Create and maintain MEDDIC/MEDDPICC deal scorecards for pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and deal coaching
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard
> Build systematic deal scorecards using MEDDIC/MEDDPICC methodology to improve pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and coaching effectiveness.
Based on PTC's MEDDIC (Dick Dunkel) extended to MEDDPICC, creating standardized scorecards for:
| Claude Does | You Decide |
|-------------|------------|
| Creates scorecard templates | Deal stage thresholds |
| Suggests scoring criteria | Coaching priorities |
| Identifies deal gaps | Forecast commits |
| Generates coaching questions | Resource allocation |
| Tracks deal progression | Win strategy |
MEDDPICC Components:
| Component | Definition | Scoring Weight |
|-----------|------------|----------------|
| Metrics | Quantified business outcomes | 15% |
| Economic Buyer | Budget authority identified | 15% |
| Decision Criteria | How they'll evaluate | 10% |
| Decision Process | Steps to purchase | 10% |
| Paper Process | Legal/procurement | 10% |
| Identify Pain | Business problem articulated | 15% |
| Champion | Internal advocate confirmed | 15% |
| Competition | Competitive landscape known | 10% |
Per-Component Scoring (0-3):
| Score | Definition | Evidence Required |
|-------|------------|-------------------|
| 0 | Unknown | No information gathered |
| 1 | Identified | Basic information, not verified |
| 2 | Validated | Confirmed with prospect |
| 3 | Leveraged | Actively using in deal strategy |
Stage-Score Alignment:
| Stage | Minimum Score | Required 3s |
|-------|---------------|-------------|
| Discovery | 8/24 | Pain |
| Qualification | 12/24 | Pain, Champion |
| Demo/Evaluation | 16/24 | Pain, Champion, Criteria |
| Proposal | 18/24 | + Economic Buyer |
| Negotiation | 21/24 | + Paper Process |
| Commit | 22/24 | All components validated |
Weekly Review Focus:
Pipeline Health Metrics:
Input:
Create a MEDDPICC scorecard for:
- Deal: Enterprise software sale, $400K
- Stage: Proposal
- Champion: VP of Operations
- EB: CFO (not met)
- Timeline: Q1 close
Output:
## MEDDPICC Deal Scorecard
### Deal Overview
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Account | [Customer Name] |
| Opportunity | Enterprise Platform |
| Value | $400,000 ARR |
| Stage | Proposal |
| Close Date | Q1 (March 30) |
| AE | [Name] |
| Last Updated | [Date] |
---
### Score Summary
**Total Score: 16/24** | Stage Requirement: 18/24
| Component | Score | Stage Req | Status |
|-----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Metrics | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Economic Buyer | 1/3 | **3** | ❌ GAP |
| Decision Criteria | 3/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Decision Process | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Paper Process | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |
| Identify Pain | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Champion | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Competition | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |
**Status: NOT READY FOR PROPOSAL** - 3 gaps to address
---
### Component Details
#### Metrics (2/3) ✅ On Track
**Current State:**
- ROI target: 3x in Year 1 ✓
- Primary KPI: Reduce processing time 40% ✓
- CFO business case: Not yet presented ✗
**Evidence:**
> "If we hit 40% reduction, that's $1.2M in operational savings"
> — VP Operations, Discovery Call
**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Present business case to CFO
- [ ] Get CFO to validate assumptions
---
#### Economic Buyer (1/3) ❌ CRITICAL GAP
**Current State:**
- EB Identified: CFO Jennifer Walsh ✓
- Access: Email only, no meeting ✗
- Engagement: Unknown priorities ✗
**Gap Analysis:**
We have not met the Economic Buyer. This is a **deal blocker**
for Proposal stage. Champion (VP Ops) reports to CFO but has
not secured meeting.
**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask Champion for CFO meeting this week
- [ ] Prepare executive briefing deck
- [ ] Identify CFO's priorities for Q1
**Coaching Questions:**
1. "What's preventing us from meeting the CFO?"
2. "What does your champion say about CFO's priorities?"
