Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

meddic-scorecard医疗记分卡

Agent Skill

meddic-scorecard 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

1,953

周安装

79

GitHub Stars

85

下载量

613
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:meddic-scorecard(医疗记分卡)
来源仓库:https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills
仓库路径:skills/meddic-scorecard
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard

简介

meddic-scorecard 用于医疗领域的评分卡构建与信息检索,支持在多种宿主环境中快速获取相关数据。

  • 适用于医疗指标评估、数据来源筛选及任务导向的信息聚合。
  • 通过 npx skills add 命令从 clawfu-skills 仓库安装使用。
  • 需注意权限控制、网络访问限制及潜在的文件系统操作风险。
  • 建议查阅原始文档以明确评分逻辑和使用范围。

SKILL.md

MEDDIC Scorecard

Build systematic deal scorecards using MEDDIC/MEDDPICC methodology to improve pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and coaching effectiveness.

When to Use This Skill

  • Weekly pipeline reviews
  • Deal coaching sessions
  • Forecast call preparation
  • Win/loss analysis
  • Sales enablement training

Methodology Foundation

Based on PTC's MEDDIC (Dick Dunkel) extended to MEDDPICC, creating standardized scorecards for:

  • Deal qualification scoring
  • Gap identification
  • Coaching prioritization
  • Forecast confidence

What Claude Does vs What You Decide

Claude DoesYou Decide
Creates scorecard templatesDeal stage thresholds
Suggests scoring criteriaCoaching priorities
Identifies deal gapsForecast commits
Generates coaching questionsResource allocation
Tracks deal progressionWin strategy

Instructions

Step 1: Define Scoring Criteria

MEDDPICC Components:

ComponentDefinitionScoring Weight
MetricsQuantified business outcomes15%
Economic BuyerBudget authority identified15%
Decision CriteriaHow they'll evaluate10%
Decision ProcessSteps to purchase10%
Paper ProcessLegal/procurement10%
Identify PainBusiness problem articulated15%
ChampionInternal advocate confirmed15%
CompetitionCompetitive landscape known10%

Step 2: Create Scoring Rubric

Per-Component Scoring (0-3):

ScoreDefinitionEvidence Required
0UnknownNo information gathered
1IdentifiedBasic information, not verified
2ValidatedConfirmed with prospect
3LeveragedActively using in deal strategy

Step 3: Build Stage Gates

Stage-Score Alignment:

StageMinimum ScoreRequired 3s
Discovery8/24Pain
Qualification12/24Pain, Champion
Demo/Evaluation16/24Pain, Champion, Criteria
Proposal18/24+ Economic Buyer
Negotiation21/24+ Paper Process
Commit22/24All components validated

Step 4: Track and Coach

Weekly Review Focus:

  • Deals below stage threshold
  • Score changes (positive/negative)
  • Gaps in critical components
  • Champion health check
  • Competition updates

Step 5: Analyze Patterns

Pipeline Health Metrics:

  • Average score by stage
  • Conversion rates by score threshold
  • Most common gaps
  • Champion strength correlation

Examples

Example 1: Complete Deal Scorecard

Input:

Create a MEDDPICC scorecard for:
- Deal: Enterprise software sale, $400K
- Stage: Proposal
- Champion: VP of Operations
- EB: CFO (not met)
- Timeline: Q1 close

Output:

## MEDDPICC Deal Scorecard

### Deal Overview

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Account | [Customer Name] |
| Opportunity | Enterprise Platform |
| Value | $400,000 ARR |
| Stage | Proposal |
| Close Date | Q1 (March 30) |
| AE | [Name] |
| Last Updated | [Date] |

---

### Score Summary

**Total Score: 16/24** | Stage Requirement: 18/24

| Component | Score | Stage Req | Status |
|-----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Metrics | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Economic Buyer | 1/3 | **3** | ❌ GAP |
| Decision Criteria | 3/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Decision Process | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Paper Process | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |
| Identify Pain | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Champion | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Competition | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |

