objection-handling

I've been digging into objection-handling skills lately, and yours caught my eye for how it approaches the response patterns—though I'm curious about some gaps in the coverage that might be keeping the score at 69. What made you structure the triggers the way you did?

Links:

• GitHub
• Your agentic skill in the SkillzWave marketplace

The TL;DR

You're at 69/100, solidly in D territory—which means the core concept is there, but execution needs work. This is based on Anthropic's skill best practices, and your strongest area is Spec Compliance (12/15), but Ease of Use and Progressive Disclosure are dragging things down. The framework is solid, but the supporting materials feel half-baked.

What's Working Well

• Strong spec compliance – Your frontmatter is clean and valid, naming convention is correct. The skill hooks cleanly into the system.
• Real problem solved – The LACE framework addresses an actual pain point for SDRs and AEs dealing with prospect pushback. It's not theoretical fluff.
• Clear trigger focus – "Preparing responses to prospect objections" is specific enough that developers know when to reach for this. You nailed that part.

The Big One: Missing Reference Files

This is your biggest drag on the score (costing you ~6 points). You mention a "common objection table," "battlecard snippets," and "micro case studies" in the Templates section, but they don't actually exist. Everything is crammed into one file with no references directory.

Here's the fix: Create a references/ subdirectory with three files:

• references/objection-table.md – Full table with 6-8 real objections (budget, timing, competitive, already evaluating, etc.) mapped to LACE diagnosis + recommended response
• references/battlecards.md – One complete batt...