim that contradicts a fact-checked matrix cell.
|
|
|
|
Format:
|
|
```
|
|
### Objection Handlers
|
|
|
|
- If they say: "{objection verbatim}"
|
|
You say: {response citing user's moat} (evidence: {url})
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
```
|
|
- If they say: "Rival Co is $99/mo cheaper than your Scale tier"
|
|
You say: "Rival Co's reranking is a paid add-on you'll need for production relevance — once you add it the price gap closes. Our Scale tier includes neural reranking and a research endpoint; matrix.json confirms Rival Co's feature set doesn't cover the research API." (evidence: https://docs.rivalco.com/changelog)
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### Talk Tracks (2-3 items)
|
|
|
|
One-to-two sentence opening pitches an AE can memorize. Lead with a user winningSummary differentiator; name the specific gap in the competitor. No hyperbole, no claims not grounded in fact-checked matrix cells.
|
|
|
|
Format:
|
|
```
|
|
### Talk Tracks
|
|
|
|
1. {1-2 sentence pitch}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Example:
|
|
```
|
|
1. For production RAG, Exa is the only provider in the category with BOTH a first-party neural index AND a dedicated research/answer endpoint — Rival Co shipped neither, Serper shipped neither, and one competitor replaced its answer endpoint with a thin LLM wrapper last quarter.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Markdown file shape
|
|
|
|
```markdown
|
|
---
|
|
competitor_name: Rival Co
|
|
lane: battle
|
|
generated_at: 2026-04-24
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Battle Card
|
|
|
|
### Landmines
|
|
- **Fact 1** — usage. (source: url)
|
|
- **Fact 2** — usage. (source: url)
|
|
|
|
### Objection Handlers
|
|
- If they say: "..."
|
|
You say: ... (evidence: url)
|
|
|
|
### Talk Tracks
|
|
1. Pitch 1
|
|
2. Pitch 2
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Quality gates — Adversarial self-check (subagent MUST run before writing)
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Every landmine cites a URL that appears in one of the input partials (Mentions / Benchmarks / Research Findings). No invented URLs.
|
|
- [ ] No claim contradicts a fact-checked cell in `matrix.json` (cells must have a `sources` URL to be trustworthy).
|
|
- [ ] No talk track claims a user feature where `matrix.json` shows `userCompany.features[X] = false`.
|
|
- [ ] Objections are realistic — they're what a prospect would actually raise based on the competitor's strongest marketing lines, not strawmen.
|
|
- [ ] Third-party evidence preferred over competitor's own marketing (benchmarks, reviews, news > their docs/pricing).
|
|
|
|
If a potential landmine has no evidence in the partials, OMIT it. It is better to ship 3 cited landmines than 5 half-invented ones.
|