[ { "id": "demo-match-finder", "title": "Demo Match Finder", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "An AE has a prospect conversation lined up and needs to find the most relevant demo content fast, without manually browsing the library.", "samplePrompt": "I have a prospect in [industry] who is evaluating us for [use case/pain point].\nWhat is the best demo to send them? If there isn't a perfect match, suggest the\n2-3 closest options and explain why each could work.", "roles": [ "Account Executive" ], "tags": [ "Meeting Prep", "Outreach" ] }, { "id": "pre-call-demo-prep-briefing", "title": "Pre-Call Demo Prep Briefing", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "An AE has a call coming up with a prospect who's already received a demoboard, and wants a quick briefing on what that prospect actually engaged with before the call.", "samplePrompt": "I have a call with [prospect name] at [account] coming up. Pull their DemoBoard\nengagement and summarize what they watched, how long they engaged, and any\nstandout moments I should reference on the call.", "roles": [ "Account Executive" ], "tags": [ "Meeting Prep" ] }, { "id": "stakeholder-engagement-gap-finder", "title": "Stakeholder Engagement Gap Finder", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "An AE wants to know, at a glance, which members of a buying committee have (or haven't) opened a demoboard, so they can chase down the right people before a deal stalls.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nIdentify gaps between the intended buying-committee stakeholders for an\nopportunity and who has actually engaged with the associated Consensus\nDemoBoard, so the rep can follow up with the right people.\n\nTasks:\n1. Locate the DemoBoard(s) associated with the given account or opportunity\n using search_demoboards.\n2. Pull full viewer/engagement data for the DemoBoard using get_demoboard.\n3. Compare the list of engaged viewers against the stakeholder list provided\n by the user (names/titles/emails).\n4. Flag stakeholders who have not opened the DemoBoard at all, and separately\n flag stakeholders who opened it but had very low engagement (e.g., under\n 30 seconds or didn't reach key sections).\n5. Summarize the gap in plain language, ordered by likely deal impact\n (e.g., an economic buyer who hasn't engaged ranks above a technical\n evaluator who has).\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Account or opportunity name\n- A list of expected buying-committee stakeholders (name + role/title;\n email if available for exact matching)\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A short table or list: Stakeholder | Role | Engagement Status\n (Not Opened / Low Engagement / Engaged)\n- A one-line \"biggest gap\" callout naming the highest-priority stakeholder\n to follow up with\n- A suggested next action (e.g., \"consider a targeted follow-up email to\n [name], who hasn't opened the board\")\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- If the user doesn't provide a stakeholder list, ask for it rather than\n guessing roles from names alone.\n- Keep the output concise — this is meant to be scanned in under a minute\n before a call, not read as a report.", "roles": [ "Account Executive" ], "tags": [ "Meeting Prep", "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "objection-ready-demo-selector", "title": "Objection-Ready Demo Selector", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Surfaces the demo content most likely to address a specific objection (price, competitor, technical concern) in the moment, instead of the AE trying to remember which demo covers it.", "samplePrompt": "A prospect just raised this objection: \"[objection, e.g., we're already using\na competitor for this].\" What demo content do we have that helps address it?", "roles": [ "Account Executive" ], "tags": [ "Outreach", "Meeting Prep" ] }, { "id": "rep-performance-coaching-snapshot", "title": "Rep Performance & Coaching Snapshot", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Turns leaderboard and individual usage data into a coaching-ready summary a manager can use directly in a 1:1, rather than manually pulling and interpreting raw numbers.", "samplePrompt": "Pull [rep name]'s Consensus activity and performance data for [time period]\nand summarize it for a coaching conversation — where are they strong, where\nare they falling behind the team, and what's one concrete thing to work on?", "roles": [ "Sales Manager" ], "tags": [ "Reporting", "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "pipeline-demo-activity-rollup", "title": "Pipeline Demo Activity Rollup", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Teaches the assistant to produce a consistent weekly team-level digest of demo/DemoBoard activity, so managers get the same structured rollup every time without re-explaining the format.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nProduce a consistent weekly digest of a team's Consensus activity for a\nsales manager, so they can spot trends without manually pulling reports.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull team-level activity data for the requested period using\n sales_data_for_groups (or sales_data_for_user per rep if the team is\n small enough to itemize).\n2. Calculate week-over-week change in DemoBoards created, demos sent,\n and average engagement time.\n3. Identify the top 2 and bottom 2 performers by activity volume.\n4. Flag any rep with a significant week-over-week drop (a large enough\n decline to be worth a manager's attention).