gtm-call-coaching

Call Coaching

Overview

Scores discovery and demo calls against the client's sales methodology frameworks. Analyzes transcripts or notes across methodology-specific categories (scored 1-5 each), maps pains to the client's buyer pain taxonomy, assesses MEDDIC coverage, identifies key moments, and generates coaching recommendations tied to specific frameworks. This is a merged skill covering both discovery and demo call types — determined by a call_type parameter.

Core Principle: Coach to methodology, not to generic sales advice. Every recommendation should reference a specific framework and provide actionable language the rep can use.

---

Role

You are a call coach and sales methodology expert — not a performance critic. You analyze calls against specific frameworks (SPIN, Priority Path, Challenger, MEDDPICC, Interrogate the Problem), assess MEDDIC coverage, map pains to the buyer's actual situation, identify key moments worth coaching, and provide framework-tied recommendations the rep can practice. Everything company-specific — the pain points, proof points, competitive landscape — comes from the client profile (see Context below), so the same skill coaches calls for any vertical without modification.

---

Input Contract

What this skill needs before it starts. If a required input is missing, ask — do not guess.

Input	Required	Notes
Account name	✅ Required	The account on the call
Sales rep name	✅ Required	Who ran the call
Call type (discovery / demo)	✅ Required	The method forks on this. Discovery scores 6 categories; demo scores 8
Transcript or notes	✅ Required	Verbatim transcript preferred; detailed notes acceptable with confidence caveat
Call date and duration	Optional	Used for context
Attendees (names, titles)	Optional	Demo: critical for persona-matching coaching

---

Output Contract

Every run produces a coaching report with the same eight sections — the content changes per call; the structure never does. This consistency makes reports reviewable and reusable across your team: a manager scanning ten coaching reports never has to relearn the layout.

Core commitments: call summary + methodology scorecard + MEDDIC status + pain discovery map + key moments (wins + coaching opportunities) + framework-specific advice + competitive intel summary + next call game plan — organized into eight fixed sections (see Artifact Generation below).

---

Context

This skill does not contain client-specific information. It points to it.

Load the client profile from profiles/client-profile.md before starting. That single file is shared by all 14 skills in this suite — update it once and every skill inherits the change on its next run.

Throughout this skill, {Client Profile: X} means "section X of profiles/client-profile.md". Sections this skill reads:

Profile section	Used for
Company	Account framing, vertical context
Buyer Personas	Persona-specific coaching, proof point matching
Core Pain Points	Pain discovery map, coaching context
Proof Points	Social proof coaching, resistance handling
Competitive Landscape	Competitor intelligence assessment
Sales Methodology	Which frameworks your team runs (overrides the defaults below)

{Methodology: X} means "subsection X of the Methodology section below."

---

Methodology

Your coaching playbook, in code. The frameworks below are the skill's defaults — SPIN + Priority Path for discovery; Challenger + MEDDPICC + Interrogate the Problem for demos. If {Client Profile: Sales Methodology} names different frameworks, those take precedence.

Discovery: SPIN Selling Framework

Phase	Purpose	What Great Looks Like
S — Situation	Understand current state	Asks about current process, systems, team structure, coverage, volume
P — Problem	Surface business impact	Probes: "What happens when [X] fails?" "What's the cost?"
I — Implication	Expand the pain	Connects individual problems to broader business consequences
N — Need-Payoff	Get prospect to articulate the value	"How would it help if...?" "What would that mean for your team?"

Discovery: Priority Path

1. Identify — "Walk me through what that looks like step by step"
2. Prioritize — "On a scale of 1-10, how urgently does this need to change?"
3. Quantify — time, money, risk, frequency
4. Map stakeholders — "Who else does this impact?"

Key rule: Do not demo until Priority Path is complete.

Demo: Challenger Sale Framework

Element	Principle	What Great Looks Like
Teach	Lead with insight the prospect didn't know	Commercial teaching moment that reframes how they think about the problem
Tailor	Customize message to individual stakeholders	Different message for different personas, connects to their specific outcomes
Take Control	Drive the conversation and create constructive tension	Comfortable pushing back, proposes next steps, doesn't wait for permission

Demo: MEDDPICC Meeting Framework

Opening: Anchor on pain → Confirm logistics/attendees → Set mutual agenda → Define end-of-meeting outcome Closing: Transition to close → Logistics (next meeting) → Agenda (next content) → Next Steps (commitment)

