Sales engineer
Unified skill library for Claude, Codex, Cursor, Antigravity & AI agents — 2,658 skills across 15 domains
npx -y skills add sinhoneyy/master-skills --skill sales-engineerAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 9 stars9 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Analyzes RFP/RFI responses for coverage gaps, builds competitive feature comparison matrices, and plans proof-of-concept (POC) engagements for pre-sales engineering. Use when responding to RFPs, bids, or proposal requests; comparing product features against competitors; planning or scoring a customer POC or sales demo; preparing a technical proposal; or performing win/loss competitor analysis. Handles tasks described as 'RFP response', 'bid response', 'proposal response', 'competitor comparison', 'feature matrix', 'POC planning', 'sales demo prep', or 'pre-sales engineering'.
SKILL.md
9.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Sales Engineer Skill
5-Phase Workflow
Phase 1: Discovery & Research
Objective: Understand customer requirements, technical environment, and business drivers.
Checklist:
- Conduct technical discovery calls with stakeholders
- Map customer's current architecture and pain points
- Identify integration requirements and constraints
- Document security and compliance requirements
- Assess competitive landscape for this opportunity
Tools: Run rfp_response_analyzer.py to score initial requirement alignment.
python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json --format json > phase1_rfp_results.json
Output: Technical discovery document, requirement map, initial coverage assessment.
Validation checkpoint: Coverage score must be >50% and must-have gaps ≤3 before proceeding to Phase 2. Check with:
python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json --format json | python -c "import sys,json; r=json.load(sys.stdin); print('PROCEED' if r['coverage_score']>50 and r['must_have_gaps']<=3 else 'REVIEW')"
Phase 2: Solution Design
Objective: Design a solution architecture that addresses customer requirements.
Checklist:
- Map product capabilities to customer requirements
- Design integration architecture
- Identify customization needs and development effort
- Build competitive differentiation strategy
- Create solution architecture diagrams
Tools: Run competitive_matrix_builder.py using Phase 1 data to identify differentiators and vulnerabilities.
python scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json > phase2_competitive.json
python -c "import json; d=json.load(open('phase2_competitive.json')); print('Differentiators:', d['differentiators']); print('Vulnerabilities:', d['vulnerabilities'])"
Output: Solution architecture, competitive positioning, technical differentiation strategy.
Validation checkpoint: Confirm at least one strong differentiator exists per customer priority before proceeding to Phase 3. If no differentiators found, escalate to Product Team (see Integration Points).
Phase 3: Demo Preparation & Delivery
Objective: Deliver compelling technical demonstrations tailored to stakeholder priorities.
Checklist:
- Build demo environment matching customer's use case
- Create demo script with talking points per stakeholder role
- Prepare objection handling responses
- Rehearse failure scenarios and recovery paths
- Collect feedback and adjust approach
Templates: Use assets/demo_script_template.md for structured demo preparation.
Output: Customized demo, stakeholder-specific talking points, feedback capture.
Validation checkpoint: Demo script must cover every must-have requirement flagged in phase1_rfp_results.json before delivery. Cross-reference with:
python -c "import json; rfp=json.load(open('phase1_rfp_results.json')); [print('UNCOVERED:', r) for r in rfp['must_have_requirements'] if r['coverage']=='Gap']"
Phase 4: POC & Evaluation
Objective: Execute a structured proof-of-concept that validates the solution.
Checklist:
- Define POC scope, success criteria, and timeline
- Allocate resources and set up environment
- Execute phased testing (core, advanced, edge cases)
- Track progress against success criteria
- Generate evaluation scorecard
Tools: Run poc_planner.py to generate the complete POC plan.
python scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json > phase4_poc_plan.json
python -c "import json; p=json.load(open('phase4_poc_plan.json')); print('Go/No-Go:', p['recommendation'])"
Templates: Use assets/poc_scorecard_template.md for evaluation tracking.
Output: POC plan, evaluation scorecard, go/no-go recommendation.
Validation checkpoint: POC conversion requires scorecard score >60% across all evaluation dimensions (functionality, performance, integration, usability, support). If score <60%, document gaps and loop back to Phase 2 for solution redesign.
Phase 5: Proposal & Closing
Objective: Deliver a technical proposal that supports the commercial close.
Checklist:
- Compile POC results and success metrics
- Create technical proposal with implementation plan
- Address outstanding objections with evidence
- Support pricing and packaging discussions
- Conduct win/loss analysis post-decision
Templates: Use assets/technical_proposal_template.md for the proposal document.