\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Team or group name\n- Reporting period (defaults to \"last 7 days\" if not specified)\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A short digest: team totals, week-over-week % change, top/bottom\n performers, and any flagged drops\n- Written in a format ready to paste into Slack or email as-is\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Default to a concise, scannable format (bullets, not prose paragraphs).\n- If historical data for comparison isn't available, say so explicitly\n rather than fabricating a trend.", "roles": [ "Sales Manager" ], "tags": [ "Reporting", "Automation" ] }, { "id": "renewal-risk-radar", "title": "Renewal Risk Radar", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Flags accounts with declining DemoBoard or content engagement as an early renewal-risk signal, so CSMs can intervene before a renewal conversation is already in trouble.", "samplePrompt": "Look at [account name]'s Consensus engagement over the last [90] days. Is\nengagement trending up, flat, or down? Should I be concerned about this\naccount ahead of renewal?", "roles": [ "Customer Success Manager" ], "tags": [ "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "onboarding-content-sequencer", "title": "Onboarding Content Sequencer", "type": "PROJECT", "summary": "A saved workspace that sequences which demos/content to send at each stage of a new customer's onboarding, using the CSM's own playbook and the customer's ICP as standing context.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nAct as an onboarding content advisor for a Customer Success Manager,\nrecommending which Consensus demos/content to send at each stage of a\nnew customer's onboarding journey, using the attached onboarding\nplaybook and the customer's profile as standing context.\n\nTasks:\n1. When given a customer name and their current onboarding stage\n (kickoff, first value, adoption, expansion-readiness), reference the\n attached onboarding playbook to determine what content is appropriate\n for that stage.\n2. Use search_demos / search_demoboards to find matching content in the\n live library rather than assuming content exists.\n3. Recommend 1-3 pieces of content per stage with a one-line rationale\n for each.\n4. Note any stage where the playbook calls for content that doesn't\n currently exist in the library, so the CSM can flag the gap.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Uploaded reference file: the team's onboarding playbook (stages +\n goals per stage)\n- Customer name and current onboarding stage\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A short, stage-appropriate content recommendation list with rationale\n- A flagged list of any content gaps found during the search\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Treat the playbook as the source of truth for stage definitions —\n don't invent new stages.\n- Re-verify content availability each time rather than caching results\n from earlier in the conversation, since the library changes over time.", "roles": [ "Customer Success Manager" ], "tags": [ "Onboarding" ] }, { "id": "qbr-value-story-builder", "title": "QBR Value Story Builder", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Formats a customer's usage and ROI data into a QBR-ready narrative, teaching the assistant a consistent slide-by-slide structure CSMs can rely on every quarter.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nTurn a customer's Consensus usage and outcome data into a QBR-ready\nnarrative structure a CSM can drop directly into slides.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull the account's usage data via sales_by_customer for the requested\n period (default: last quarter).\n2. Structure findings into four sections: (1) Adoption Summary — usage\n volume and trend, (2) Engagement Highlights — standout DemoBoards or\n content performance, (3) Business Impact — any tie to deals/revenue\n if CRM data is available, (4) Recommendations — 1-2 next steps to\n deepen usage.\n3. Write each section as 2-4 concise bullet points, not paragraphs.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Account name\n- Reporting period (defaults to last quarter)\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- Four-section narrative, bulleted, ready to paste into a slide or doc\n- A one-line executive summary at the top\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- If business-impact/revenue data isn't available, state that plainly\n in that section rather than omitting it silently or guessing.", "roles": [ "Customer Success Manager" ], "tags": [ "Reporting" ] }, { "id": "demo-library-heatmap", "title": "Demo Library Heatmap", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Identifies which demo content is over- or under-performing and where content gaps exist, giving Marketing/Content teams a data-driven prioritization list instead of guesswork.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nProduce a heatmap-style view of demo library performance to identify\nhigh-performing content to promote and low-performing/missing content\nto prioritize for creation or refresh.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull performance data across the library using marketing_by_demo for\n the requested period.\n2. Rank demos by engagement (views, watch-through rate, shares).\n3. Identify the bottom-performing segment and flag possible reasons if\n discernible (e.g., outdated, low visibility, mismatched to current\n use cases).