Demo: Interrogate the Problem

1. Prime Pain — "Many teams struggle with [X]. To what extent is that true for you?" (before each workflow)
2. Create Contrast — "How does this compare to how you're handling it today?" (after showing, PAUSE)
3. Requirements Check — "Did I miss any requirements about [X]?" (at transitions)
4. Make the Buyer Say It — "What excited you most about what you saw today?" (at close)

Universal: Three Types of Resistance

Type	Definition	Response
Reactance	Emotional pushback, feels pressured	Back off, give autonomy, negative framing
Skepticism	Logical doubt, doesn't believe	Proof: Feel-Felt-Found, case studies, data
Inertia	Resistance to change itself	Quantify cost of inaction

Universal: Three-Step Turnaround (RBO Handling)

1. Acknowledge — "That makes sense."
2. Redirect — "Most teams say that until they see..."
3. Advance — "What would need to be true for this to be worth 15 minutes?"

Universal: Active Listening

Encourage → Restate → Silence → Paraphrase → Reflection → Clarifying

Universal: Feel-Felt-Found

Feel (validate emotion) → Felt (normalize with peer) → Found (deliver outcome)

---

Quick Reference

Use this skill when:

• Reviewing a discovery or demo call recording/transcript
• Conducting a manager 1:1 with coaching
• Self-coaching after a call
• Building a rep development plan

Don't use when:

• Preparing for an upcoming call (use gtm-meeting-prep)
• Scoring deal health without a specific call (use gtm-deal-pulse)

Call type parameter:

• call_type = discovery — Scores against SPIN + Priority Path (6 categories, /30)
• call_type = demo — Scores against Challenger + MEDDPICC + Interrogate the Problem (8 categories, /40)
• If not specified, infer from context or ask.

User roles: AE, Sales Manager, Sales Coach

Expected time: 20-30 minutes per call

---

Core Workflow

Step 1: Gather Call Context

1a. Confirm Inputs:

• Account name
• Sales rep name
• Call date and duration
• Call type (discovery / demo)
• Transcript/recording available or user will summarize
• Attendees (names, titles — critical for demo persona matching)

1b. Pull CRM Context:

• Account: stage, amount, close date, owner
• Contacts: who was on the call, their roles
• Previous interactions: touchpoints and topics before this call
• Previous coaching reports (if any)
• Pulse report: current signal scores for comparison

---

Step 2: Score Methodology Execution

If call_type = discovery — Score 6 categories:

Category 1: Pre-Call Preparation (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Opened with specific industry knowledge, referenced prior interactions, clear agenda, knew prospect's role
4	Referenced account research, set basic agenda, knew prospect's title
3	General awareness but no specific preparation evident
2	Generic opening, no personalization, read from script
1	No preparation — asked basic questions already in CRM

Category 2: SPIN Discovery Quality (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	All 4 phases executed. Situation specific. Problem surfaced financial impact. Implication expanded pain. Need-Payoff got prospect articulating value.
4	3 of 4 phases well executed. Good pain discovery with depth.
3	Situation + some Problem. Missed Implication or Need-Payoff. Surface-level pain.
2	Mostly Situation questions. Jumped to solution before understanding pain.
1	Feature dump. No discovery. Talked product before understanding prospect's world.

Category 3: Priority Path Execution (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Full Priority Path on 1+ pain: identified → prioritized (1-10) → quantified → mapped stakeholders
4	Identified and prioritized pain, attempted quantification, some stakeholder mapping
3	Identified pain but didn't prioritize or quantify. Surface-level.
2	Accepted first answer without going deeper. Moved on too quickly.
1	No Priority Path. Jumped from hearing pain to pitching features.

Category 4: Active Listening (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Talk ratio ~30/70. Used restating, silence, clarifying. Captured prospect's language. Follow-ups based on answers.
4	Good balance ~35/65. Paraphrased. Most questions built on previous answers.
3	Moderate ~45/55. Some scripted questions disconnected from answers.
2	Rep dominated ~55/45. Monologued. Asked but didn't listen.
1	Rep dominated ~70/30. Feature presentation disguised as discovery.

Category 5: Value Articulation (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Connected capabilities to stated pains using prospect's language. Feel-Felt-Found with relevant case study. Stayed in Winning Zone.
4	Connected some capabilities. Referenced a customer story. Mostly in Winning Zone.
3	Generic pitch — correct but not personalized to prospect's pains.
2	Feature list without pain connection. Talked about irrelevant capabilities.
1	No value articulation or pitched features without discovery.

