Sanity-check your sales comp plan before it backfires
Audits your comp plan the way a smart rep would game it: walks every element to its actual incentive, stress-tests four scenarios where plans backfire, benchmarks your ratios, and scores simplicity. You get the two or three highest-impact fixes — or an honest verdict that comp isn't your problem — before the plan trains another quarter of wrong behavior.
You are a sales compensation advisor who has reviewed comp plans at over 60 B2B companies and seen every way they backfire: accelerators that pay out on deals reps would have closed anyway, cliffs that make November reps stop selling, SPIFs that cannibalize the core motion, and plans so complex that reps build spreadsheets to decide which deals to work. Your principle: a comp plan is a message about what the company wants — and reps will optimize exactly what it pays for, including the things you didn't mean. Audit my comp plan: 1. Incentive walk-through: for each element (base/variable split, rate structure, accelerators, thresholds, SPIFs, clawbacks), state what behavior it actually incentivizes — including the perverse cases. Think like a smart rep gaming the plan. 2. Stress tests: model the plan against four scenarios — a rep at 40% of quota in month 2, a rep at 95% in the final week, a monster deal landing early, and a discount-heavy deal — and flag where the plan produces behavior I don't want. 3. Benchmark check: is my base/variable split, OTE-to-quota ratio, and accelerator structure within normal ranges for my motion and deal size? Flag outliers. 4. Simplicity score: can a rep compute their commission on a deal in under a minute? If not, what to cut. 5. Recommendations: the 2-3 changes with the highest impact, plus what to communicate and when — mid-period comp changes burn trust, so sequence matters. Avoid: redesigning the whole plan when two fixes suffice, adding complexity to patch complexity, and any recommendation that pays reps less for the same performance without acknowledging the trust cost. Before you write anything, interview me. Ask me these questions ONE AT A TIME, waiting for my answer each time: 1. Describe the current plan — base/variable split, commission rates, accelerators, thresholds, guarantees, clawbacks, SPIFs. 2. What's the quota, typical deal size, and what does a rep at 100% earn total? 3. What behavior are you seeing that you suspect the plan is causing — sandbagging, discounting, cherry-picking, quarter-end dumping? 4. What do you WANT more of — new logos, expansion, multi-year deals, a specific product line? 5. When does the comp period reset, and can you change the plan mid-period? Once you have my answers, run the audit. If the plan is fine and the problem is quota or management, say that instead of inventing comp changes.
How to use it
- 1
Copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, or any LLM.
- 2
Write out the full plan mechanics in question 1 — the edge cases live in the details you'd normally skip.
- 3
Take the perverse-incentive section seriously; if the model found the exploit in minutes, a rep found it in week one.
- 4
Model the recommended changes against your top rep's last quarter before announcing anything.
- 5
Never change comp mid-period without a grandfather clause — the trust cost outlives the fix.
Best practices
Watch behavior, not complaints — reps complain about all plans, but sandbagging and quarter-end discount spikes are data.
If reps can't compute their commission on a napkin, the plan is too complex to motivate anyone.
Pay accelerators only above 100% of a defensible quota; accelerators on soft quotas are just margin leakage.
Pair every comp change with the quota sanity check — a broken quota makes any comp plan look broken.
Example: what this looks like in practice
A founder of a 15-person data services company notices deals mysteriously slipping from March to April. He answers the interview: 50/50 split, 10% flat commission, a quarterly bonus that unlocks at 100% of quota with nothing at 99%, and no clawbacks. The model flags the cliff immediately: a rep at 70% mid-March earns more by pushing deals into next quarter to bank toward the new bonus — the slipping is rational, not lazy. Stress tests also show the flat rate makes discounting painless (a 20% discount costs the rep only 2% of OTE on a typical deal). Recommendations: replace the cliff with stepped payouts from 80%, and pay commission on margin, not revenue, next period — announced at quarter start, not mid-stream. Deal slippage stops the following quarter.
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
50/50 is the classic AE benchmark, drifting toward 60/40 base-weighted for long-cycle enterprise motions and for SDRs, and toward more variable in transactional, short-cycle sales. The split should track how much of the outcome the rep actually controls. If your split is far outside these bands, this prompt will flag it and explain what behavior the outlier structure produces.
More sales strategy & planning prompts
Build a quarterly outbound plan that survives contact with reality
Produces a complete quarterly outbound plan — pipeline math, prioritized segments, 3-5 concrete plays, a launch calendar, and named risks — grounded in your actual win rate and team capacity. The capacity check is the killer feature: it forces the plan to admit when the math doesn't close instead of papering over it with optimism.
Design an irresistible B2B offer with the value equation
Applies the value equation to your actual B2B offer instead of leaving it as a book concept. You get a blunt scoring of your current offer, three rebuilt variants with guarantees your margins can survive, the operational cost of each, and a small validation test — turning 'our offer is fine' into an engineering exercise.
Build a 13-week outbound campaign calendar for the quarter
Turns a pile of campaign ideas into a staggered 13-week execution calendar with owners, prep time scheduled before launches, standing review rhythms, and kill criteria at week 7. It prevents the classic quarter shape — frantic week-1 launches, silent middle, panicked final push — by design rather than discipline.