Triggers on "build dossier on", "client profile", "prospect research", "research company X", "build profile on X person", "dossier for sales call", "quién es X empresa". Produces a branded HTML dossier: company DNA, key contacts, pain points, entry strategy.
From jm-adknpx claudepluginhub javimontano/jm-adk-alfaThis skill is limited to using the following tools:
agents/guardian.mdagents/lead.mdagents/specialist.mdagents/support.mdevals/evals.jsonknowledge/body-of-knowledge.mdknowledge/knowledge-graph.mdprompts/meta.mdprompts/primary.mdprompts/variations/deep.mdprompts/variations/quick.mdreferences/html-template.mdtemplates/output.docx.mdtemplates/output.htmlTL;DR: Transform public signals about a prospect into a battle-ready dossier — company DNA, key contacts, pain hypotheses, and a personalized approach strategy. Output: branded HTML dossier (JM Labs dark style) + optional markdown summary.
Principio Rector: Prepare like a detective, enter like a consultant. Every fact verified, every hypothesis labeled. A dossier is not an encyclopedia — it is a decision support tool.
Activate when:
Do NOT activate when:
Three dossier modes, each with a distinct research agenda. Infer the mode from phrasing. If ambiguous, ask: "Is this a company dossier, an executive profile, or a partnership evaluation?"
Company Dossier [EXPLICIT] Full organizational profile. Used before a first meeting, RFP response, or partnership pitch. Covers founding story, ownership, revenue signals, headcount trajectory, tech stack, recent strategic moves, and cultural tone. Most common mode. Output: all 6 sections (S2–S5 + HTML).
Executive / Public Figure Dossier [EXPLICIT] Profile of a named decision-maker. Used to personalize outreach, prepare for a call, or understand a gatekeeper. Covers career arc, public positions, speaking topics, known priorities, management style signals, and mutual connections. Strict scope: public professional information only. No personal life, no private data inference. Do not include home addresses, personal social media, family data, or non-professional history.
Partnership Target Dossier [INFERRED] Hybrid of company + lead contact. Used when evaluating a channel partner, reseller, or co-builder. Emphasizes business model alignment, revenue complementarity, integration potential, and historical partnership behavior: who they partner with, on what terms, and how long those partnerships last.
Minimum viable input per mode:
| Mode | Required | Useful extras |
|---|---|---|
| Company | Company name | Website, LinkedIn URL, industry |
| Executive | Full name + company | LinkedIn URL, role title |
| Partnership | Company name + relationship type | Customer segment, known tech stack |
Dossier depth options:
| Mode | Time | Scope | Use case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flash (30 min) | Fast | Company DNA + 1 contact | Inbound call in <1h |
| Standard (2h) | Medium | Full S2–S5, 2–3 contacts | Tomorrow's discovery call |
| Deep (5h+) | Slow | Full + org chart + competitive context | Strategic account, large deal |
Systematic extraction of organizational identity signals. Work through each dimension.
Tag every claim with [EXPLICIT], [INFERRED], or [OPEN]. [EXPLICIT]
Founding & Ownership
Revenue & Growth Signals
Headcount & Team Composition
[est.] [EXPLICIT]Tech Stack Signals
Recent News & Strategic Moves (last 90 days)
Cultural & Operational Tone
Financial Signals Table:
| Signal | What It Indicates |
|---|---|
| Recent funding round | Available budget, growth phase, investor expectations |
| High job posting volume | Investment areas, team priorities, active pain points |
| Contract announcements | Revenue tiers, deal size norms |
| Downsizing / layoffs | Budget pressure, cost-saving motive, churn risk |
| Awards / rankings | Brand health, employer strength, strategic priorities |
| Re-posted same role 3× | Retention problem or unrealistic hiring bar |
[OPEN] Revenue figures for private companies are estimates. Flag all inferred revenue with
[est. — not verified]in every output. Never present as confirmed facts.
Build a stakeholder map of the target organization focused on the deal or engagement type. Produce a Contact Card (see template below) for each named person. [EXPLICIT]
Decision Maker Identification by Deal Type
| Deal Type | Decision Maker | Influencer | Gatekeeper |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technology / SaaS | CTO, VP Engineering | Engineering Manager | EA, Procurement |
| Consulting / services | CEO, COO | CFO | EA, Legal |
| Training / enablement | CHRO, VP L&D | Department Head | Training Coordinator |
| Data / analytics | CDO, VP Data | Data Lead | Procurement |
| Marketing tech | CMO, VP Marketing | Demand Gen Lead | Marketing Ops |
| Digital transformation | CIO / CDO + C-suite sponsor | COO | PMO, Legal |
Contact Research Protocol (execute in this order):
Email Pattern Inference (validate before use — never assume confirmed):
firstname@company.com — common at startups and SMBfirstname.lastname@company.com — most common at mid-market and enterpriseflastname@company.com — common in finance and professional servicesf.lastname@company.com — frequent in European companies
Use Hunter.io pattern matching (if user has access) or validate via email verification tool.