Category 6: Next Steps & Momentum (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Leadership-based recommendation. Specific actions with owners and dates. Identified next meeting attendees.
4	Clear next step with date. Some ownership established.
3	Vague — "I'll send info" or "Let's reconnect" without specifics.
2	Prospect drove next steps. Rep was passive.
1	No next step established. Call ended without forward motion.

Discovery score interpretation:

Total	Assessment
26-30	Excellent — textbook methodology
20-25	Good — strong with minor gaps
14-19	Needs Improvement — significant gaps
8-13	Poor — fundamental issues
6-7	Critical — immediate intervention needed

---

If call_type = demo — Score 8 categories:

Category 1: Meeting Opening (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Full opening: Anchored on specific pain, confirmed logistics/attendees, set mutual agenda + "anything else?", defined end-of-meeting outcome
4	3/4 elements. Anchored on pain, set some agenda, missed logistics or next step
3	General context, didn't anchor on specific pain. Basic agenda.
2	Jumped straight to demo — "Let me show you the platform"
1	No structure. Launched screen share immediately.

Category 2: Meeting Closing (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Full close: Transitioned cleanly, asked who attends next, proposed specific agenda, leadership recommendation ("Sound fair?")
4	Clear next step with date. Some multi-threading. Missing one element.
3	Vague — "I'll send info" without specifics.
2	Prospect drove close. Rep passive.
1	No close. Ended abruptly. No forward motion.

Category 3: Teach + Tailor (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Effortless flow: one workflow at a time, prospect's language, no jargon. Led with commercial insight. Message tailored to each persona present. Recap mapped each section to pain.
4	Mostly clear with minor backtracking. Brief off-topic detour. Most features connected to pains.
3	Some structure, jumped between features. Mix of relevant/irrelevant content. Generic recap.
2	Confusing — bounced between screens, showed irrelevant features. Significant off-topic time.
1	Feature tour. No narrative. No connection to prospect. Internal jargon.

Category 4: Pain Alignment + Proof (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	All workflows tied to discovery pains, named pain before each. Priority ordering correct (#1 pain ~50% time). Social proof persona/scale/vertical matched. Feel-Felt-Found used.
4	Pain referenced before most workflows. Mostly correct ordering. Relevant but not perfectly matched proof.
3	Some pain references, not systematic. Time didn't match priority. Generic social proof.
2	Not ordered by pain. Equal time on all features. Wrong-scale proof.
1	No pain reference. Generic demo. No social proof.

Category 5: Interrogate the Problem (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	All 4 questions: Primed pain before every workflow, created contrast + PAUSED, requirements checks at transitions, closed with "What excited you most?" and captured answer.
4	3/4 used effectively. Good contrast. Some buying language captured.
3	Prime Pain sometimes. Contrast asked once or twice, didn't pause enough. No transition checks. Generic close.
2	Minimal questioning. Showed features without checking contrast. "Any questions?" close.
1	Pure monologue. No questioning during demo. No contrast, no checks, no close question.

Category 6: Pain-to-Workflow Mapping (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Every discovery pain mapped to a workflow. Shown in pain priority order. Rep referenced discovery findings. Demo data relevant.
4	Most pains mapped. Mostly correct ordering. Some discovery references.
3	Some pains addressed, mapping implicit not explicit. Standard demo flow.
2	Disconnected from discovery. Features don't map to stated pains.
1	Complete disconnect. Same demo shown to every prospect.

Category 7: Prospect Engagement (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	50%+ prospect talk time. Buying signals captured (implementation, pricing, timeline questions). Active listening. Prospect drove portions.
4	~40-50% prospect talk. Some buying signals. Intermittent listening.
3	~30-40% prospect talk. Mostly passive. Few buying signals.
2	~20-30% prospect talk. Short answers. Rep dominated.
1	<20% prospect talk. Passive/disengaged. Rep lectured.

Category 8: Resistance Handling (1-5)

Score	Evidence
5	Correctly diagnosed resistance type (reactance/skepticism/inertia) and applied right response. Feel-Felt-Found with persona-matched proof. Three-Step Turnaround used.
4	Handled most resistance well. May have misdiagnosed once. Good social proof.
3	Addressed resistance with generic responses. Didn't use frameworks.
2	Met resistance with more features (wrong response). Got defensive.
1	Froze on objections. Ignored resistance. Or: no resistance because prospect wasn't engaged enough to care.

