Skip to content
Back to skills

Meddic Scorecard

ASecurity

Create and maintain MEDDIC/MEDDPICC deal scorecards for pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and deal coaching

  • 149 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 0 views
  • Added May 27, 2026
businessgo

Works with

  • mcp

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned May 27, 2026

npx -y skills add guia-matthieu/clawfu-skills --skill meddic-scorecard --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Meddic Scorecard?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Meddic Scorecard
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/guia-matthieu-meddic-scorecard/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/guia-matthieu-meddic-scorecard)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: meddic-scorecard
description: Create and maintain MEDDIC/MEDDPICC deal scorecards for pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and deal coaching
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: ClawFu
  version: 1.0.0
  mcp-server: "@clawfu/mcp-skills"
---

# MEDDIC Scorecard

> Build systematic deal scorecards using MEDDIC/MEDDPICC methodology to improve pipeline hygiene, forecast accuracy, and coaching effectiveness.

## When to Use This Skill

- Weekly pipeline reviews
- Deal coaching sessions
- Forecast call preparation
- Win/loss analysis
- Sales enablement training

## Methodology Foundation

Based on **PTC's MEDDIC** (Dick Dunkel) extended to **MEDDPICC**, creating standardized scorecards for:
- Deal qualification scoring
- Gap identification
- Coaching prioritization
- Forecast confidence

## What Claude Does vs What You Decide

| Claude Does | You Decide |
|-------------|------------|
| Creates scorecard templates | Deal stage thresholds |
| Suggests scoring criteria | Coaching priorities |
| Identifies deal gaps | Forecast commits |
| Generates coaching questions | Resource allocation |
| Tracks deal progression | Win strategy |

## Instructions

### Step 1: Define Scoring Criteria

**MEDDPICC Components:**

| Component | Definition | Scoring Weight |
|-----------|------------|----------------|
| **M**etrics | Quantified business outcomes | 15% |
| **E**conomic Buyer | Budget authority identified | 15% |
| **D**ecision Criteria | How they'll evaluate | 10% |
| **D**ecision Process | Steps to purchase | 10% |
| **P**aper Process | Legal/procurement | 10% |
| **I**dentify Pain | Business problem articulated | 15% |
| **C**hampion | Internal advocate confirmed | 15% |
| **C**ompetition | Competitive landscape known | 10% |

### Step 2: Create Scoring Rubric

**Per-Component Scoring (0-3):**

| Score | Definition | Evidence Required |
|-------|------------|-------------------|
| 0 | Unknown | No information gathered |
| 1 | Identified | Basic information, not verified |
| 2 | Validated | Confirmed with prospect |
| 3 | Leveraged | Actively using in deal strategy |

### Step 3: Build Stage Gates

**Stage-Score Alignment:**

| Stage | Minimum Score | Required 3s |
|-------|---------------|-------------|
| Discovery | 8/24 | Pain |
| Qualification | 12/24 | Pain, Champion |
| Demo/Evaluation | 16/24 | Pain, Champion, Criteria |
| Proposal | 18/24 | + Economic Buyer |
| Negotiation | 21/24 | + Paper Process |
| Commit | 22/24 | All components validated |

### Step 4: Track and Coach

**Weekly Review Focus:**
- Deals below stage threshold
- Score changes (positive/negative)
- Gaps in critical components
- Champion health check
- Competition updates

### Step 5: Analyze Patterns

**Pipeline Health Metrics:**
- Average score by stage
- Conversion rates by score threshold
- Most common gaps
- Champion strength correlation

## Examples

### Example 1: Complete Deal Scorecard

**Input:**
```
Create a MEDDPICC scorecard for:
- Deal: Enterprise software sale, $400K
- Stage: Proposal
- Champion: VP of Operations
- EB: CFO (not met)
- Timeline: Q1 close
```