**Status: NOT READY FOR PROPOSAL** - 3 gaps to address

---

### Component Details

#### Metrics (2/3) ✅ On Track

**Current State:**
- ROI target: 3x in Year 1 ✓
- Primary KPI: Reduce processing time 40% ✓
- CFO business case: Not yet presented ✗

**Evidence:**
> "If we hit 40% reduction, that's $1.2M in operational savings"
> — VP Operations, Discovery Call

**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Present business case to CFO
- [ ] Get CFO to validate assumptions

---

#### Economic Buyer (1/3) ❌ CRITICAL GAP

**Current State:**
- EB Identified: CFO Jennifer Walsh ✓
- Access: Email only, no meeting ✗
- Engagement: Unknown priorities ✗

**Gap Analysis:**
We have not met the Economic Buyer. This is a **deal blocker**
for Proposal stage. Champion (VP Ops) reports to CFO but has
not secured meeting.

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask Champion for CFO meeting this week
- [ ] Prepare executive briefing deck
- [ ] Identify CFO's priorities for Q1

**Coaching Questions:**
1. "What's preventing us from meeting the CFO?"
2. "What does your champion say about CFO's priorities?"
3. "Can we propose a joint call with champion + CFO?"

---

#### Decision Criteria (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Current State:**
- Formal criteria documented ✓
- Weighted by priority ✓
- Aligned with our strengths ✓

**Evidence:**
| Criterion | Weight | Our Fit |
|-----------|--------|---------|
| Integration depth | 30% | Strong |
| Time to value | 25% | Strong |
| Total cost | 20% | Medium |
| Support | 15% | Strong |
| References | 10% | Strong |

---

#### Decision Process (2/3) ⚠️ Needs Validation

**Current State:**
- Steps identified ✓
- Timeline mapped ✓
- Approvers known ✓
- Specific dates: Partial ✗

**Process Map:**

Step 1: Technical evaluation ✅ Complete Step 2: Business review ✅ Complete Step 3: Proposal review ⏳ This week Step 4: CFO approval ⏳ [Date TBD] Step 5: Legal/Procurement ⏳ [Timeline unknown] Step 6: Signature ⏳ Target: March 30

**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Confirm CFO meeting date
- [ ] Map procurement timeline
- [ ] Identify potential delays

---

#### Paper Process (1/3) ⚠️ GAP

**Current State:**
- Legal review required: Likely ✓
- Timeline: Unknown ✗
- Procurement contact: Not identified ✗
- Standard terms acceptable: Unknown ✗

**Risk Assessment:**
Paper process is a common source of deal slip at this stage.
Unknown timeline creates forecast risk.

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion about procurement process
- [ ] Identify legal/procurement contacts
- [ ] Offer to start MSA review early

---

#### Identify Pain (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Current State:**
- Pain articulated ✓
- Quantified impact ✓
- Urgency established ✓
- Consequences of inaction clear ✓

**Pain Statement:**
> "Manual processing is costing us 8,000 hours/year. We've
> missed SLAs 3 times this quarter. If we don't fix this,
> we'll lose the [Major Customer] contract."

**Business Impact:**
- 8,000 hours × $50/hr = $400K labor cost
- SLA penalties: $200K potential
- Customer retention risk: $2M contract

---

#### Champion (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Champion Profile:**
| Attribute | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Name | Michael Chen, VP Operations |
| Access | Reports to CFO |
| Influence | High - owns the budget |
| Motivation | Personal - promoted if successful |
| Engagement | Weekly calls, sharing internally |

**Champion Test:**
- ✅ Sells when we're not in the room
- ✅ Shares competitive intel
- ✅ Gives us bad news
- ⚠️ Has not secured CFO meeting yet

---

#### Competition (1/3) ⚠️ GAP

**Current State:**
- Competitors identified: 1 known ✓
- Their status: Unknown ✗
- Their approach: Unknown ✗
- Our differentiation: Assumed ✗

**Known Information:**
- Competitor X was evaluated
- Champion said "we've narrowed to two"
- No pricing or proposal intel

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion directly about competitor status
- [ ] Understand competitor's proposal/pricing
- [ ] Prepare competitive positioning

---

### Gap Resolution Plan

| Gap | Priority | Action | Owner | Due |
|-----|----------|--------|-------|-----|
| Economic Buyer | P1 | Request CFO meeting | AE + Champion | This week |
| Competition | P2 | Discovery with champion | AE | Day 2 |
| Paper Process | P2 | Map procurement timeline | AE | Day 3 |

---

### Coaching Summary

**Primary Focus:** Get in front of CFO before sending proposal

**Key Questions to Ask in 1:1:**
1. Why haven't we met the Economic Buyer yet?
2. What do we actually know about the competition?
3. What could cause this deal to slip past Q1?

