lead-qualification-meddic
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
연관 스킬
llamaguard
기타LlamaGuard는 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.
cost-optimization
기타이 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.
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
기타이 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.
dispatching-parallel-agents
기타이 Claude Skill은 3개 이상의 독립적인 문제를 동시에 조사하고 해결하기 위해 다중 에이전트를 배치합니다. 공유 상태나 의존성 없이 해결 가능한 무관련 장애 시나리오에 맞게 설계되었습니다. 핵심 기능은 병렬 문제 해결로, 각 독립 문제 영역마다 하나의 에이전트를 할당하여 효율성을 극대화합니다.