**Output:**
```
## MEDDPICC Deal Scorecard

### Deal Overview

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| Account | [Customer Name] |
| Opportunity | Enterprise Platform |
| Value | $400,000 ARR |
| Stage | Proposal |
| Close Date | Q1 (March 30) |
| AE | [Name] |
| Last Updated | [Date] |

---

### Score Summary

**Total Score: 16/24** | Stage Requirement: 18/24

| Component | Score | Stage Req | Status |
|-----------|-------|-----------|--------|
| Metrics | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Economic Buyer | 1/3 | **3** | ❌ GAP |
| Decision Criteria | 3/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Decision Process | 2/3 | 2 | ✅ |
| Paper Process | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |
| Identify Pain | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Champion | 3/3 | 3 | ✅ |
| Competition | 1/3 | 2 | ⚠️ GAP |

**Status: NOT READY FOR PROPOSAL** - 3 gaps to address

---

### Component Details

#### Metrics (2/3) ✅ On Track

**Current State:**
- ROI target: 3x in Year 1 ✓
- Primary KPI: Reduce processing time 40% ✓
- CFO business case: Not yet presented ✗

**Evidence:**
> "If we hit 40% reduction, that's $1.2M in operational savings"
> — VP Operations, Discovery Call

**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Present business case to CFO
- [ ] Get CFO to validate assumptions

---

#### Economic Buyer (1/3) ❌ CRITICAL GAP

**Current State:**
- EB Identified: CFO Jennifer Walsh ✓
- Access: Email only, no meeting ✗
- Engagement: Unknown priorities ✗

**Gap Analysis:**
We have not met the Economic Buyer. This is a **deal blocker**
for Proposal stage. Champion (VP Ops) reports to CFO but has
not secured meeting.

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask Champion for CFO meeting this week
- [ ] Prepare executive briefing deck
- [ ] Identify CFO's priorities for Q1

**Coaching Questions:**
1. "What's preventing us from meeting the CFO?"
2. "What does your champion say about CFO's priorities?"
3. "Can we propose a joint call with champion + CFO?"

---

#### Decision Criteria (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Current State:**
- Formal criteria documented ✓
- Weighted by priority ✓
- Aligned with our strengths ✓

**Evidence:**
| Criterion | Weight | Our Fit |
|-----------|--------|---------|
| Integration depth | 30% | Strong |
| Time to value | 25% | Strong |
| Total cost | 20% | Medium |
| Support | 15% | Strong |
| References | 10% | Strong |

---

#### Decision Process (2/3) ⚠️ Needs Validation

**Current State:**
- Steps identified ✓
- Timeline mapped ✓
- Approvers known ✓
- Specific dates: Partial ✗

**Process Map:**
```
Step 1: Technical evaluation ✅ Complete
Step 2: Business review ✅ Complete
Step 3: Proposal review ⏳ This week
Step 4: CFO approval ⏳ [Date TBD]
Step 5: Legal/Procurement ⏳ [Timeline unknown]
Step 6: Signature ⏳ Target: March 30
```

**To reach 3/3:**
- [ ] Confirm CFO meeting date
- [ ] Map procurement timeline
- [ ] Identify potential delays

---

#### Paper Process (1/3) ⚠️ GAP

**Current State:**
- Legal review required: Likely ✓
- Timeline: Unknown ✗
- Procurement contact: Not identified ✗
- Standard terms acceptable: Unknown ✗

**Risk Assessment:**
Paper process is a common source of deal slip at this stage.
Unknown timeline creates forecast risk.

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion about procurement process
- [ ] Identify legal/procurement contacts
- [ ] Offer to start MSA review early

---

#### Identify Pain (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Current State:**
- Pain articulated ✓
- Quantified impact ✓
- Urgency established ✓
- Consequences of inaction clear ✓

**Pain Statement:**
> "Manual processing is costing us 8,000 hours/year. We've
> missed SLAs 3 times this quarter. If we don't fix this,
> we'll lose the [Major Customer] contract."

**Business Impact:**
- 8,000 hours × $50/hr = $400K labor cost
- SLA penalties: $200K potential
- Customer retention risk: $2M contract

---

#### Champion (3/3) ✅ Strong

**Champion Profile:**
| Attribute | Assessment |
|-----------|------------|
| Name | Michael Chen, VP Operations |
| Access | Reports to CFO |
| Influence | High - owns the budget |
| Motivation | Personal - promoted if successful |
| Engagement | Weekly calls, sharing internally |

**Champion Test:**
- ✅ Sells when we're not in the room
- ✅ Shares competitive intel
- ✅ Gives us bad news
- ⚠️ Has not secured CFO meeting yet

---

#### Competition (1/3) ⚠️ GAP

**Current State:**
- Competitors identified: 1 known ✓
- Their status: Unknown ✗
- Their approach: Unknown ✗
- Our differentiation: Assumed ✗

**Known Information:**
- Competitor X was evaluated
- Champion said "we've narrowed to two"
- No pricing or proposal intel

**Action Required:**
- [ ] Ask champion directly about competitor status
- [ ] Understand competitor's proposal/pricing
- [ ] Prepare competitive positioning

---

### Gap Resolution Plan

| Gap | Priority | Action | Owner | Due |
|-----|----------|--------|-------|-----|
| Economic Buyer | P1 | Request CFO meeting | AE + Champion | This week |
| Competition | P2 | Discovery with champion | AE | Day 2 |
| Paper Process | P2 | Map procurement timeline | AE | Day 3 |

---

### Coaching Summary

**Primary Focus:** Get in front of CFO before sending proposal

**Key Questions to Ask in 1:1:**
1. Why haven't we met the Economic Buyer yet?
2. What do we actually know about the competition?
3. What could cause this deal to slip past Q1?

**Forecast Recommendation:**
- Current: In forecast at 50%
- Recommendation: Keep at 50% until CFO meeting secured
- Path to 80%: EB meeting + Competition clarity + Paper process mapped
```

