lmtydotcom/lmty

Audit a body of competitive content - battlecards, sales decks, comparison and alternatives pages, enablement, training, help-center copy - against current evidence, and produce the inventory of claims that are stale, unsupported, contradicted, or newly incomplete, ranked by exposure, with the assets each lives in and the owner or skill that should fix it. Use for "audit our competitive materials", "which claims are stale", "what do we need to update across our battlecards and site", "find competitive claims we can no longer support", and any request whose deliverable is the list of claims and how each one holds up - one page or a whole library, with nothing rewritten. Not for producing the update itself - "update X because Y changed" or "fix the talk track" is competitive-enablement-refresh; a new battlecard is competitive-battlecard; whether the message differentiates is competitive-messaging-audit.

Create a reusable, evidence-backed competitive battlecard for sales, customer success, or product teams - a new card, or one rebuilt from scratch. Use when preparing an us-vs-them view for repeated use, supporting a recurring competitive sales motion, or compiling field-ready positioning, discovery questions, proof, and qualification guidance across deals. For one live buyer objection or "what do I say right now?" use competitive-objection-response; for checking or editing lines in a card or talk track that already exists, use competitive-enablement-refresh.

Prepare an account team for one specific competitive opportunity - the deal state, who they are actually up against, what the buyer said matters in their own words, the three questions that decide the next meeting, proof that fits this account, and the risks and unknowns - from current market truth plus CRM, call, and account context. Use for "prep me for this deal", "we're up against Northwind at Globex", "I have a call with this account tomorrow", "what should the team know before the next meeting", and any request about one named account or opportunity. Not for one live objection on its own, a reusable battlecard, or the design of a formal POC or RFP evaluation.

Build an evidence-backed, current understanding of a competitor or alternative, including who they serve, positioning, product, pricing, packaging, recent changes, strengths, weaknesses, customer perception, and implications for the home product. Use when a PMM needs to get fully up to speed on one company, prepare a teardown, investigate a new or rising competitor, establish a reusable competitor baseline, or make sense of a move one competitor just made - including what a price, packaging or product change of theirs means, and whether their reasons for it can be known at all.

Work out what existing competitive sales enablement needs to change now - after a competitor move, a run of field questions, a request from sales, or on a cadence - and draft the update. The deliverable is the changed lines with their proof and date, for a single battlecard, talk track or deck as readily as a set - checks whether sections still hold up, classifies each as current, stale, unsupported or incomplete, prioritizes by what it would cost a rep to say, drafts the smallest useful change, and separates content fixes from distribution problems. Use for "what enablement is stale after this change", "update our talk tracks", "is the Northwind battlecard still accurate", "sales wants this line added - can we say it", "what should sales learn this week". When the deliverable is only the inventory of which claims hold up, with nothing to draft, that is competitive-asset-audit. Not for a new battlecard from scratch or a live objection.

Prepare a concise, decision-oriented market and competitive brief for executives, leadership reviews, QBRs, board preparation, strategy discussions, or major planning moments. Use when leadership needs the few market changes, competitor moves, risks, opportunities, and decision questions that matter, with evidence and explicit uncertainty rather than a long CI report.

Prepare, pressure-test, or refresh a product or feature launch against current competitors, alternatives, market expectations, pricing, positioning, and recent market changes. Use when planning a launch, reviewing a launch brief, creating competitive launch guidance, preparing enablement, asking how a new release should be framed relative to the market, or judging whether a capability is parity, catch-up, or real differentiation.

Turn recent competitor and category movement into a calm, prioritized PMM briefing with what changed, why it may matter, evidence, freshness, and follow-up questions. Use for weekly or monthly market updates, Slack or email briefings, recurring competitive reviews, or whenever a team needs a high-signal summary of recent movement without a raw alert stream.

Determine whether a pattern of competitor, category, technology, buyer, pricing, or positioning signals represents noise, an isolated move, an emerging market shift, or an established change in expectations. Use when a PMM asks what a cluster of changes means, whether a trend is real, how much attention it deserves, or what evidence should trigger a response.

Pressure-test current messaging - a homepage, a message hierarchy, a pitch, a product page, campaign copy - against the company's positioning, the words customers actually use, what competitors now say, and recent market movement. Says what still works, what has become generic because competitors converged on it, where the language does not match how buyers talk, which claims are true but unproven or differentiated but irrelevant, and which questions are really positioning decisions. Use for "review our messaging", "does this homepage still differentiate us", "competitors started saying the same thing - what broke", "pressure-test this message hierarchy against customer language". Not for re-deciding the underlying position, writing prospect-facing comparison copy, or launch-specific framing.

Handle one live competitive objection from a buyer, prospect, rep, or account with current facts, a concise response posture, discovery questions, supportable proof, and honest qualification. Use for "what do I say?", "the buyer just said...", competitor claims about price, features, integrations, security, implementation, or value, and other immediate objection-handling moments - including when the request bundles that objection with broader work such as a comparison document, a deal plan, or a team-wide claim, in which case answer the objection and hand the rest off. Not for a reusable battlecard on its own or for deciding the company's own pricing.

Plan a head-to-head evaluation - a POC, POV, pilot, bake-off, or RFP response - against a competitor or competitive set, with the buyer's requirements mapped, table stakes separated from the criteria that will decide it, each differentiator tied to a proof event, the questions that expose real trade-offs, where the competitor is stronger, and the conditions under which the team should not proceed. Use for "we're going into a POC against X", "help us shape the RFP response", "what should we prove in the POV", "how do we set up the evaluation around what matters", and scoring or requirement matrices. Not for general deal prep, one live objection, or a reusable battlecard.

Develop, pressure-test, or refresh product positioning against the alternatives customers actually consider. Use when defining a market position, revising positioning after competitor or category changes, preparing a positioning brief, clarifying differentiation, or testing whether current messaging still reflects customer value and the competitive landscape.

Analyze or pressure-test the home product's own pricing and packaging using current competitor offers, recent pricing changes, customer and deal evidence, and company context. Use when the deliverable is a monetization decision - reviewing a pricing change, planning packaging, deciding whether the company should respond to a competitor price move, or asking what market evidence should inform pricing. Not for a live buyer price objection, a pricing-news briefing, or profiling a competitor whose pricing moved.

Turn market and customer evidence into product questions worth investigating - for a product area or a roadmap under review - without treating competitor features as a roadmap. Establishes what competitors actually did and whether it is independent and buyer-relevant, pulls the company's own customer evidence for the same need, checks whether the problem is already solved another way, and frames each gap as table-stakes risk, differentiator opportunity, copycat noise, or evidence gap, with the evidence still needed before anyone prioritizes. Use for "what should product investigate based on the market", "competitors keep adding this - does it matter for our roadmap", "review this roadmap against market and customer evidence", "are we missing something". Not for deciding whether a market pattern is real, framing a launch, or making the priority call.

Explain repeated competitive outcomes - why deals are won or lost against a competitor or across a period - from buyer and deal evidence rather than rep folklore, with the cohort defined, buyer-stated reasons separated from rep-entered ones, patterns counted without erasing the cases that contradict them, sample size and bias labeled, and hypotheses to test instead of invented causes. Use for "why are we losing to X", "analyze our wins and losses", "what do buyers actually say when they choose them", "is this objection really costing us deals", and any question about outcomes across more than one deal. Not for one competitor's public profile, one deal's prep, or one objection's response.