Output: Technical proposal, implementation timeline, risk mitigation plan.
Python Automation Tools
1. RFP Response Analyzer
Script: scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py
Purpose: Parse RFP/RFI requirements, score coverage, identify gaps, and generate bid/no-bid recommendations.
Coverage Categories: Full (100%), Partial (50%), Planned (25%), Gap (0%).
Priority Weighting: Must-Have 3×, Should-Have 2×, Nice-to-Have 1×.
Bid/No-Bid Logic:
- Bid: Coverage >70% AND must-have gaps ≤3
- Conditional Bid: Coverage 50–70% OR must-have gaps 2–3
- No-Bid: Coverage <50% OR must-have gaps >3
Usage:
python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json # human-readable
python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py assets/sample_rfp_data.json --format json # JSON output
python scripts/rfp_response_analyzer.py --help
Input Format: See assets/sample_rfp_data.json for the complete schema.
2. Competitive Matrix Builder
Script: scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py
Purpose: Generate feature comparison matrices, calculate competitive scores, identify differentiators and vulnerabilities.
Feature Scoring: Full (3), Partial (2), Limited (1), None (0).
Usage:
python scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json # human-readable
python scripts/competitive_matrix_builder.py competitive_data.json --format json # JSON output
Output Includes: Feature comparison matrix, weighted competitive scores, differentiators, vulnerabilities, and win themes.
3. POC Planner
Script: scripts/poc_planner.py
Purpose: Generate structured POC plans with timeline, resource allocation, success criteria, and evaluation scorecards.
Default Phase Breakdown:
- Week 1: Setup — environment provisioning, data migration, configuration
- Weeks 2–3: Core Testing — primary use cases, integration testing
- Week 4: Advanced Testing — edge cases, performance, security
- Week 5: Evaluation — scorecard completion, stakeholder review, go/no-go
Usage:
python scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json # human-readable
python scripts/poc_planner.py poc_data.json --format json # JSON output
Output Includes: Phased POC plan, resource allocation, success criteria, evaluation scorecard, risk register, and go/no-go recommendation framework.
Reference Knowledge Bases
| Reference | Description |
|---|---|
references/rfp-response-guide.md | RFP/RFI response best practices, compliance matrix, bid/no-bid framework |
references/competitive-positioning-framework.md | Competitive analysis methodology, battlecard creation, objection handling |
references/poc-best-practices.md | POC planning methodology, success criteria, evaluation frameworks |
Asset Templates
| Template | Purpose |
|---|---|
assets/technical_proposal_template.md | Technical proposal with executive summary, solution architecture, implementation plan |
assets/demo_script_template.md | Demo script with agenda, talking points, objection handling |
assets/poc_scorecard_template.md | POC evaluation scorecard with weighted scoring |
assets/sample_rfp_data.json | Sample RFP data for testing the analyzer |
assets/expected_output.json | Expected output from rfp_response_analyzer.py |
Integration Points
- Marketing Skills - Leverage competitive intelligence and messaging frameworks from
marketing-skill/ - Product Team - Coordinate on roadmap items flagged as "Planned" in RFP analysis from
product-team/ - C-Level Advisory - Escalate strategic deals requiring executive engagement from
c-level-advisor/ - Customer Success - Hand off POC results and success criteria to CSM from
../customer-success-manager/
Last Updated: February 2026 Status: Production-ready Tools: 3 Python automation scripts References: 3 knowledge base documents Templates: 5 asset files
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most plan spec skills give
Counted across 1,100 of the 1,860 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-06
- ask one question at a timein 46 of 1100, across 38 files
- Break plans into vertical slicesin 28 of 1100, across 10 files
- Publish issues in dependency orderin 27 of 1100, across 9 files
- Iterate until user approves the breakdownin 24 of 1100, across 6 files
- Explore the repository to understand the codebase statein 24 of 1100, across 7 files
- Use domain glossary vocabularyin 23 of 1100, across 5 files
- Apply correct triage labels to published issuesin 23 of 1100, across 5 files
- Write failing tests before implementation codein 23 of 1100, across 18 files
- Prefer AFK slices over HITLin 22 of 1100, across 7 files
- ask clarifying questions until requirements are concretein 21 of 1100, across 13 files
- Respect existing architecture decision recordsin 20 of 1100, across 5 files
- write a specification before writing any codein 20 of 1100, across 12 files
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once.