battlecard-library

I've reviewed the battlecard-library skill and its 64/100 score. Here's a developer-to-developer opening:

I noticed your battlecard library takes a pretty opinionated stance on structuring competitive intelligence—curious what drove the decision to standardize the schema that way, since most teams I see end up with wildly different formats depending on who's authoring them.

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 64/100, solidly in D territory. This is based on Anthropic's best practices for agentic skill design. Your strongest area is Spec Compliance (11/15)—the frontmatter is clean and properly formatted. The real drag is Utility (11/20) and Progressive Disclosure Architecture (18/30)—you're describing what battlecards are, but not giving people the tools to actually build them.

What's Working Well

• Spec compliance is solid — Valid YAML, proper naming conventions (hyphen-case), required fields all there
• Framework concepts are sound — Card structure, metadata tagging, and analytics tracking hit the real pain points in competitive intelligence
• Consistent voice in core sections — When you do go imperative ("Embed", "Flag"), it's clear what you're asking people to do

The Big One: Missing Templates and Examples

This is your biggest lever. Right now you list template types in the Templates section but provide zero actual files. You mention "Battlecard deck/Notion template with modular sections" and "Objection handling table" but users can't immediately grab and use them.

The fix: Create a references/ directory with actual templates users can copy-paste:

• references/templates/battlecard-notion.md — Complete Notion template with the framework sections baked in
• references/templates/objection-handling.csv — Real objection + response pairs with win rate tracking
• references/examples/salesforce-vs-hubspot.md — A worked battlecard showing how to fill each section

This alone gets you +8 points on PDA and +4 on Utility by letting people actually use the skill immediately instead of building from scratch.

Other Things Worth Fixing

1. Weak trigger phrases in the description — You don't include "battlecard", "competitive positioning", or "objection handling" as triggers. Add these to your description so agents actually invoke this skill when users ask about competitive intel. (+2 points)

2. No actionable workflow — Your Framework section lists concepts but doesn't give numbered steps. Add a numbered workflow: 1) Gather intel, 2) Fill template, 3) Validate with checklist, 4) Tag metadata, 5) Distribute. (+5 points)

3. Missing validation and feedback loops — You mention "Analytics" and "Review Cadence" but don't explain how to validate a battlecard or measure effectiveness. Add a references/validation/quality-checklist.md with accuracy checks, SME review process, and field testing protocol. (+4 points)

4. Inconsistent voice — You mix imperative ("Embed", "Flag") with gerunds ("Creating", "Packaging"). Pick one and stick with it. (+2 points)

Quick Wins

• Create references/ directory with actual templates, examples, and checklists (+8 points)
• Add trigger phrases to description metadata (+2 points)
• Build numbered workflow in Framework section (+5 points)
• Add validation checklist to address feedback loops gap (+4 points)

Hit these four and you're looking at +19 points—pushing you toward 83/100, solid B territory.

Checkout your skill here: SkillzWave.ai | SpillWave We have an agentic skill installer that install skills in 14+ coding agent platforms. Check out this guide on how to improve your agentic skills.