Case Study Builder

Position in workflow: v1.0 Mom Test Interview → v1.0 Case Study Builder → v1.0 Testimonial Collector, GTM channels

Execution Mode

Default is standard. See .claude/rules/08-skill-execution-modes.md for selection logic.

Mode	What this skill produces
quick	Short-format case (testimonial + 1-paragraph story + logo); single placement
standard	Full case study (1,500 words) + short and medium derivatives + customer-approved + 3 channel placements
deep	Long-form case (2,500–4,000 words) + multi-format derivatives (PDF, blog, video, conference talk) + measurable outcome quantified + outcome-attribution interview

What This Does

Turns customer success — already documented as CFD-* evidence and ADO-REF-* candidates — into structured case studies. Case studies are the pragmatist buyer's #1 reference signal: they need to see a customer in their segment achieving the outcome they want, with enough detail to make it credible.

This is an operational "doing" skill, not a strategy skill. The strategic question (which segment, what story angle, what outcome to highlight) was answered by prd-v10-chasm-adoption-moore. This skill produces the artifact.

How It Works

1. Identify candidate customers — Pull from ADO-REF-* candidates and CFD-* entries with strong outcome quantification. Must satisfy:
   • In-beachhead (or in an adjacent segment where the story would still resonate)
   • Has a quantifiable outcome to talk about
   • Willing to be public (consent path is clear)
2. Run the case-study interview — Extended Mom Test interview (45–60 min), focused on:
   • Before-state (specific past: what life was like, what tools, what cost)
   • Trigger (what changed; why they evaluated alternatives)
   • Evaluation (who they considered; how they chose)
   • Implementation (what happened in onboarding; what was hard)
   • After-state (specific present: quantified outcome, time/money saved, what they can do now they couldn't)
3. Structure the story — Situation → Complication → Question → Resolution (the McKinsey SCQR pattern):
   • Situation: where they were before
   • Complication: what broke / changed / hit a wall
   • Question: what they needed to figure out
   • Resolution: how they solved it (your product as one part of the answer, ideally credibly)
4. Quantify outcome — Specific numbers beat vague claims:
   • "Cut tier-selection time from 3 days to 30 minutes" beats "much faster"
   • "Saved $12k/year on tool consolidation" beats "saves money"
   • "85% activation rate (industry average 35%)" beats "great activation"
5. Get customer review — Send draft to customer for accuracy + tone + legal. Iterate until approved.
6. Produce in 3 formats:
   • Short (testimonial — 1–2 sentences + name + role + logo): for landing pages, pricing page, ad creative
   • Medium (1-paragraph + 3 bullet outcomes + logo + linked deeper): for "Customers" page, social, email
   • Long (1,500–2,500 word case study): for blog, sales enablement, sales call followup

Example

Customer: Acme Logistics (beachhead segment: freight forwarders, 50-200 employees, US PNW). ADO-REF-002.

Interview: 50 minutes with Acme's VP Operations.

Quantified outcome:

• Tier-selection time: 3 days → 30 min (90% reduction)
• Annual savings from tool consolidation: $14k
• Onboarding time per new hire: 2 weeks → 3 days (after migrating to product)

SCQR:

• Situation: Acme used 4 disjointed tools to track shipments, with manual export every Friday for ops reporting
• Complication: Two new hires + a Q3 customer surge meant the manual export bottlenecked the team; ops director was working Saturdays to keep the dashboards current
• Question: How could Acme consolidate tooling without disrupting an in-flight Q4 customer onboarding?
• Resolution: Acme migrated to [product] over 3 weeks; consolidated 4 tools to 1; automated the Friday export. VP Operations reclaimed 6 hours/week. New hires onboard in 3 days instead of 2 weeks.

Three formats produced:

• Short: "We replaced 4 tools with [product] and cut new-hire onboarding from 2 weeks to 3 days." — [Name], VP Ops, Acme Logistics
• Medium: 1-paragraph + 3 bullet outcomes + Acme logo + "Read the full story →"
• Long: 1,800-word blog case study with screenshots, quotes, before/after metrics, and an embedded testimonial video.

What You Get Back

• CFD-CASE-* entries — One per case-study interview; the durable evidence record
• GTM-CASE-* entries (one per produced format) — Marketing assets with placement plan
• Updates to ADO-REF-* entries — Reference status: "draft pending" → "approved" → "published"
• Customer approval record — Signed approval + version-controlled draft history

When to Use It

Trigger	Mode
First reference customer in beachhead is ready to talk	standard
Chasm-crossing push needs 3+ in-segment case studies	deep
Pricing-page logo wall expansion	quick (short format only)
Sales enablement asset for new segment	standard
Investor / partner update	standard
Customer success milestone (e.g., 1-year anniversary)	quick

Do not use for: customers outside beachhead during chasm crossing (their story doesn't resonate with pragmatists); customers without consent (legal risk); customers without quantifiable outcomes (story will feel vague).