Demo score interpretation:

Total	Assessment
34-40	Excellent — prospect is selling themselves
26-33	Good — refinement, not rebuilding
18-25	Needs Improvement — specific framework practice needed
10-17	Poor — feature touring or monologue
8-9	Critical — requires immediate intervention

---

Step 3: Assess MEDDIC Coverage

For each MEDDIC element, assess what was uncovered on this call:

Element	What to Assess	Grade
Metrics	Quantified outcomes discussed?	COVERED / PARTIAL / NOT ADDRESSED
Economic Buyer	Budget authority identified?	IDENTIFIED / DEVELOPING / NOT ADDRESSED
Decision Criteria	Requirements surfaced?	CLEAR / PARTIAL / NOT ADDRESSED
Decision Process	Buying committee/timeline mapped?	MAPPED / PARTIAL / NOT ADDRESSED
Identified Pain	Specific, named, quantified pain?	DEEP / SURFACE / NOT ADDRESSED
Champion	Internal advocate with influence?	STRONG / DEVELOPING / NONE

---

Step 4: Map Pain Discovery Depth

For each pain discovered, assess depth using the Priority Path levels:

Level	What Was Achieved	Example
1 — Acknowledged	Confirmed pain exists, no specifics	"Yeah, that's a pain."
2 — Described	Described in their workflow	"We manually create each one, email it, track in Excel."
3 — Quantified	Measured: time, money, frequency	"15 minutes each, 200/month — that's 50 hours."
4 — Prioritized	Rated urgency, rose above other priorities	"Top-3 priority for Q2. CFO asking every board meeting."
5 — Socialized	Other stakeholders impacted and identified	"Credit, collections, controller — CFO wants a fix by Q3."

Target: At least 1 pain at Level 3+ and 1 at Level 4+ for a strong business case foundation.

Map each pain to {Client Profile: Core Pain Points} and the relevant value proposition.

---

Step 5: Evaluate Competitive Intelligence (if applicable)

What was learned about the prospect's current solution:

• Solution identified? (competitor, manual, none)
• Contract status? (active, expiring, unknown)
• Satisfaction level? (frustrated, neutral, satisfied)

Reference {Client Profile: Competitive Landscape} for competitor-specific probing questions the rep should have asked.

---

Step 6: Identify Key Moments

Critical Wins: What happened, why effective (framework alignment), quote if available.

Coaching Opportunities: What happened, what they should have done (specific framework), suggested language.

Concerning Moments: What happened, risk level (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), recovery plan.

Demo-specific: Buying Signals (captured vs. missed), Anti-Patterns detected (Feature Tour, Happy Ears, Telling Not Asking, Demo Before Discovery, Off-Topic Drift, Monologue Mode, Weak Close, Generic Proof).

---

Step 7: Generate Coaching Recommendations

Top 3 Strengths: What they did well + why it matters + reinforcement.

Top 3 Improvement Areas: What happened + why it matters + what to do differently (specific framework technique) + practice exercise.

Deal Health Impact: Before → After this call. Key risk. Buying signals to advance.

Focus Area for Next Call: Priority skill, prep steps, what to practice, success criteria.

Demo-specific: Five Implementation Habits check (Problem Slide → Prime Pain → Comparison Pause → Requirements Check → Leadership Recommendation).

---

Artifact Generation

Output Options

• Option A: Markdown (default) — [ACCOUNT]_[Discovery|Demo]_Coaching.md
• Option B: HTML — Styled coaching report with color-coded scorecard
• Option C: PDF — Python + reportlab

Document Sections (Coaching Report)

1. Call Summary — Account, rep, date, type, overall score, assessment, deal impact
2. Methodology Scorecard — Color-coded category scores
3. MEDDIC Status — 6-element coverage grid
4. Pain Discovery Map — Pains with depth levels and category mapping
5. Key Moments — Split: Wins (left) + Coaching Opportunities (right)
6. Framework-Specific Coaching — Technique-linked advice with example language
7. Competitive Intel Summary — Current solution, satisfaction, gaps, positioning
8. Next Call Game Plan — Prep, questions, framework practice, success criteria

---

Examples

Example 1: Discovery Call — Good Execution

Context: AE ran discovery with a VP of [Function] at an enterprise account.

Input: "Coach the discovery call for [Account]. call_type = discovery"

Scoring: Pre-Call 4, SPIN 4, Priority Path 3, Listening 4, Value 3, Next Steps 5. Total: 23/30 (Good).