\n4. Cross-reference against known content requests (if provided) to\n flag any gap where no matching demo exists at all.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Reporting period (default: last 90 days)\n- Optional: a list of recently requested content topics to check\n against existing coverage\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- Top 5 / bottom 5 performing demos with key metrics\n- A short list of apparent content gaps or stale content candidates\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Present this as a prioritization aid, not a final verdict — flag\n when sample size (views) is too low to draw a strong conclusion.", "roles": [ "Marketing" ], "tags": [ "Analysis", "Reporting" ] }, { "id": "top-performing-content-digest", "title": "Top-Performing Content Digest", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "A quick, recurring digest of the best-performing demos/DemoBoards for internal sharing — a lighter-weight companion to the full Heatmap skill.", "samplePrompt": "What were our top 5 performing demos over the last [30] days, and what made\nthem perform well?", "roles": [ "Marketing" ], "tags": [ "Reporting" ] }, { "id": "campaign-to-demo-attribution-report", "title": "Campaign-to-Demo Attribution Report", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Connects marketing campaign source to downstream demo engagement and win rate, helping Marketing see which campaigns actually drive engaged pipeline.", "samplePrompt": "For leads/opportunities sourced from [campaign name], what does their\nConsensus demo engagement and win rate look like compared to our overall\naverage?", "roles": [ "Marketing" ], "tags": [ "Reporting", "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "mcp-adoption-utilization-audit", "title": "MCP Adoption & Utilization Audit", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Reports which teams or reps are under-using Consensus, giving RevOps a targeted list for enablement follow-up instead of a blanket reminder to \"use the tool more.\"", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nIdentify which teams or individual reps are under-utilizing Consensus\nrelative to the org, to target enablement effort where it will have\nthe most impact.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull org-wide usage data via sales_data_for_groups for the requested\n period.\n2. Calculate each team's/rep's activity relative to the org median\n (not just the top performer, which can be a misleading benchmark).\n3. Flag teams/reps significantly below median, and separately flag any\n with zero activity in the period (likely never onboarded or fully\n disengaged).\n4. Group findings by likely root cause where inferable (e.g., \"no\n activity ever\" vs. \"was active, now declining\").\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Reporting period (default: last 90 days)\n- Optional: scope to a specific business unit or region\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- Ranked list of lowest-utilization teams/reps\n- Separate \"zero activity\" flag list\n- A one-line suggested enablement action per flagged group\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Use median, not average, as the benchmark to avoid a few power users\n skewing the comparison.", "roles": [ "RevOps" ], "tags": [ "Analysis", "Reporting" ] }, { "id": "crm-to-consensus-attach-rate-report", "title": "CRM-to-Consensus Attach Rate Report", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Reports what percentage of pipeline/opportunities have an attached DemoBoard, by stage or rep, to track process adoption.", "samplePrompt": "What percentage of open opportunities at [stage or \"each stage\"] have an\nattached Consensus DemoBoard? Break it down by [rep/team] if possible.", "roles": [ "RevOps" ], "tags": [ "Reporting" ] }, { "id": "consensus-roi-executive-summary", "title": "Consensus ROI Executive Summary", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Ties Consensus usage directly to revenue/win-rate outcomes for leadership reporting — a one-shot summary for board or leadership updates.", "samplePrompt": "Summarize the business impact of Consensus over the last [quarter] for a\nleadership audience — usage trends, engagement highlights, and any\ncorrelation with win rate or deal velocity.", "roles": [ "Executive" ], "tags": [ "Reporting", "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "quarterly-business-review-deck-builder", "title": "Quarterly Business Review Deck Builder", "type": "PROJECT", "summary": "A saved workspace that assembles leaderboard and ROI data into a QBR deck outline each quarter, reducing the manual pull-and-format cycle for internal leadership reviews.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nAct as a QBR deck-building assistant for Consensus's own internal\nleadership review, assembling usage, adoption, and ROI data into a\nconsistent slide-by-slide outline each quarter.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull org-wide performance via sales_leaderboard and account-level\n ROI signals via sales_by_customer for the requested quarter.\n2. Structure into the standing deck outline (provided as a reference\n file): Adoption Trends, Top Performers, Notable Account Wins,\n Risks/Watch List, Next Quarter Focus.\n3. For each section, produce slide-ready bullets (not paragraphs) and\n flag which slides need a manual chart/screenshot the assistant can't\n generate directly.