Label all email patterns as [INFERRED — not verified] in output. [EXPLICIT]Contact Card Template (produce one per person):
Name: [Full Name] [EXPLICIT]
Title: [Current Title] [EXPLICIT]
Tenure: [X years at company] [EXPLICIT]
Prior companies: [2–3 most relevant past employers] [EXPLICIT]
Background: [2-sentence career arc] [EXPLICIT]
Public positions: [Key theme they discuss publicly] [EXPLICIT]
Best channel: [LinkedIn / email / warm intro via X][INFERRED]
Likely priority: [What they care about professionally][INFERRED]
Potential concern: [What might make them say no] [INFERRED]
Email pattern: [pattern@company.com — confidence: H/M/L] [INFERRED]
Mutual connection: [Name + relationship if applicable] [EXPLICIT / OPEN]
Org Chart Reconstruction [INFERRED]
[EXPLICIT] Only use publicly available professional information. Do not infer personal details, home addresses, or non-professional social media content.
Construct a hypothesis of what is hurting the target organization right now. This drives message-market fit for the outreach or pitch. Produce 3–5 hypotheses. [EXPLICIT]
Signal-to-Pain Mapping:
| Signal Observed | Derived Pain Hypothesis |
|---|---|
| 15+ open engineering roles | Scaling pains, team capacity issues, delivery bottleneck |
| 3 CTOs in 24 months | Tech strategy instability, culture/direction tension |
| No data/analytics roles | Low data maturity, spreadsheet-heavy operations |
| Series B raised 12 months ago | Board pressure for growth metrics and unit economics |
| Recent compliance-related press | Regulatory risk, need for audit/governance tooling |
| Legacy tech stack in job postings | Migration need, tech debt, developer experience friction |
| Rapid expansion to new markets | Localization needs, operational complexity, compliance gaps |
| Re-posting the same role 3× | Retention problem or misaligned expectations |
| Competitor launched a feature they lack | Product gap, pressure to close the gap fast |
| Customer forum / G2 complaints visible | Support overload, churn risk, UX debt |
Pain Point Hypothesis Format (produce per hypothesis):
Hypothesis: [Company X] likely struggles with [SPECIFIC PAIN] [INFERRED]
Evidence: [Signal 1: source] + [Signal 2: source]
Urgency: [Why this pain is acute NOW vs. chronic background noise] [INFERRED]
Our hook: [How our offering maps to this specific pain] [INFERRED]
Confidence: High / Medium / Low
Validation Q: [The one question to ask on the call to confirm or refute]
Pain Categories Checklist:
[EXPLICIT] Pain hypotheses are hypotheses. They must be validated in the discovery call. Do not present them as confirmed facts in the dossier or in outreach messages.
Synthesize dossier findings into a concrete outreach and engagement plan. [INFERRED]
Best Entry Angle Selection:
| Context | Recommended Angle |
|---|---|
| Recent funding round | Congrats + growth/scale challenge framing, budget window open |
| New executive hire | Fresh start, new vendor evaluation cycle, open to change |
| Recent product launch | Integration opportunity, complementary capability |
| Cost pressure signal | ROI-first framing, fast time-to-value, efficiency story |
| Competitor win in their space | Urgency angle, competitive pressure, fear of falling behind |
| Award / milestone | Validation: "how do you maintain this standard at scale?" |
| Pain signal from job postings | Precision hook: "we saw your [X] postings, we solve that" |
Personalization Layers (stack all four for highest conversion):
Channel Sequence Recommendation:
Objection Pre-empts:
| Common Objection | Pre-empt in the Message |
|---|---|
| "We already have a solution" | Acknowledge + differentiate on one specific dimension |
| "Not the right time / budget frozen" | Ask for a 15-min discovery, not a commitment |
| "Send me more info" | Offer a 1-pager tailored to their use case, not a generic deck |
| "We handle this internally" | Validate their approach, offer a benchmark/audit angle |
| "We're in evaluation mode already" | Ask to be included, offer a specific POV or framework |
Opening Message Draft Formula:
[Trigger event / personalization hook] + [specific pain we solve] +
[1 reference to a peer / analogous company] + [metric or outcome] + [single soft ask]
Example:
"Saw your team posted 6 data engineer roles this quarter — teams scaling data infra at your stage usually hit the orchestration wall 60 days after the dbt rollout. We helped [Peer Company] cut pipeline failures by 70% in that window. Worth a 20-minute call to see if the pattern fits?"
Generate a branded, self-contained HTML dossier. Load full template from references/html-template.md. [EXPLICIT]
Brand tokens: --navy: #122562 · --gold: #FFD700 · --blue: #137DC5 · dark bg #0d0d0d · Poppins headings + Inter body.