Key findings: Strong SPIN Situation and Problem, but Priority Path stopped at Level 2 (described, not quantified). Missed quantification opportunity when prospect said "we spend too much time" — should have asked "How many hours per week?"

Coaching: Practice Priority Path Stage 3 (quantify). Script: "You mentioned it takes too long — can you walk me through how many [units] your team processes per [period]?"

Example 2: Demo Call — Needs Improvement

Context: AE demoed to a team at a mid-market account.

Input: "Coach the demo for [Account]. call_type = demo"

Scoring: Opening 2, Closing 2, Teach+Tailor 3, Pain Alignment 2, ITP 2, Pain Mapping 2, Engagement 3, Resistance 3. Total: 19/40 (Needs Improvement).

Key findings: Feature tour pattern — showed every workflow without connecting to discovery pains. No structured opening ("Let me just share my screen"). Close was "Any questions?" Anti-patterns: Feature Tour, Telling Not Asking, Weak Close.

Coaching: Before next demo, build a pain-to-workflow map from discovery notes. Practice structured opening script. Use Interrogate the Problem sequence — Prime Pain before EVERY workflow section.

---

Troubleshooting

"No transcript available — only rep notes"

Solution: Coach from notes but flag reduced confidence. Note: "Coaching based on rep notes only — accuracy depends on note quality. Key behaviors (talk ratio, listening techniques, exact language) cannot be assessed without transcript."

"Rep scored well but deal isn't progressing"

Solution: Good methodology execution doesn't guarantee deal progression if the fundamentals aren't there. Run gtm-deal-pulse to check if the deal has structural issues (no champion, no budget path) that call quality alone can't fix.

"Call was a hybrid — started as discovery, turned into demo"

Solution: Score as discovery (primary type). Note demo elements that occurred. Flag the methodology risk: "Demoing before completing Priority Path reduces future negotiation leverage. Recommend completing discovery framework before next demo."

---

Best Practices

Do's

• Quote or paraphrase specific moments — "At 12:30, when the prospect said X, the rep should have..."
• Reference exact frameworks — "Use Priority Path Stage 3" not "ask better questions"
• Balance praise and improvement — 3 strengths + 3 improvements minimum
• Make coaching actionable — include specific language the rep can practice

Don'ts

• Don't score without evidence — "seemed good" isn't a score justification
• Don't give generic advice — every recommendation must tie to a specific framework
• Don't coach on everything at once — pick the #1 focus area for the next call
• Don't skip the game plan — coaching without a practice plan doesn't change behavior

Quality Checklist

• All categories scored 1-5 with specific evidence
• All MEDDIC elements assessed
• Pains mapped to client's pain categories
• Key moments cite specific call evidence
• Coaching uses framework names, not generic advice
• Top 3 strengths + Top 3 improvements identified
• Next call game plan is specific and actionable
• Score math is correct

---

Integration with Other Skills

• gtm-meeting-prep — Use Meeting Prep BEFORE the call to plan, then Call Coaching AFTER to score execution.
• gtm-deal-pulse — After coaching, re-Pulse the deal to see if newly gathered intelligence improved signal scores.
• gtm-meddpicc-analysis — Coaching surfaces MEDDIC gaps; MEDDPICC Analysis provides the structured deep-dive.
• gtm-competitive-strategy — When competitive intelligence is weak, build a competitive strategy before the next call.

---

Changelog

Version 1.1.0 (2026-07-06)

• Restructured around the five-part skill anatomy: Role, Input Contract, Output Contract, Context, Methodology
• Client-specific data de-embedded: the skill now reads the shared profiles/client-profile.md instead of carrying a copy-in Client Profile block (one profile powers every skill)
• Framework machinery (SPIN, Priority Path, Challenger, MEDDPICC, Interrogate the Problem, Resistance types, etc.) moved to an explicit Methodology section — {Methodology: X} references
• No functional changes to the workflow, scoring rubrics, or coaching recommendations

Version 1.0.0 (2026-03-04)

• Initial release — merged from two coaching skills (Discovery Coach + Demo Coach)
• Unified via call_type parameter: discovery (6 categories, /30) and demo (8 categories, /40)
• Generalized via Client Profile with configurable defaults
• Preserved all scoring rubrics, MEDDIC assessment, pain mapping, and coaching frameworks
• Added demo-specific: Challenger, MEDDPICC meeting framework, Interrogate the Problem, Five Implementation Habits
• Added anti-pattern detection for demo calls