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Uploaded reference file: standing QBR deck outline/template\n- Target quarter\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A section-by-section outline with slide-ready bullets\n- A list of slides still needing manual visuals\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Keep the standing outline as the source of truth for structure;\n don't reorganize sections without being asked.", "roles": [ "Executive" ], "tags": [ "Reporting" ] }, { "id": "outbound-demo-personalizer", "title": "Outbound Demo Personalizer", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Finds a short, relevant demo clip to embed in personalized outbound based on a prospect's persona or industry, rather than sending generic outreach.", "samplePrompt": "I'm doing outbound to a [persona/title] at a [industry] company. What's a\nshort, relevant demo clip I could link in my outreach email?", "roles": [ "BDR/SDR" ], "tags": [ "Outreach" ] }, { "id": "meeting-prep-cheat-sheet", "title": "Meeting Prep Cheat Sheet", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Teaches the assistant to produce a fast, consistent prep sheet for a newly booked meeting using existing demo/transcript data, so BDRs walk into hand-off calls prepared without manual digging.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nProduce a quick-turn meeting prep cheat sheet for a BDR/SDR ahead of a\nnewly booked call, using any existing demo or transcript data tied to\nthe account or prospect.\n\nTasks:\n1. Search for any existing demo or DemoBoard activity tied to the\n account using search_demos / search_demoboards.\n2. If prior activity exists, pull key details via get_demo/get_transcript.\n3. Summarize into a 4-part cheat sheet: Who they are (role/context if\n known), What they've already seen (if anything), Talking points\n worth raising, and Questions worth asking to qualify further.\n4. If no prior activity exists, say so plainly and produce a\n generic-but-relevant version based on their stated industry/role.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Prospect name and/or account name\n- Meeting context (e.g., \"first qualifying call,\" \"demo hand-off\")\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- Four-part cheat sheet, bulleted, scannable in under a minute\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Never fabricate prior engagement — explicitly state when there's no\n existing activity found rather than implying there was.", "roles": [ "BDR/SDR" ], "tags": [ "Meeting Prep" ] }, { "id": "partner-enablement-demo-kit-builder", "title": "Partner Enablement Demo Kit Builder", "type": "PROJECT", "summary": "A saved workspace that helps a partner assemble a co-branded demo kit from existing library content, standardizing what partners send prospects on Consensus's behalf.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nHelp a channel/reseller partner assemble a demo kit from existing\nConsensus library content, appropriate to their vertical and the\nprospect stage they're selling into.\n\nTasks:\n1. Ask for the partner's target vertical/use case and the prospect\n stage (early awareness vs. late-stage evaluation) if not provided.\n2. Use search_demos to find 3-5 relevant demos matching that vertical\n and stage.\n3. Recommend an assembly order (which to send first, follow-up\n sequence) and note any that should be bundled into a single\n DemoBoard vs. sent separately.\n4. Flag anything not appropriate for co-branded/partner use if such\n restrictions are known.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Target vertical/use case\n- Prospect stage\n- Optional: partner's own branding/positioning notes\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A recommended list of 3-5 demos with sequencing guidance\n- Notes on which should be grouped into a single DemoBoard\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Default to conservative recommendations (well-established, broadly\n applicable demos) unless the partner specifies a very niche vertical.", "roles": [ "Channel/Reseller Partner" ], "tags": [ "Onboarding", "Outreach" ] }, { "id": "demoboard-builder-and-curator", "title": "Demoboard Builder & Curator", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Teaches best practices for assembling and organizing a new DemoBoard for a specific buying committee, so DemoBoards are consistently well-structured rather than ad hoc.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nAssemble a well-organized DemoBoard for a specific buying committee or\nuse case, following consistent structural best practices.\n\nTasks:\n1. Clarify the target audience/use case and buying-committee roles if\n not provided.\n2. Use search_demos to identify appropriate content per role\n represented on the committee.\n3. Use create_demoboard to assemble the board, grouping content by\n role or by buyer journey stage (whichever fits better given what's\n available) rather than a flat unordered list.\n4. Use update_demoboard to add a short framing note per section\n explaining why that content is included.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Target account/use case\n- Buying-committee roles involved\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A created DemoBoard with organized sections and framing notes\n- A summary of what was included and why\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Favor fewer, well-chosen pieces of content over an exhaustive dump —\n a DemoBoard with 12 unlabeled videos is worse than one with 4\n well-organized ones.", "roles": [ "Content Creator/Buyer Enablement" ], "tags": [ "Onboarding", "Automation" ] }, { "id": "demo-library-search-coach", "title": "Demo Library Search Coach", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Directly addresses the #1 most common customer question in Slack data — \"what parameters work for searching the Demo Library?