Pipeline Generation

Prospecting & Research

For: SDRs, BDRs, and AEs building their own pipeline

Account research brief: from raw filings to a first-touch angle

You have 30 target accounts and one hour. Turn one account's public footprint into a brief you can actually open a conversation with.

Copy & paste into your own LLM · open in archive →

You are a senior SDR preparing a first-touch campaign for one target account. I will paste raw public material about the account. Produce:

A) ACCOUNT SNAPSHOT — a table with columns: dimension (what they sell, who they sell to, revenue motion, recent trigger events, tech-stack clues), what the material says, and the exact quote or source line it comes from.

B) THREE PAIN HYPOTHESES, ranked — each tied to a trigger event in the material, mapped to my offer, and labeled confirmed / inferred / speculative.

C) ONE OPENER — a 4-sentence first-touch email built on the top hypothesis: one specific observation from the material, no generic flattery, one closing question.

Materials: [PASTE: 10-K EXCERPT / EARNINGS-CALL NOTES / PRESS RELEASES / JOB POSTINGS / SITE COPY]
My offer: [ONE SENTENCE: WHAT YOU SELL AND THE PAIN IT REMOVES]

Rules: Do not invent facts about the account — if a claim is not in the pasted material, label it "assumption" and list it separately. Mark anything I should verify externally (funding, headcount, exec names) before sending. Never include customer-confidential data or personal contact details in the output.

Why it works: Reps stall on research because the raw material is unstructured. Forcing a quote-level source column kills the hallucinated 'insights' that make outreach sound templated, and the confirmed/inferred/speculative split tells you exactly what to verify before you hit send.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Call Prep & Debrief

Discovery & Calls

For: AEs running discovery and demo calls

Discovery debrief: from raw notes to MEDDICC gaps and next step

You just finished a discovery call. Turn messy notes into a gap map and a follow-up email before the context evaporates.

Copy & paste into your own LLM · open in archive →

You are an enterprise AE debriefing a discovery call. I will paste my raw call notes or transcript. Produce:

A) MEDDICC SCORECARD — a table with rows: Metrics, Economic buyer, Decision criteria, Decision process, Identified pain, Champion, Competition; columns: what we heard (with the supporting line from my notes), confidence (high/med/low), and the single question that would close the gap.

B) DEAL RISKS — the top 3, each with its evidence line and one mitigation.

C) FOLLOW-UP EMAIL — 5 sentences max: mirror the prospect's own words for the pain, propose one concrete next step with a date.

Notes: [PASTE CALL NOTES OR TRANSCRIPT]
Deal context: [STAGE, DEAL SIZE, COMPETITOR IF KNOWN]

Rules: Do not invent anything the notes do not support — write "not covered" for empty MEDDICC rows instead of guessing. Flag every quote I should verify against the recording before repeating it to my team. Do not include prospect names, emails, or confidential pricing in the output.

Why it works: The value is the 'not covered' discipline: most debriefs paper over MEDDICC gaps with optimism. Confidence per row plus one gap-closing question per gap turns the next call into a plan instead of a vibe — and the follow-up ships while the call is still warm.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Deal Desk

Proposals & Negotiation

For: AEs and deal desks writing proposals that survive procurement

Proposal executive summary that mirrors the buyer's business case

The deck is done but page one reads like a brochure. Rewrite the executive summary in the buyer's language before it goes to procurement.

Copy & paste into your own LLM · open in archive →

You are a deal-desk writer rewriting a proposal executive summary so it survives being forwarded to people who never met us. I will paste our draft and the discovery notes. Produce:

A) REWRITTEN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (max 180 words), structured: their stated problem in their own words -> cost of inaction using THEIR numbers -> proposed scope in one sentence -> measurable outcome and timeline -> one-line commercial ask.

B) CLAIMS AUDIT — a table of every quantitative claim in my draft: the claim, its source (their data / our data / industry), and a keep / cut / soften verdict.

C) THREE NEGOTIATION TRADES — concessions that cost us little but are valuable to them, each with what we ask in return.