Sections in the HTML output: Header (company name + date + confidential badge) → TL;DR executive brief (3 bullets) → Company DNA (10-field data grid) → Key Contacts (2 contact cards) → Pain Hypotheses (3 items with confidence badges) → Approach Strategy (4-step numbered list) → Footer (JM Labs attribution).
Delivery rules [EXPLICIT]:
[placeholder] with researched data[est.] inline[INFERRED] on estimated revenue / headcount / tech stack when source is indirect| Decision | Option A | Option B | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Depth vs. speed | Full 6-section dossier (2-3h) | Quick 2-section brief (30min) | Full for strategic accounts; brief for same-day inbound |
| Public vs. inferred data | Only confirmed facts | Include reasoned inferences | Include inferences, tag clearly with [INFERRED] |
| HTML vs. markdown output | Branded HTML dossier | Plain markdown summary | HTML for client-facing; markdown for internal notes |
| Company vs. person focus | Company-first, then people | Person-first, then company | Company-first unless user specifies a named target |
| One contact vs. full map | Single decision-maker | Full stakeholder map | Full map for deals >$50K; single for fast outreach |
| Hypothesis depth | 1 primary pain | 3–5 ranked hypotheses | 3–5 always; more hypotheses = better discovery call prep |
[est. — not verified] in the output.EC-1: Company with no digital footprint Very small or recently founded company has minimal LinkedIn presence, no press, minimal web. Action: Build a lightweight dossier from whatever is available. Flag the confidence score as low. Use industry + company size + founding year to construct pain hypotheses from first principles (e.g., "at 20 employees in SaaS, the most common pain at 18 months is [X]").
EC-2: Executive with a common name / ambiguous identity "John Smith at Acme" — multiple LinkedIn matches, ambiguous results. Action: Ask user for LinkedIn URL or full title before proceeding. Do not produce a dossier on the wrong person. Verify company + current title before writing any Contact Card.
EC-3: Company in a language other than English
Target is a Latin American or European company with minimal English-language presence.
Action: Research in the native language. Produce the dossier in the language the user requests.
Use [data-l="es"] / [data-l="en"] HTML markup throughout the output.
EC-4: User wants a dossier on a competitor (not a prospect) Intent is competitive intelligence, not a sales dossier. Action: Redirect to the competitive-intelligence skill. The dossier framework is optimized for outreach and entry strategy, not competitive positioning — wrong tool for this use case.
EC-5: Publicly traded company with overwhelming data volume 10-K, earnings calls, IR page, analyst coverage — information overload. Action: Prioritize recency (last 12 months) and strategic relevance (what affects this deal). Summarize, do not dump. The dossier is a decision tool, not an archive. Cite specific sections for the user to read if they want more depth.
BAD — Generic, no action value:
"Acme Corp is a technology company with around 500 employees. They seem to be growing and might be interested in our services. Their CEO is John Doe."
GOOD — Specific, hypothesis-driven, actionable:
"Acme Corp (Series B, $42M raised Jan 2024 [EXPLICIT], 340 → 480 employees in 12 months [INFERRED via LinkedIn]) is scaling engineering faster than their data infrastructure can support. Evidence: 6 open data engineer roles in Q1 [EXPLICIT], all requiring dbt + Snowflake, none requiring Airflow — the orchestration gap [INFERRED]. Decision-maker: Maria Gómez, VP Engineering (joined 8 months ago from Stripe [EXPLICIT], previously built a data platform team from scratch [EXPLICIT via LinkedIn bio]). Hook: 'We saw your data engineer postings — teams at your stage typically hit the orchestration wall 60 days after the dbt rollout. We solved this for [Peer Company] and cut pipeline failures by 70%. Worth a 20-min call?' [INFERRED pain + EXPLICIT peer reference]."
The good version has: named signals with evidence tags, a specific gap, a named contact with career context, a peer reference, a metric, and a specific one-ask close. Every element traces to a real signal source.
Before delivering any dossier output, verify all of the following:
[est.] if not from a public source[INFERRED — not verified], not as confirmed addresses#122562, gold #FFD700, blue #137DC5)[data-l] attributes present on all user-facing strings in HTML output[placeholder] tokens in HTML have been replaced with real researched data| File | Purpose |
|---|---|
knowledge/body-of-knowledge.md | Sales intelligence and OSINT methodology |
knowledge/knowledge-graph.md | Entity relationships for prospect research |
evals/ | Scored dossier examples for quality calibration |
market-intelligence — Broader market/sector context before the dossierb2b-outreach — Convert dossier findings into outreach sequencesclient-prospecting — Identify who to build dossiers forcompetitive-intelligence — Competitor profiles (different framework from prospect dossiers)executive-pitch — Use dossier findings to prepare a pitch narrativestakeholder-mapping — Internal org mapping when target is an existing clientSearches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.