**Forecast Recommendation:**
- Current: In forecast at 50%
- Recommendation: Keep at 50% until CFO meeting secured
- Path to 80%: EB meeting + Competition clarity + Paper process mapped

Example 2: Pipeline Review Summary

Input:

Summarize MEDDPICC health for these 5 deals:
1. Deal A: 22/24 (Commit stage)
2. Deal B: 14/24 (Proposal stage)
3. Deal C: 18/24 (Demo stage)
4. Deal D: 10/24 (Qualification stage)
5. Deal E: 16/24 (Negotiation stage)

Output:

## Pipeline MEDDPICC Health Summary

### Overview

| Deal | Stage | Score | Req'd | Status |
|------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
| Deal A | Commit | 22/24 | 22 | ✅ On track |
| Deal B | Proposal | 14/24 | 18 | ❌ 4 pts below |
| Deal C | Demo | 18/24 | 16 | ✅ Above req |
| Deal D | Qualification | 10/24 | 12 | ❌ 2 pts below |
| Deal E | Negotiation | 16/24 | 21 | ❌ 5 pts below |

**Pipeline Health: 2/5 deals on track (40%)**

---

### Priority Attention

| Priority | Deal | Issue | Recommended Action |
|----------|------|-------|-------------------|
| P1 | Deal E | 5 pts below in Negotiation | Pull back to Proposal |
| P2 | Deal B | 4 pts below in Proposal | Hold proposal, fill gaps |
| P3 | Deal D | 2 pts below in Qualification | Accelerate discovery |

---

### Deal E (CRITICAL)

**Problem:** In Negotiation stage with 16/24 score (req: 21)

This deal is at high risk. Likely gaps in:
- Economic Buyer (not confirmed?)
- Paper Process (not mapped?)
- Competition (unknown?)

**Recommendation:** Do not forecast this deal. Move back to
Proposal stage and address gaps before continuing negotiation.

---

### Common Gaps Across Pipeline

| Component | Avg Score | Concern |
|-----------|-----------|---------|
| Paper Process | 1.2/3 | Most common gap |
| Competition | 1.4/3 | Frequent blind spot |
| Economic Buyer | 1.8/3 | Access issue |

**Coaching Focus:** Paper Process discovery earlier in cycle

Skill Boundaries

What This Skill Does Well

  • Creating structured scorecards
  • Identifying deal gaps
  • Generating coaching questions
  • Tracking deal progression

What This Skill Cannot Do

  • Access your CRM data
  • Know specific deal context
  • Make forecast decisions
  • Replace sales judgment

Iteration Guide

Follow-up Prompts:

  • "Create coaching questions for [component]"
  • "What should we ask about [specific gap]?"
  • "Design stage gate criteria for our process"
  • "Analyze win/loss patterns from scorecards"

References

  • PTC MEDDIC Methodology (Dick Dunkel)
  • Force Management MEDDICC
  • Winning by Design Sales Process
  • Gong Sales Coaching Research

Related Skills

  • lead-qualification-meddic - Full qualification framework
  • deal-risk-scoring - Risk assessment
  • pipeline-forecasting - Forecast methodology

Skill Metadata

  • Domain: Sales
  • Complexity: Intermediate
  • Mode: centaur
  • Time to Value: 15-30 min per deal
  • Prerequisites: Deal information, CRM access

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.57%
按下载量换算236

Claude

27.99%
按下载量换算172

Cursor

20.62%
按下载量换算126

Gemini CLI

8.79%
按下载量换算54

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills