# Bd Objection

> Builds an objection-handling library for B2B sales conversations. Generates reframes, evidence-backed responses, and follow-up tactics for 20+ common objections (price, timing, status quo, competitor, authority, fit, risk). Reads icp-profile.json and competitor context if available. Outputs objection-library.md to current directory. Use during prep, mid-deal, or after a stalled conversation. Trig…

- **Type:** Skill
- **Install:** `agentstack add skill-dongcs52-claude-bd-skills-bd-objection`
- **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior
- **Seller:** [dongcs52](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/dongcs52)
- **Installs:** 0
- **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills)
- **Latest version:** 0.1.0
- **License:** MIT
- **Upstream author:** [dongcs52](https://github.com/dongcs52)
- **Source:** https://github.com/dongcs52/claude-bd-skills/tree/main/.claude/skills/bd-objection

## Install

```sh
agentstack add skill-dongcs52-claude-bd-skills-bd-objection
```

Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent.

## About

# Objection Handling Library

Build a reusable objection-handling library specific to your business and ICP. Stop improvising responses on the fly — have battle-tested reframes ready.

## Input

Optional (better with these, works without):
- `icp-profile.json` (produced by `/bd-icp`)
- `partner-candidates.json` or competitor context
- Specific objection user wants to handle (if focused use case)

## Process

1. **Read context** — pull persona, value prop, common pains from ICP
2. **Categorize objections** into 7 standard buckets (see below)
3. **For each objection, produce:**
   - The objection (verbatim, in their words)
   - The fear behind it (what they're really worried about)
   - 2–3 reframe responses (matched to deal stage)
   - Evidence / proof point to deploy
   - Discovery question to validate the objection
   - Follow-up move (email + call back-up)
4. **Format as scannable library** — rep can find the right response in 30 seconds

## 7 objection categories

### 1. Price / Budget
- "Too expensive"
- "We don't have budget"
- "Cheaper alternatives exist"
- "Need to cut costs, not add tools"

### 2. Timing
- "Not now / call me in 6 months"
- "We're in the middle of [other initiative]"
- "End of year / start of year freeze"

### 3. Status Quo
- "We use [competitor] already"
- "We built it in-house"
- "We use spreadsheets / Google Docs"

### 4. Authority / Process
- "I need to talk to my team"
- "Let me think about it"
- "Send me info, I'll get back"

### 5. Fit / Need
- "We don't have that problem"
- "Our team is too small for this"
- "We're not ready / mature enough"

### 6. Risk / Trust
- "Never heard of you"
- "What if you go out of business?"
- "Our security team won't approve"
- "Migration risk is too high"

### 7. Competitive
- "[Competitor X] does this for free"
- "[Competitor Y] has more features"
- "We're already evaluating [Competitor Z]"

## Output: objection-library.md

For each objection:

```markdown
## Objection: "We use [Competitor] already"

**Category:** Status Quo / Competitive
**Frequency:** Very common (top 3)
**Real fear behind it:** "Switching costs are real, and I don't want to look stupid for changing tools."

### Discovery questions (validate it first)
1. "When does your contract with [Competitor] renew?"
2. "What's working well with them — and what's the gap?"
3. "If you could redesign your stack from scratch, would [Competitor] still be the choice?"

### Reframes

**Reframe 1 — Acknowledge + reframe (use early)**
> "[Competitor] is a great fit for [their strength]. Most of our customers came from [Competitor] though — typically because of [specific gap]. Worth comparing the two on [specific dimension]?"

**Reframe 2 — The "and" not "or" play (use mid-funnel)**
> "We don't always replace [Competitor] — we usually run alongside for [specific use case]. Let me show you how [Customer X] uses both."

**Reframe 3 — The hard ask (late-stage, when champion is real)**
> "If [Competitor] were perfect for [specific use case], you wouldn't be on this call. What's the gap that brought you here?"

### Evidence to deploy
- Customer X switched from [Competitor] in 90 days → [outcome metric]
- Independent comparison: [G2 / analyst report] shows [our category] outperforms on [criterion]
- Mutual customer (you + Competitor) reduced [metric] by [%] using us in addition

### Follow-up moves

**Same call:**
- Map their renewal date → time the conversation
- Get their evaluation criteria → frame the rest of the cycle around it

**Email follow-up:**
[Subject: "Quick comparison — [Competitor] vs [Us] on [specific dimension]"]
> Hi [[FIRST_NAME]], promised to send the comparison we discussed. Highlights:
> - On [criterion 1]: [data]
> - On [criterion 2]: [data]
> - Where we lose: [honest gap]
> Worth a 20-min walkthrough with [Champion] before [renewal trigger]?

**Call-back script (Day 7):**
"[[FIRST_NAME]], thinking about our convo — wanted to share that [similar customer] just hit [milestone] using us. Quick question: how's your evaluation cycle progressing?"

### Red flags to watch
- ⚠️ Multi-year contract just signed → likely lost, move to nurture
- ⚠️ They can't articulate a gap → fit is weak, disqualify
- ⚠️ They mention "champion at [Competitor]" → hard to dislodge

### Win conditions
- ✅ Renewal in  opinion.** "Customer X did Y in Z time" beats "We're really good at this."
- **Lower the stakes.** Reframes that say "even if you don't buy, you'll get [value]" reduce defensiveness.
- **Don't argue.** Acknowledge first, then reframe. "Yes, and..." beats "No, but..."
- **Track which reframes work.** Add a section for the rep to log win/loss outcomes per reframe.

## Next steps to suggest

1. `/bd-battlecard` — for competitor-specific objections, build battle cards
2. `/bd-followup` — design email cadences for post-objection scenarios
3. `/bd-qualify` — re-qualify after objection — does the deal still move?

## Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

- **Author:** [dongcs52](https://github.com/dongcs52)
- **Source:** [dongcs52/claude-bd-skills](https://github.com/dongcs52/claude-bd-skills)
- **License:** MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

## Pricing

- **Free** — Free

## Security capabilities

Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access:

- **Network access:** no
- **Filesystem access:** no
- **Shell / process execution:** no
- **Environment & secrets:** no
- **Dynamic code execution:** no

*"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.*


## Versions

- **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source.

## Links

- Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-dongcs52-claude-bd-skills-bd-objection
- Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/dongcs52
- Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse

---
Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.