### Example 2: Pipeline Review Summary

**Input:**
```
Summarize MEDDPICC health for these 5 deals:
1. Deal A: 22/24 (Commit stage)
2. Deal B: 14/24 (Proposal stage)
3. Deal C: 18/24 (Demo stage)
4. Deal D: 10/24 (Qualification stage)
5. Deal E: 16/24 (Negotiation stage)
```

**Output:**
```
## Pipeline MEDDPICC Health Summary

### Overview

| Deal | Stage | Score | Req'd | Status |
|------|-------|-------|-------|--------|
| Deal A | Commit | 22/24 | 22 | ✅ On track |
| Deal B | Proposal | 14/24 | 18 | ❌ 4 pts below |
| Deal C | Demo | 18/24 | 16 | ✅ Above req |
| Deal D | Qualification | 10/24 | 12 | ❌ 2 pts below |
| Deal E | Negotiation | 16/24 | 21 | ❌ 5 pts below |

**Pipeline Health: 2/5 deals on track (40%)**

---

### Priority Attention

| Priority | Deal | Issue | Recommended Action |
|----------|------|-------|-------------------|
| P1 | Deal E | 5 pts below in Negotiation | Pull back to Proposal |
| P2 | Deal B | 4 pts below in Proposal | Hold proposal, fill gaps |
| P3 | Deal D | 2 pts below in Qualification | Accelerate discovery |

---

### Deal E (CRITICAL)

**Problem:** In Negotiation stage with 16/24 score (req: 21)

This deal is at high risk. Likely gaps in:
- Economic Buyer (not confirmed?)
- Paper Process (not mapped?)
- Competition (unknown?)

**Recommendation:** Do not forecast this deal. Move back to
Proposal stage and address gaps before continuing negotiation.

---

### Common Gaps Across Pipeline

| Component | Avg Score | Concern |
|-----------|-----------|---------|
| Paper Process | 1.2/3 | Most common gap |
| Competition | 1.4/3 | Frequent blind spot |
| Economic Buyer | 1.8/3 | Access issue |

**Coaching Focus:** Paper Process discovery earlier in cycle
```

## Skill Boundaries

### What This Skill Does Well
- Creating structured scorecards
- Identifying deal gaps
- Generating coaching questions
- Tracking deal progression

### What This Skill Cannot Do
- Access your CRM data
- Know specific deal context
- Make forecast decisions
- Replace sales judgment

## Iteration Guide

**Follow-up Prompts:**
- "Create coaching questions for [component]"
- "What should we ask about [specific gap]?"
- "Design stage gate criteria for our process"
- "Analyze win/loss patterns from scorecards"

## References

- PTC MEDDIC Methodology (Dick Dunkel)
- Force Management MEDDICC
- Winning by Design Sales Process
- Gong Sales Coaching Research

## Related Skills

- `lead-qualification-meddic` - Full qualification framework
- `deal-risk-scoring` - Risk assessment
- `pipeline-forecasting` - Forecast methodology

## Skill Metadata

- **Domain**: Sales
- **Complexity**: Intermediate
- **Mode**: centaur
- **Time to Value**: 15-30 min per deal
- **Prerequisites**: Deal information, CRM access

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.