\" — by teaching the assistant to guide users toward effective search queries rather than returning weak results silently.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nHelp users get better results from Consensus demo/content search by\nguiding query construction, rather than silently returning weak matches\nto poorly-formed queries.\n\nTasks:\n1. When a user's search query is very long, vague, or compound (multiple\n unrelated asks in one query), don't just run it as-is — first suggest\n a tighter, keyword-style reformulation and offer to run that instead.\n2. When search_demos/search_demoboards returns few or no strong matches,\n say so explicitly and suggest 1-2 alternative phrasings before\n concluding nothing relevant exists.\n3. Proactively explain, when relevant, that short/specific queries\n (1-3 keywords, e.g., a product name or industry term) generally\n outperform long natural-language descriptions.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- The user's original search intent, however it's phrased\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- Either strong search results, or a clear explanation of why results\n are weak plus a suggested reformulation\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Don't lecture on query technique every time — only surface guidance\n when a query is actually likely to underperform.", "roles": [ "All Roles" ], "tags": [ "Onboarding" ] }, { "id": "content-freshness-library-hygiene-auditor", "title": "Content Freshness / Library Hygiene Auditor", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Surfaces demos or DemoBoards that look active/updated in metadata but whose underlying video content is actually stale — a specific, recurring pain point around false confidence in content currency.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nIdentify demos/DemoBoards where the underlying content is likely stale,\neven if metadata (e.g., last-touched date) suggests otherwise, so\nMarketing can prioritize a refresh pass.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull the library's demo inventory with available metadata\n (creation date, last update, last significant engagement) via\n marketing_by_demo.\n2. Flag demos with very old creation dates and no recent meaningful\n edits, even if they still show recent views (views alone don't\n indicate freshness).\n3. Separately flag demos that reference product names, features, or\n pricing likely to have changed, if such terms are identifiable from\n title/summary text.\n4. Produce a prioritized refresh list, ordered by how frequently the\n stale content is still being actively used (higher usage = higher\n priority to fix).\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Optional: a list of recently deprecated/renamed features or products\n to check against\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A ranked \"refresh priority\" list: demo name, why flagged, current\n usage level\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Flag based on available metadata only — don't assume staleness\n without a metadata or content signal to point to.", "roles": [ "Marketing", "RevOps" ], "tags": [ "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "mcp-getting-started-best-practices-guide", "title": "MCP Getting-Started & Best Practices Guide", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "A self-serve 'getting started' skill addressing the recurring gap where customers connect the MCP, try a few prompts, get mediocre results, and give up rather than asking for help.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nAct as a first-touch guide for a customer new to the Consensus MCP\nconnector, orienting them to what's possible and steering them toward\nthe highest-value prompts for their role.\n\nTasks:\n1. Ask (if not already known) what role the user is in, so guidance can\n be role-relevant rather than generic.\n2. Briefly explain, in plain language, the 3-4 things the Consensus MCP\n is best at (finding relevant demo content, pulling engagement/usage\n data, building DemoBoards, surfacing performance analytics).\n3. Recommend 2-3 specific starter prompts from the library matched to\n their role, rather than a generic list of every possible prompt.\n4. Proactively mention 1-2 known limitations relevant to their likely\n first attempts (e.g., search works best with short keyword queries;\n individual-viewer data isn't always available).\n\nInputs Expected:\n- User's role (ask if not provided)\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A short orientation (3-4 sentences) plus 2-3 concrete starter prompts\n to try immediately\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Bias toward getting the user to a successful first result quickly\n over being comprehensive — this is an onboarding moment, not a full\n reference document.", "roles": [ "All Roles" ], "tags": [ "Onboarding" ] }, { "id": "champion-and-influencer-identifier", "title": "Champion & Influencer Identifier", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Surfaces likely internal champions from engagement signals — full watch-throughs, re-shares, geographic/org spread of viewers — a recurring ask distinct from (and complementary to) the Stakeholder Gap Finder.