3. "Can we propose a joint call with champion + CFO?"
---
#### Decision Criteria (3/3) ✅ Strong
**Current State:**
- Formal criteria documented ✓
- Weighted by priority ✓
- Aligned with our strengths ✓
**Evidence:**
| Criterion | Weight | Our Fit |
|-----------|--------|---------|
| Integration depth | 30% | Strong |
| Time to value | 25% | Strong |
| Total cost | 20% | Medium |
| Support | 15% | Strong |
| References | 10% | Strong |
---
#### Decision Process (2/3) ⚠️ Needs Validation
**Current State:**
- Steps identified ✓
- Timeline mapped ✓
- Approvers known ✓
- Specific dates: Partial ✗
**Process Map:**
Step 1: Technical evaluation ✅ Complete
Step 2: Business review ✅ Complete
Step 3: Proposal review ⏳ This week
Step 4: CFO approval ⏳ [Date TBD]
Step 5: Legal/Procurement ⏳ [Timeline unknown]
Step 6: Signature ⏳ Target: March 30
**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Confirm CFO meeting date
- [ ] Map procurement timeline
- [ ] Identify potential delays
---
#### Paper Process (1/3) ⚠️ GAP
**Current State:**
- Legal review required: Likely ✓
- Timeline: Unknown ✗
- Procurement contact: Not identified ✗
- Standard terms acceptable: Unknown ✗
**Risk Assessment:**
Paper process is a common source of deal slip at this stage.
Unknown timeline creates forecast risk.
**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion about procurement process
- [ ] Identify legal/procurement contacts
- [ ] Offer to start MSA review early
---
#### Identify Pain (3/3) ✅ Strong
**Current State:**
- Pain articulated ✓
- Quantified impact ✓
- Urgency established ✓
- Consequences of inaction clear ✓
**Pain Statement:**
> "Manual processing is costing us 8,000 hours/year. We've
> missed SLAs 3 times this quarter. If we don't fix this,
> we'll lose the [Major Customer] contract."
**Business Impact:**
- 8,000 hours × $50/hr = $400K labor cost
- SLA penalties: $200K potential
- Customer retention risk: $2M contract
---
#### Champion (3/3) ✅ Strong
**Champion Profile:**
| Attribute | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Name | Michael Chen, VP Operations |
| Access | Reports to CFO |
| Influence | High - owns the budget |
| Motivation | Personal - promoted if successful |
| Engagement | Weekly calls, sharing internally |
**Champion Test:**
- ✅ Sells when we're not in the room
- ✅ Shares competitive intel
- ✅ Gives us bad news
- ⚠️ Has not secured CFO meeting yet
---
#### Competition (1/3) ⚠️ GAP
**Current State:**
- Competitors identified: 1 known ✓
- Their status: Unknown ✗
- Their approach: Unknown ✗
- Our differentiation: Assumed ✗
**Known Information:**
- Competitor X was evaluated
- Champion said "we've narrowed to two"
