정보
이 스킬은 MEDDIC/MEDDPICC 프레임워크를 활용하여 개발자들이 기업 간(B2B) 영업 기회를 평가하는 데 도움을 줍니다. 복잡하고 고가치의 영업 주기에서 여러 이해관계자가 참여하는 거래의 실행 가능성을 평가하고 예측 정확도를 높이도록 설계되었습니다. 이 도구는 경제적 구매 결정자, 의사 결정 프로세스, 정량화된 가치, 경쟁 환경과 같은 핵심 기준을 체계적으로 평가합니다.
빠른 설치
Claude Code
추천npx skills add guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skillsgit clone https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/lead-qualification-meddicClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
Lead Qualification: MEDDIC
Qualify complex enterprise opportunities using the MEDDIC framework to ensure deal viability and improve forecast accuracy.
When to Use This Skill
- Enterprise deal qualification
- Complex sales cycles (60+ days)
- Multiple stakeholder deals
- High ACV opportunities ($50K+)
- Improving forecast accuracy
Methodology Foundation
Based on PTC's MEDDIC methodology (developed by Dick Dunkel), extended to MEDDPICC:
- Metrics - Quantified value
- Economic Buyer - Decision authority
- Decision Criteria - How they'll choose
- Decision Process - How they'll buy
- Identify Pain - Business problem
- Champion - Internal advocate
- Competition - Competitive landscape
- Paper Process - Legal/procurement
What Claude Does vs What You Decide
| Claude Does | You Decide |
|---|---|
| Structures MEDDIC questions | Deal prioritization |
| Scores each component | Resource investment |
| Identifies gaps | Coaching focus |
| Creates deal summaries | Forecast commit |
| Suggests next actions | Win strategy |
Instructions
Step 1: Define MEDDIC Components
| Component | Definition | Key Question |
|---|---|---|
| Metrics | Quantified outcomes | "What numbers will improve?" |
| Economic Buyer | Person with budget authority | "Who can say yes and write the check?" |
| Decision Criteria | How they evaluate | "What criteria will you use to decide?" |
| Decision Process | Steps to purchase | "What happens between now and signed contract?" |
| Identify Pain | Business problem | "What happens if this doesn't get solved?" |
| Champion | Internal advocate | "Who's fighting for this internally?" |
| Competition | Alternatives | "What else are you considering?" |
| Paper Process | Procurement/legal | "What's involved in getting contracts signed?" |
Step 2: Discovery Questions by Component
Metrics:
- "If this project succeeds, what numbers will change?"
- "How will you measure ROI?"
- "What's the cost of the current problem?"
- "What KPIs are you trying to impact?"
Economic Buyer:
- "Who ultimately approves the budget for this?"
- "Have you worked with them on similar initiatives?"
- "Can I meet them before we finalize a proposal?"
Decision Criteria:
- "What are the must-haves vs nice-to-haves?"
- "How will you compare solutions?"
- "Who developed these criteria?"
- "How important is [your differentiator]?"
Decision Process:
- "Walk me through the steps from here to signed contract."
- "Who else needs to evaluate this?"
- "Are there approval committees or board reviews?"
- "What could delay or derail this process?"
Identify Pain:
- "What's driving this initiative now?"
- "What happens if you do nothing?"
- "How is this affecting your team/business/customers?"
- "Have you tried to solve this before?"
Champion:
- "Who's the biggest advocate for this project?"
- "What happens to them if this succeeds/fails?"
- "Can they get us access to [stakeholder]?"
- "How much influence do they have?"
Competition:
- "What alternatives are you considering?"
- "How far along are you with other vendors?"
- "What do you like about what you've seen?"
- "How does that compare to what we've shown you?"
Paper Process:
- "What's your typical procurement timeline?"
- "Are there security or legal reviews required?"
- "Have you worked with vendors like us before?"
- "What can we do to expedite the process?"
Step 3: Score Each Component
| Score | Criteria |
|---|---|
| 🟢 3 | Confirmed, documented, verified |
| 🟡 2 | Identified but not confirmed |
| 🟠 1 | Weak or incomplete |
| 🔴 0 | Unknown or missing |
Deal Qualification Levels:
| Score | Status | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 21-24 | Strong | Commit to forecast |
| 16-20 | Developing | Address gaps |
| 11-15 | Early | More discovery needed |
| <11 | Weak | Qualify out or restart |
Examples
Example 1: Full MEDDIC Analysis
Output:
## MEDDIC Deal Scorecard: GlobalTech ($250K)
### Deal Overview
- **Account:** GlobalTech Inc
- **Value:** $250,000 ARR
- **Stage:** Proposal
- **Close Date:** March 15
- **Sales Cycle:** 90 days (Day 60)
---
### MEDDIC Score: 18/24 🟡 Developing
| Component | Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| Metrics | 3/3 | 🟢 |
