Customize BANT, MEDDIC, or SPICED to your sales motion
Picks the right qualification framework for your specific motion — then rebuilds every element for your context, with the discovery question that surfaces it, strong-versus-weak answer examples, and stage gates. The honesty tests catch wishful-thinking qualification, which is how frameworks actually fail in practice.
You are a sales methodology consultant who has implemented qualification frameworks at over 40 B2B companies, and you have a heresy: most teams fail with BANT, MEDDIC, or SPICED not because the framework is wrong, but because they adopted it off the shelf. MEDDIC built for a $200K enterprise motion suffocates a $10K transactional deal; BANT's 'budget first' logic breaks in categories where budget gets created, not found. Frameworks must be tailored or they become CRM fields reps fill in with fiction after the call.
Customize a qualification framework for my motion. Produce:
1. FRAMEWORK VERDICT: which base framework fits my motion best (BANT, MEDDIC, MEDDPICC, SPICED, or a hybrid) and a two-sentence justification. Overrule my preference if my deal profile argues against it.
2. THE TAILORED FRAMEWORK: each element redefined for my context — what it specifically means in my deals, the exact discovery question that surfaces it, and what a strong versus weak answer sounds like.
3. STAGE GATES: which elements must be confirmed before a deal advances to each pipeline stage — not everything at once.
4. THE HONESTY TEST: for each element, the tell that a rep is recording wishful thinking rather than evidence ('champion identified' but no internal action taken yet).
5. CRM TRANSLATION: the fields and picklist values to implement this without creating admin burden.
Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time:
1. What do you sell, at what average deal size and sales cycle length?
2. Who's involved in a typical deal on the buyer side, and who signs?
3. Where do your deals most often die — early discovery, evaluation, procurement, or silent ghosting?
4. What qualification approach do you use today, even informally, and what about it isn't working?
5. How disciplined is your team about updating the CRM, honestly?
Once you have my answers, produce the customized framework. If my motion is too simple for a full framework, say so and give me the three-question version instead.How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Answer question 3 with real data from your pipeline — where deals die determines which qualification elements deserve the most weight.
- 3
Accept the framework verdict even if it's not the acronym you expected; fit beats fashion.
- 4
Roll out the stage gates before the full framework — they change behavior fastest with least resistance.
- 5
Review the honesty tests in pipeline meetings: ask reps for the evidence behind each qualified element, not just the checkbox.
Best practices
Match framework weight to deal complexity — full MEDDPICC on a $8K deal creates fiction-filled CRM fields, not rigor.
The 'what a weak answer sounds like' examples are gold for coaching; use them in call reviews.
Gate stages on evidence, not rep assertion: 'champion identified' means the champion has taken an internal action, not agreed the product is neat.
Revisit the framework when your deal size or committee changes meaningfully; qualification is a moving target.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A sales leader at a 25-person cybersecurity services firm runs $35K deals with a 60-day cycle and answers that deals mostly die in silent ghosting after proposals. Her team nominally uses BANT. The model's verdict: SPICED fits better because her buyers' pain is compliance-event-driven and 'budget' is usually created after impact is established, then rebuilds each element — with discovery questions like 'what happens on your side if the audit finds this gap?' — and sets a stage gate requiring an articulated critical event before any proposal goes out. The honesty test flags 'timeline: Q3' as wishful unless tied to a named event. Proposal ghosting drops by a third the following quarter because unqualified proposals stop going out.
Best fit
This prompt is one gear in a bigger machine. We orchestrate 20+ tools into outbound systems our clients own — and guarantee the results.
Apply for a Pilot Spot → →Frequently asked questions
None is universally better — they fit different motions. BANT suits transactional deals where budget exists to be found; MEDDIC and MEDDPICC fit complex enterprise sales with committees and paper processes; SPICED shines when deals are triggered by critical events and impact must be established before budget appears. This prompt diagnoses your motion first, then tailors the winner rather than installing it off the shelf.
More icp, targeting & lead scoring prompts
Define your ICP from your 10 best customers
Reverse-engineers a tight, one-page ICP from your actual closed-won history instead of aspirational guesswork. It forces narrow ranges, separates signal from coincidence, and flags when your customer base actually contains two different ICPs — the insight most founders miss until their outbound numbers tell them the hard way.
Design a lead scoring model with firmographic and behavioral points
Produces a complete, implementable lead scoring model: firmographic fit points, behavioral intent points with decay and negative scoring, threshold bands tied to actions, and a monthly validation loop. It caps complexity at 12 criteria and adapts to what you can actually track, so the model ships instead of dying in a spreadsheet.
Build a negative ICP: who to actively avoid and why
Turns your worst-customer war stories into a formal negative ICP: hard disqualifiers, stacking yellow flags, and the false-positive profile that keeps fooling your team. Includes list-building exclusion filters and a polite decline template, so avoiding bad fits becomes operational instead of a lesson everyone relearns quarterly.