Consumes

• CFD-* customer evidence (Mom Test discipline) — Source for candidate selection
• ADO-REF-* candidates (from prd-v10-chasm-adoption-moore) — Cultivated reference targets
• ADO-BEACHHEAD-* — Defines "in-segment" for case priority
• KPI-* outcomes — Defines what "outcome" means; case quantification must speak to these
• GTM-* positioning + offer — Tone, voice, and value claims must match positioning
• BR-POS-* — Constraints (e.g., "no enterprise procurement language")

Produces

• CFD-CASE-* entries in SoT/SoT.customer_feedback.md
• GTM-CASE-* entries (with Type=Case-Asset) for each produced format
• ADO-REF-* updates — Status, placement, consent tracking
• CFD-* gaps surfaced — If outcome can't be quantified, log as research gap

Output Template

CFD-CASE-XXX: Case Study — [Customer Name]
Type: Case-Study
Date: YYYY-MM-DD
Customer: [Logo / company name]
Customer fit: [In-beachhead | Adjacent segment]
Interview length: [minutes]
Interviewer: [Name]

Quantified outcome (the proof):
  Before: [Specific number / state]
  After: [Specific number / state]
  Delta: [%change or $ value]
  Time horizon: [over what period]

Story (SCQR):
  Situation: [Where they were before]
  Complication: [What changed / broke / hit a wall]
  Question: [What they needed to figure out]
  Resolution: [How it got solved — your product as part of the answer]

Quotes (verbatim, approved):
  - "[Quote]" — [Name, Role]
  - "[Quote]" — [Name, Role]

Customer approval:
  Approved by: [Name, Role]
  Approved version: vX
  Date: YYYY-MM-DD
  Scope: [logo only | quote | full case study | on-stage]

Linked formats:
  Short: GTM-CASE-AAA
  Medium: GTM-CASE-BBB
  Long: GTM-CASE-CCC

Linked IDs: ADO-REF-XXX (cultivation), PER-YYY (segment fit), KPI-ZZZ (outcome), CFD-AAA (interview source)

GTM-CASE-XXX: Case-Study Asset — [Format]
Type: Case-Asset
Format: [Short | Medium | Long]
Channel: [Landing page | Pricing page | Blog | Sales deck | Email | Ad creative]
Owner: [Person / role]
Status: [Draft | In review | Approved | Live]

Content: [The actual asset content — quote, paragraph, full case]

Placement plan:
  - [URL or section, e.g., "/pricing — Acme logo wall, position 3"]

Attribution: utm_campaign=case-<customer>

Linked IDs: CFD-CASE-AAA (parent case), ADO-REF-BBB (reference account), GTM-YYY (positioning)

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Signal	Fix
No quantified outcome	"Customer loves us!"	Specific numbers or skip; vague cases don't move pragmatists
Wrong segment	Featuring a startup case to a pragmatist enterprise audience	In-segment cases only during chasm crossing
No customer approval on record	Published with assumed approval	Always get signed approval; preserve version history
Marketing voice override	Customer's actual words rewritten into your marketing tone	Their voice; light edits for clarity only
Single-format publish	Long-form blog only	Three formats: short for placement, medium for browsing, long for depth
One-and-done	Case study published, never updated	Refresh quarterly with new outcome data; cases stale fast
Featuring failures-rebranded-as-wins	"We rebuilt their entire infrastructure" hides "we replaced a failed implementation"	Don't dress up bad stories; pragmatists smell it

Quality Gates

Before publishing:

• Customer in-beachhead or rationale for cross-segment placement
• Outcome quantified with specific numbers
• SCQR structure complete (Situation, Complication, Question, Resolution)
• Verbatim quotes with name + role
• Customer approval on record (scope explicit)
• Three formats produced (short, medium, long) — or rationale for fewer
• Placement plan per format
• Voice matches GTM- positioning (and customer's actual words)
• BR-POS-* constraints honored

Downstream Connections

Consumer	What it uses	Example
Launch Channels (ORB)	Cases become Owned and Borrowed channel content	Blog case = Owned; co-marketing case = Borrowed
Alternatives Pages	Cases anchor "when to pick us" sections with real proof	Page references Acme case for migration-from-X story
Cold Outreach (Tiered)	Cases referenced in Touch 3 of sequences	Tier 1 outreach mentions in-segment case study
Testimonial Collector	Short-format derivatives are testimonial-shaped	Auto-eligible for testimonial walls
AEO Audit	Cases become AI-citation sources	High-traffic case pages cited by AI search
Sales / Investor	Direct asset for sales calls and investor updates	"Here's how Acme uses [product]"

Detailed References

• BrianRWagner's case-study-builder skill (ai-marketing-claude-code-skills)
• Joe Pulizzi, Epic Content Marketing (case study as content)
• Annette Franz, Customer Understanding (interview discipline)
• McKinsey's SCQR (Situation/Complication/Question/Resolution) framework
• (No bundled references/ — the case study itself is the artifact)