| Economic Buyer | 2/3 | 🟡 |
| Decision Criteria | 3/3 | 🟢 |
| Decision Process | 2/3 | 🟡 |
| Identify Pain | 3/3 | 🟢 |
| Champion | 3/3 | 🟢 |
| Competition | 1/3 | 🟠 |
| Paper Process | 1/3 | 🟠 |
---
### Component Details
#### Metrics: 3/3 🟢
**Status:** Strong - Quantified and agreed
**Evidence:**
- ROI target: 3x in Year 1
- Specific KPIs: Reduce CAC by 20%, increase pipeline by 40%
- CFO signed off on business case
- Baseline metrics documented
**Quote:** "If we can hit these numbers, this pays for itself in 6 months."
---
#### Economic Buyer: 2/3 🟡
**Status:** Identified but not met
**Evidence:**
- EB: CFO Jennifer Walsh
- Champion confirmed she has budget authority
- Haven't had direct meeting yet
- Email correspondence only
**Gap:** Need face-to-face with CFO before proposal review
**Action:** Request 15-min executive alignment call
---
#### Decision Criteria: 3/3 🟢
**Status:** Strong - Criteria aligned with our strengths
**Evidence:**
- Formal RFP with weighted criteria
- Our top differentiators match their priorities:
- Integration depth (30% weight) - ✅ Our strength
- Time to value (25% weight) - ✅ Our strength
- Price (20% weight) - ⚠️ Neutral
- Support (15% weight) - ✅ Our strength
- References (10% weight) - ✅ Have 3 ready
**Quote:** "Integration is non-negotiable for us."
---
#### Decision Process: 2/3 🟡
**Status:** Mapped but timeline fuzzy
**Evidence:**
- Step 1: Technical evaluation ✅ Complete
- Step 2: Business review ✅ Complete
- Step 3: Proposal review ⏳ This week
- Step 4: CFO approval ⏳ Pending
- Step 5: Legal/Procurement ⏳ Unknown timeline
- Step 6: Contract signed ⏳ Target March 15
**Gap:** Steps 4-6 timeline not confirmed
**Action:** Get specific dates for approval meeting and legal review
---
#### Identify Pain: 3/3 🟢
**Status:** Strong - Urgent, quantified pain
**Evidence:**
- Current problem: 40% of leads fall through cracks
- Business impact: $2M estimated lost revenue
- Trigger: Missed Q3 target, board pressure
- Previous attempts: Tried 2 solutions, both failed
**Quote:** "This is keeping our CEO up at night."
---
#### Champion: 3/3 🟢
**Status:** Strong - Active, influential champion
**Champion Profile:**
- Name: Marcus Chen, VP Revenue Operations
- Motivation: His initiative, career impact
- Influence: Direct report to CFO
- Actions taken:
- Built internal business case
- Scheduled all meetings
- Defended us vs. competitor
- Sharing our content internally
**Quote:** "I'm putting my reputation on this."
---
#### Competition: 1/3 🟠
**Status:** Weak - Incomplete intel
**Evidence:**
- Know they evaluated CompetitorX
- Don't know current status
- Champion said "we've narrowed to two"
- No details on competitor proposal
**Gap:** Critical blind spot
**Action:**
- Ask champion directly about competitor status
- Understand their proposal/pricing
- Prepare competitive battle card response
---
#### Paper Process: 1/3 🟠
**Status:** Weak - Unknown
**Evidence:**
- They have a procurement team
- Security review likely required
- No timeline documented
- Haven't met procurement
**Gap:** Could add 2-4 weeks we haven't planned for
**Action:**
- Ask champion about typical procurement timeline
- Offer to start security questionnaire early
- Get intro to procurement contact
---
### Gap Summary
| Gap | Priority | Owner | Action | Due |
|-----|----------|-------|--------|-----|
| Meet CFO | High | AE | Request exec call | Day 62 |
| Competition intel | High | AE | Discovery with champion | Day 63 |
| Paper process | Medium | SE | Start security review | Day 65 |
| Decision timeline | Medium | AE | Confirm dates | Day 65 |
---
### Forecast Recommendation
**Current:** In forecast at 50% probability
**Recommendation:** Keep in forecast, but address gaps before increasing commit
**Path to 80%:**
1. Meet CFO (Economic Buyer confirmed)
2. Confirm competitor status (know we're preferred)
3. Map procurement timeline (no surprises)
**Risks:**
- Competition could have better pricing
- Procurement could delay past March 15
- CFO hasn't engaged directly
Example 2: Champion Assessment
Output:
## Champion Evaluation: Marcus Chen
### Champion Scorecard
| Criteria | Score | Evidence |
|----------|-------|----------|
| Access | 🟢 High | Direct report to EB |
| Influence | 🟢 High | Owns budget recommendation |
| Motivation | 🟢 High | Career tied to outcome |
| Credibility | 🟢 High | 8 years at company |
| Engagement | 🟢 High | Weekly calls, sharing content |
| **Overall** | **Strong Champion** | |
---
### Champion Profile
**Name:** Marcus Chen
**Title:** VP Revenue Operations
**Reports to:** Jennifer Walsh (CFO)
**Tenure:** 8 years
**Role in Deal:** Project owner and recommender
---
### Why They're Championing
1. **Personal Win:** This is his initiative; success = promotion
2. **Pain Owner:** Responsible for the problem we solve
3. **Budget Influence:** Makes recommendation to CFO
4. **Trusted:** Long tenure, respected internally
---
### Champion Actions Taken
✅ Built internal business case
✅ Scheduled all meetings
✅ Shared our ROI calculator with CFO
✅ Defended us when competitor name dropped
✅ Gave us competitive intel
✅ Proactively updated us on internal discussions
---
### Champion Test Questions
**Question: Can they sell when you're not in the room?**
Answer: Yes - built business case, defends us
**Question: Will they give you bad news?**
Answer: Yes - warned us about CFO concerns
**Question: Can they get you to the Economic Buyer?**
Answer: Partially - email intros yes, meeting not yet
---
### Champion Gaps
| Gap | Risk | Mitigation |
|-----|------|------------|
| Hasn't secured CFO meeting | Medium | Help champion prepare ask |
| Single-threaded | Medium | Build relationships with IT Director |
---
### Champion Coaching Plan
**Help Marcus succeed by:**
1. Provide leave-behind for his CFO conversation
2. Share competitor objection responses
3. Arm with 3 references he can share
4. Prepare him for likely CFO questions:
- "Why not build this ourselves?"