- No pricing or proposal intel
**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion directly about competitor status
- [ ] Understand competitor's proposal/pricing
- [ ] Prepare competitive positioning
---
### Gap Resolution Plan
| Gap | Priority | Action | Owner | Due |
|-----|----------|--------|-------|-----|
| Economic Buyer | P1 | Request CFO meeting | AE + Champion | This week |
| Competition | P2 | Discovery with champion | AE | Day 2 |
| Paper Process | P2 | Map procurement timeline | AE | Day 3 |
---
### Coaching Summary
**Primary Focus:** Get in front of CFO before sending proposal
**Key Questions to Ask in 1:1:**
1. Why haven't we met the Economic Buyer yet?
2. What do we actually know about the competition?
3. What could cause this deal to slip past Q1?
**Forecast Recommendation:**
- Current: In forecast at 50%
- Recommendation: Keep at 50% until CFO meeting secured
- Path to 80%: EB meeting + Competition clarity + Paper process mapped
Input:
Summarize MEDDPICC health for these 5 deals:
1. Deal A: 22/24 (Commit stage)
2. Deal B: 14/24 (Proposal stage)
3. Deal C: 18/24 (Demo stage)
4. Deal D: 10/24 (Qualification stage)
5. Deal E: 16/24 (Negotiation stage)
Output:
## Pipeline MEDDPICC Health Summary
### Overview
| Deal | Stage | Score | Req'd | Status |
|------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
| Deal A | Commit | 22/24 | 22 | ✅ On track |
| Deal B | Proposal | 14/24 | 18 | ❌ 4 pts below |
| Deal C | Demo | 18/24 | 16 | ✅ Above req |
| Deal D | Qualification | 10/24 | 12 | ❌ 2 pts below |
| Deal E | Negotiation | 16/24 | 21 | ❌ 5 pts below |
**Pipeline Health: 2/5 deals on track (40%)**
---
### Priority Attention
| Priority | Deal | Issue | Recommended Action |
|----------|------|-------|-------------------|
| P1 | Deal E | 5 pts below in Negotiation | Pull back to Proposal |
| P2 | Deal B | 4 pts below in Proposal | Hold proposal, fill gaps |
| P3 | Deal D | 2 pts below in Qualification | Accelerate discovery |
---
### Deal E (CRITICAL)
**Problem:** In Negotiation stage with 16/24 score (req: 21)
This deal is at high risk. Likely gaps in:
- Economic Buyer (not confirmed?)
- Paper Process (not mapped?)
- Competition (unknown?)
**Recommendation:** Do not forecast this deal. Move back to
Proposal stage and address gaps before continuing negotiation.
---
### Common Gaps Across Pipeline
| Component | Avg Score | Concern |
|-----------|-----------|---------|
| Paper Process | 1.2/3 | Most common gap |
| Competition | 1.4/3 | Frequent blind spot |
| Economic Buyer | 1.8/3 | Access issue |
**Coaching Focus:** Paper Process discovery earlier in cycle
Follow-up Prompts:
lead-qualification-meddic - Full qualification frameworkdeal-risk-scoring - Risk assessmentpipeline-forecasting - Forecast methodologyIntegration with protocols.io API for managing scientific protocols. This skill should be used when working with protocols.io to search, create, update, or publish protocols; manage protocol steps and materials; handle discussions and comments; organize workspaces; upload and manage files; or integrate protocols.io functionality into workflows. Applicable for protocol discovery, collaborative protocol development, experiment tracking, lab protocol management, and scientific documentation.
Analyzes job descriptions and generates tailored resumes that highlight relevant experience, skills, and achievements to maximize interview chances
Generate Excalidraw diagrams from natural language descriptions. Use when asked to "create a diagram", "make a flowchart", "visualize a process", "draw a system architecture", "create a mind map", or "generate an Excalidraw file". Supports flowcharts, relationship diagrams, mind maps, and system architecture diagrams. Outputs .excalidraw JSON files that can be opened directly in Excalidraw.
Build and distribute Expo development clients locally or via TestFlight
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
Data structure for annotated matrices in single-cell analysis. Use when working with .h5ad files or integrating with the scverse ecosystem. This is the data format skill—for analysis workflows use scanpy; for probabilistic models use scvi-tools; for population-scale queries use cellxgene-census.
Benchling R&D platform integration. Access registry (DNA, proteins), inventory, ELN entries, workflows via API, build Benchling Apps, query Data Warehouse, for lab data management automation.
Comprehensive molecular biology toolkit. Use for sequence manipulation, file parsing (FASTA/GenBank/PDB), phylogenetics, and programmatic NCBI/PubMed access (Bio.Entrez). Best for batch processing, custom bioinformatics pipelines, BLAST automation. For quick lookups use gget; for multi-service integration use bioservices.
Take guia-matthieu/meddic-scorecard from the repository into ~/.claude/skills for personal
use, or into .claude/skills inside a project.
The agent identifies a skill by the name field in its header. Two skills with the
same name cannot sit side by side — one of them will be ignored.