본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

objection-handling

Handle sales objections using tactical empathy. Use when the user says "how do I handle this objection", "prospect said [X]", "they pushed back on price", "they said they're not ready", "how to respond to 'we already have a solution'", "they said 'send me more information'", "objection response", "they went dark after the proposal", "how to handle 'we don't have budget'", or wants to craft a response to a specific sales objection.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Overview

Based on "Never Split the Difference" by Chris Voss. Voss, former FBI lead hostage negotiator, argues that rational argument rarely moves people in high-stakes conversations - emotional acknowledgment does. His Tactical Empathy framework - labeling emotions, using calibrated questions, and getting the prospect to say "that's right" - is directly applicable to sales objections. The goal is not to counter the objection. The goal is to make the prospect feel heard, then redirect.

Workflow

Step 1: Identify the objection type

Before responding, classify the objection. Different types require different responses.

TypeWhat it sounds likeWhat it usually means
Smokescreen"Send me more info" / "We'll revisit next quarter"They don't see enough value yet or don't want to say no
Genuine concern"We're worried about integration complexity"A real blocker that needs a real answer
Stall"We're not ready to make a decision right now"Stakeholder alignment is incomplete internally
Price"This is more than we expected / budgeted"Value hasn't been established relative to cost
Competitor"We're also looking at [competitor]"You haven't differentiated clearly enough

Responding to a smokescreen with a feature argument makes it worse. Classify first.

Step 2: Label the emotion before addressing the content

Voss's core move: name what you think the prospect is feeling. This is a "label." It starts with "It seems like..." or "It sounds like..." - never "I feel like you..."

A label does two things: it makes the prospect feel understood, and it invites them to correct you if you're wrong. Either way, you learn more.

Examples:

  • "It seems like the timing isn't quite right on your end."
  • "It sounds like you've had some bad experiences with implementations like this before."
  • "It seems like there's some internal uncertainty about whether this is the right priority right now."

Pause after the label. Do not fill the silence. Let them respond.

Step 3: Use a calibrated question to open them up

After the label, ask an open-ended question that starts with "What" or "How." Avoid "Why" - it sounds accusatory.

Examples by objection type:

  • Price: "What would need to be true for the investment to make sense for your team?"
  • Timing: "What does your timeline look like for getting this solved?"
  • Competitor: "What would make you confident you were making the right call here?"
  • Stall: "How does your team typically work through a decision like this?"

Do not answer your own calibrated question. Ask it and stop.

Step 4: Apply the specific response by objection type

"We don't have budget." "It sounds like budget is a real constraint right now. What would the ROI need to look like for this to be justifiable to your finance team?" - then build the business case together.

"We already have a solution." "It sounds like you've invested in this area before. What's working well with what you have, and where does it still fall short?" - this reveals the gap your product fills without attacking their current choice.

"Send me more information." "It sounds like there's something specific that's still unclear. What would be most useful for me to address?" - never send a generic one-pager in response to this.

"We're not ready yet." "It sounds like the timing isn't quite right. What needs to happen internally before this becomes a priority?" - surfaces the real blocker and gives you a re-engagement trigger.

"Your price is too high." "It seems like the investment is higher than you expected. How far apart are we?" - get the number. Then: "What would you need to see to make the difference feel justified?"

Step 5: Get to "that's right"

Voss's key indicator that you've succeeded: when the prospect says "that's right" - not "you're right." "You're right" means they're placating you. "That's right" means they feel understood.

Before moving forward, summarize their position back to them completely and accurately. Include their concerns, their constraints, and their goals.

"So if I'm hearing you correctly - the value is there, but the timing is the issue because [X] is happening this quarter, and you'd want to revisit in [month] once [condition]. Is that right?"

Wait for their confirmation before advancing.

Anti-Patterns

1. Immediately counter-arguing Bad: "I understand budget is tight, but if you look at the ROI..." Good: Label the emotion first. "It sounds like budget is a real constraint right now." Then pause.

2. Sending more material in response to "send me more info" Bad: Sending a 20-page deck in response to "send me more information." Good: Ask what specifically is unclear. The request for info is almost always a soft no in disguise.

3. Accepting the stated objection at face value Bad: Taking "we already have a solution" as a closed door. Good: "It sounds like you've invested in this area before. What's working well, and where does it still fall short?"

4. Pushing for a close during the objection conversation Bad: "So based on all that, are you ready to move forward?" Good: Get to "that's right" first. Confirm next steps only after full acknowledgment.

Quality Checklist

  • Objection classified by type before responding
  • Used a label ("It seems like..." / "It sounds like...") before any content response
  • Paused after the label - did not fill the silence
  • Used a calibrated "What" or "How" question, not a "Why" question
  • Did not send generic materials in response to "send me more info"
  • Got the prospect to say "that's right" before advancing
  • Left the conversation with a specific next step or re-engagement trigger

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Rate any product, feature, or experience on the 11-star scale (Brian Chesky's Airbnb thought experiment). Use when user says "rate this experience", "11-star", "star rating", "experience audit", "how good is this", "experience rating", "product audit", "quality assessment", or wants to evaluate product quality and identify improvement paths. Also trigger when user wants to benchmark a feature, assess where a product stands, or map out what "great" looks like - even if they don't explicitly say "11-star".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Generate A/B copy variants grounded in Eugene Schwartz's awareness and market-sophistication stages and John Caples' tested-headline discipline. Every variant declares its angle, the awareness stage it targets, and a falsifiable hypothesis, and the skill recommends which pair to test first and what delta counts as signal. Use when the user says "A/B test this", "write variants", "give me options", "test different angles", "copy variants", "ab copy", "test this headline", "multiple versions", "which version is better", or wants to test copy before publishing. For reviewing copy that already exists, see copy-review. For sample size and stopping rules, see growth-experiment. For diagnosing a page rather than its words, see page-cro. For full paid ad sets by platform, see ad-campaign-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Design statistically rigorous experiments to test data science hypotheses. Use when the user says "design an A/B test", "run an experiment", "test this hypothesis", "is this difference significant", "how many samples do I need", "randomized controlled trial", "causal inference", "uplift test", "holdout group", "significance test", "power calculation", "avoid p-hacking", or needs to determine whether an observed effect is real before making a product or model decision. For lean build-measure-learn product experiments without the statistics, use experiment-design instead.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write measurable acceptance criteria for requirements or user stories. Use when the user says "write acceptance criteria", "definition of done", "how do we test this", "fit criteria", "given when then", "Gherkin scenarios", "what does done look like", "testable conditions", "how will we know this works" - even if they don't explicitly say "acceptance criteria".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Build a strategic account plan for winning, retaining, or expanding a named account. Use when the user says "build an account plan", "strategic account planning", "how do I grow this account", "account expansion strategy", "whitespace analysis", "QBR prep", "key account review", "map the stakeholders in this account", "land and expand plan", "how do I break into [company]", or wants a structured strategy for a specific account.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

Write paid ad copy for LinkedIn, Google, Meta, and YouTube. Produces multiple variants per platform, each targeting a different Eugene Schwartz awareness level and Cialdini persuasion principle. Use when the user asks for ad copy, ad variants, "write LinkedIn ads", Google ads, Meta ads, paid social copy, ad headlines, or wants creative for a paid campaign. Reads brand voice, ICP, and positioning from knowledge/. For organic social posts, see linkedin-post or social-calendar. For the landing page the ad points at, see landing-page-writer. For testing variants, see ab-copy-writer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

qa-aman/claude-skills212026년 10월 19일 업데이트

qa-aman의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고