- "What's the implementation risk?"
- "Can we get better pricing?"
Skill Boundaries
What This Skill Does Well
- Structuring complex deal qualification
- Identifying deal gaps systematically
- Creating deal coaching plans
- Improving forecast accuracy
What This Skill Cannot Do
- Replace relationship skills
- Guarantee deal outcomes
- Know competitor strategies
- Handle negotiation tactics
References
- PTC MEDDIC Framework (Dick Dunkel)
- Force Management MEDDICC
- Salesforce Enterprise Selling
- Winning by Design MEDDIC
Related Skills
lead-qualification-bant- Simpler qualificationdeal-risk-scoring- Risk assessmentpipeline-forecasting- Commit based on MEDDIC
Skill Metadata
- Domain: SDR Automation / Sales
- Complexity: Advanced
- Mode: centaur
- Time to Value: 45-60 min per deal
- Prerequisites: Enterprise sales experience
GitHub 저장소
Frequently asked questions
What is the lead-qualification-meddic skill?
lead-qualification-meddic is a Claude Skill by guia-matthieu. Skills package instructions and resources that Claude loads on demand, so Claude can perform lead-qualification-meddic-related tasks without extra prompting.
How do I install lead-qualification-meddic?
Use the install commands on this page: add lead-qualification-meddic to Claude Code as a plugin, or clone its repository into your skills directory, then restart Claude so it picks up the skill.
What category does lead-qualification-meddic belong to?
lead-qualification-meddic is in the Other category, tagged general.
Is lead-qualification-meddic free to use?
Yes. lead-qualification-meddic is listed on AIMCP and free to install. It runs inside Claude, so no separate service account is required to use the skill itself.
연관 스킬
LlamaGuard는 폭력 및 혐오 발언 등 6가지 안전 범주에서 LLM 입력과 출력을 조정하기 위한 Meta의 70-80억 파라미터 모델입니다. 94-95% 정확도를 제공하며 vLLM, Hugging Face 또는 Amazon SageMaker를 사용해 배포할 수 있습니다. 이 기술을 사용하여 AI 애플리케이션에 콘텐츠 필터링 및 안전 가드레일을 손쉽게 통합하세요.
이 Claude Skill은 리소스 적정화, 태깅 전략, 지출 분석을 통해 개발자들이 클라우드 비용을 최적화할 수 있도록 지원합니다. AWS, Azure, GCP에서 클라우드 비용을 절감하고 비용 거버넌스를 구현하기 위한 프레임워크를 제공합니다. 인프라 비용을 분석하거나, 리소스를 적정화하거나, 예산 제약을 충족해야 할 때 사용하세요.
이 Claude Skill은 스프레드, 오버/언더, 프로프 베트를 포함한 스포츠 베팅 시장을 분석합니다. 역사적 추이와 상황별 통계를 검토하여 가치 베트를 발견하고, 교육적 목적으로 실행 가능한 권장 사항이 담긴 구조화된 마크다운 결과를 제공합니다. 개발자는 이 기능을 스포츠 베팅 분석 도구에 활용할 수 있으며, 단순히 엔터테인먼트/교육 목적으로만 설계되었음을 유의해야 합니다.
이 스킬은 bitsandbytes를 사용하여 LLM을 8비트 또는 4비트 정밀도로 양자화하며, 최소한의 정확도 손실로 50-75%의 메모리 감소를 달성합니다. 제한된 GPU 메모리에서 더 큰 모델을 실행하거나 추론을 가속화하는 데 이상적이며, INT8, NF4, FP4와 같은 형식을 지원합니다. 이 스킬은 HuggingFace Transformers와 통합되어 QLoRA 학습 및 8비트 옵티마이저를 가능하게 합니다.