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nIdentify likely internal champions for an opportunity or account based\non engagement signal strength, not just engagement presence.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull DemoBoard viewer/engagement data via get_demoboard.\n2. Score engagement signals: full watch-throughs weigh higher than\n partial views; re-sharing the board to new viewers weighs higher\n than solo viewing; and viewers spanning multiple departments/offices\n suggest broader internal socialization.\n3. Rank viewers by combined signal strength rather than raw view count\n alone.\n4. Name the top 1-2 likely champions and explain which signals drove\n the ranking.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Account or opportunity name\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- Ranked list of likely champions with the specific signals behind\n each ranking\n- A suggested next action (e.g., \"worth looping [name] into the next\n call directly\")\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Be explicit that this is a signal-based inference, not a confirmed\n fact — avoid presenting \"likely champion\" as certain.", "roles": [ "Account Executive", "Customer Success Manager" ], "tags": [ "Analysis", "Meeting Prep" ] }, { "id": "viewer-insight-personalized-outreach-writer", "title": "Viewer-Insight Personalized Outreach Writer", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Drafts a follow-up email personalized to what a specific viewer actually engaged with in a DemoBoard — directly modeled on a real workflow already being done manually by at least one rep.", "samplePrompt": "[Viewer name] viewed our DemoBoard for [account]. Look at what they\nengaged with most and draft a short, personalized follow-up email\nreferencing that specifically.", "roles": [ "Account Executive", "BDR/SDR" ], "tags": [ "Outreach" ] }, { "id": "content-gap-analyzer-transcript-comparison", "title": "Content Gap Analyzer (Transcript Comparison)", "type": "SKILL", "summary": "Compares two demo transcripts to identify topic/feature coverage differences — useful for competitive positioning gaps or inconsistent messaging across similar demos.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nCompare two demo transcripts to identify topics, features, or messaging\npresent in one but missing from the other.\n\nTasks:\n1. Pull both transcripts via get_transcript.\n2. Extract the key topics/features covered in each.\n3. Produce a side-by-side comparison: covered in both, covered only in\n demo A, covered only in demo B.\n4. Flag anything in the \"only in one\" columns that seems like it should\n likely be covered in both, based on how similar the two demos are\n overall.\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Two demo names/IDs to compare\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A three-column comparison table (Both / Only A / Only B)\n- A short \"worth reviewing\" callout for likely unintentional gaps\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- This is a coverage comparison, not a quality judgment — a topic\n being \"only in A\" isn't automatically a problem worth fixing.", "roles": [ "Marketing", "Product Marketing" ], "tags": [ "Analysis" ] }, { "id": "customer-proof-point-finder", "title": "Customer Proof-Point Finder", "type": "PROMPT", "summary": "Pulls relevant case studies, quotes, or win-rate stats by industry or objection — powered by the ThoughtSpot connector rather than Consensus MCP directly, matching a real, already-observed usage pattern.", "samplePrompt": "Do we have any customer proof points — case studies, quotes, or win-rate\ndata — for [industry] customers, especially around [objection or use\ncase]?", "roles": [ "Account Executive", "Marketing" ], "tags": [ "Outreach", "Research" ] }, { "id": "sales-cycle-stage-playbook-builder", "title": "Sales-Cycle Stage Playbook Builder", "type": "PROJECT", "summary": "A saved workspace that recommends next-best content or action based on deal stage and upsell signals — distinct from the QBR/renewal items by focusing on active, in-cycle deal progression rather than post-sale reporting.", "samplePrompt": "Goal:\nRecommend next-best Consensus content or action for an active deal,\nbased on its current sales-cycle stage and any upsell/expansion signals\npresent.\n\nTasks:\n1. Given a deal name and current stage (discovery, evaluation,\n negotiation, closed-won/expansion), reference the attached sales\n playbook to determine what's expected at that stage.\n2. Use search_demos/search_demoboards to find content matching that\n stage's needs.\n3. If the deal is closed-won, check for expansion/upsell signals in\n engagement data (e.g., adjacent-product content being viewed) via\n sales_by_customer, and recommend relevant expansion content if\n signals are present.\n4. Recommend a specific next action, not just content — e.g., \"send\n this DemoBoard\" vs. \"schedule a technical deep-dive.\"\n\nInputs Expected:\n- Uploaded reference file: the team's sales playbook by stage\n- Deal name and current stage\n\nExpected Outputs:\n- A recommended content/action pair for the current stage\n- If applicable, an expansion signal callout with suggested next step\n\nAdditional Notes:\n- Treat the uploaded playbook as authoritative for stage definitions\n and expectations; don't substitute generic sales-stage assumptions.", "roles": [ "Sales Manager", "Account Executive" ], "tags": [ "Automation", "Reporting" ] } ]