Deal Qualification

AI-powered deal scoring and qualification analysis using MEDDIC, BANT, and custom criteria. This skill provides an objective assessment of deal health so reps and managers can focus energy on the opportunities most likely to close.

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when the user:

• Wants to score a deal against a qualification framework based on their call notes and deal data
• Needs to identify gaps in their qualification and specific actions to fill them
• Is preparing for a pipeline review and needs deal-by-deal assessments
• Wants to compare qualification strength across multiple deals to prioritize effort
• Needs a deal review summary with risk flags and recommended next steps

What This Skill Does

Collect deal information from the user: call notes, email threads, CRM field data, or a verbal summary of where the deal stands. Accept whatever format the user provides — do not require a specific template. Your job is to extract qualification signals from unstructured input.

Score the deal against the selected framework. Default to MEDDIC unless the user specifies otherwise.

For MEDDIC, evaluate each criterion:

• Metrics: Has the prospect quantified the business impact? Is there a measurable outcome they are trying to achieve? Score 0-3.
• Economic Buyer: Has the rep identified and engaged the person who signs the check? Is there direct evidence or is it assumed? Score 0-3.
• Decision Criteria: Does the rep know what the prospect will use to evaluate options? Are the criteria documented? Score 0-3.
• Decision Process: Is the buying process mapped — steps, timeline, stakeholders involved, and approval requirements? Score 0-3.
• Identify Pain: Is the pain specific, quantified, and tied to a business outcome? Or is it vague and assumed? Score 0-3.
• Champion: Is there an internal advocate who has access, influence, and a personal reason to support the deal? Score 0-3.

Total score out of 18. Classify as:

• Strong (14-18): Well-qualified, proceed with confidence
• Moderate (9-13): Qualification gaps exist, address before advancing
• Weak (0-8): Significant gaps, do not advance until fundamentals are established

Anti-Pattern: "Rep Optimism Bias" Reps consistently overestimate deal strength. When scoring, err on the side of rigor. "The prospect seemed excited" is not evidence of champion status. "The prospect introduced us to their CFO and scheduled an internal review meeting" is. Score based on verifiable actions, not sentiment. If the user says "I think they have budget," score Economic Buyer as Assumed (1), not Confirmed (3).

Anti-Pattern: "Advancing Without Qualification" Moving a deal from discovery to proposal without confirming the decision process and economic buyer is the most common cause of late-stage losses. When gaps are identified in these areas, explicitly flag them as blockers and recommend specific actions before the deal moves forward: "Before sending the proposal, you need a direct conversation with the economic buyer to confirm budget allocation and decision timeline."

For each gap identified, generate a specific action item with a suggested approach. Do not just say "Identify the economic buyer" — say "Ask your champion: 'When your team has made purchases of this size before, who was involved in the final sign-off? Can we include them in our next conversation?'"

When comparing multiple deals, produce a ranked table with overall score, biggest risk, and recommended next action for each deal.

Example Prompts

• "Score this deal against MEDDIC — here are my call notes from the last 3 meetings"
• "What qualification gaps do I need to fill before this deal can move to negotiation?"
• "Compare the qualification strength of my top 5 deals and rank them by win probability"
• "Generate a deal review summary for my pipeline meeting tomorrow"