Inputs: [PASTE DRAFT SUMMARY] · [PASTE DISCOVERY NOTES / BUYER'S STATED METRICS] · [DEAL: PRICE, TERM, SCOPE]

Rules: Do not invent ROI figures — if a number has no source in my inputs, cut it or mark it "needs source". Flag any claim I should verify with my champion before submission. Strip customer-confidential terms and personal data from the output.

Why it works: Procurement reads the summary, not the deck. Anchoring every claim to the buyer's own numbers is what survives the forwarding chain, and pre-built trades prevent the unilateral discounting that happens when negotiation starts unprepared.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Expansion & Renewal

Account Growth

For: AEs and CS teams planning QBRs, renewals, and expansion

Account expansion map: whitespace, warm paths, and the renewal story

QBR season. Turn usage data and org knowledge into an expansion plan the account team can actually execute.

Copy & paste into your own LLM · open in archive →

You are an account strategist preparing a QBR expansion plan. I will paste what we know about the account. Produce:

A) WHITESPACE MAP — a table with columns: team or business unit, what they use today, unmet-need signal (with the evidence line from my inputs), product fit, and a deal-size estimate labeled "directional only".

B) WARM PATHS — 3 routes from current champions to new buyers, each with the specific intro ask.

C) RENEWAL STORY — 5 bullets quantifying value delivered, each with its source in my data.

Inputs: [PASTE: PRODUCTS IN USE, USAGE/ADOPTION SIGNALS, ORG-CHART KNOWLEDGE, SUPPORT HISTORY]
Our expansion products: [LIST WITH ONE-LINE VALUE EACH]

Rules: Do not invent usage numbers or org facts — every whitespace row must cite an evidence line, and rows without evidence go in a separate "unverified ideas" list. Verify titles and reporting lines externally before outreach (people move). Never include confidential contract terms or personal data.

Why it works: Expansion stalls when 'land and expand' has no map. Evidence per whitespace cell separates real signals from wishful thinking, and 'directional only' sizing keeps the expansion number out of the forecast until a buyer actually says yes.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Pipeline Truth

Sales Ops & Forecasting

For: Sales leaders and RevOps running the weekly forecast

Pipeline scrub: commit-call interrogation for every late-stage deal

Forecast call is tomorrow. Pressure-test the commit list so the number you roll up is the number that closes.

Copy & paste into your own LLM · open in archive →

You are a RevOps analyst running a pipeline scrub before the forecast call. I will paste the late-stage deal list. Produce:

A) SCRUB TABLE — columns: deal ID, red flags (stalled age vs stage norm, past-due next step, single-threaded, close date pushed more than once), and a risk-adjusted category (commit / best case / pipeline / remove) with a one-line justification.

B) INTERROGATION QUESTIONS — for each deal you kept in commit, the 3 questions a CRO would ask the owner, specific to that deal's flags.

C) ROLL-UP SUMMARY — count and value by category, plus the single biggest risk to the number.

Data: [PASTE DEAL LIST: STAGE, AGE, AMOUNT, CLOSE DATE, NEXT STEP, LAST ACTIVITY, CONTACTS THREADED]
My stage norms: [OPTIONAL: AVERAGE DAYS PER STAGE, HISTORICAL STAGE WIN RATES]

Rules: Do not invent deal facts or probabilities — categorize only from the fields provided and write "insufficient data" where a row is thin. Flag every recategorization for the deal owner to verify before the call. Use internal deal IDs, never customer names, and never include confidential pricing.

Why it works: Forecast misses come from unexamined commit deals, not bad math. Turning each red flag into a deal-specific interrogation question converts the scrub from bookkeeping into the actual forecast-call agenda — and 'insufficient data' rows expose your CRM hygiene problem for free.

Useful? 👍 Yes👎 No

Which section is most useful to you this week?

One tap — it shapes which prompt leads next week.

What would you like to see more of?

Prompt of the Week (Pro)

This week's bonus: a competitive-displacement brief that turns a rival's public pricing page and review-site complaints into a trap-setting discovery question set — with a do-not-invent source column for every claim.

Your searchable archive

Every prompt we’ve shipped, organized by section and task.