Professional field practice

Project 03

01Competitive strategy and GTM systems

Professional field system

Competitive Intelligence Engine

Know what changed. Understand why it matters. Act with confidence.

A competitive system that would track product and market changes, keep the source on the claim, and turn that into guidance a seller can use. Sales, Product, and Product Marketing would share one reviewed loop. The briefs were used in the field. Monitoring is designed, not running.

Role
Competitive strategy, GTM enablement, and product systems.
Stage
Field-system foundation. Monitoring is designed, not software in this repository.
Explore the workflowView technical architecture

Intelligence workspace

Illustrative demo data

Example providers
5
Sources reviewed here
1
Live monitors
0

Recent example

TruffleHog · product capability

An illustrative sentence pair, not a historical vendor change. Review status: needs a person.

Available brief: Detection is not verification.

View details
Try one example: From a source to a field question

Guided example: From a source to a field question

Synthetic walkthrough

The current line names verification as its own step. Both lines were written for this walkthrough. They are not a stored crawl and not a historical vendor diff. No monitoring job runs here and no competitive claim is approved by completing this example.

Step 1 of 4

Inspect the reference

Public repository description. Date: Illustrative. Not a detection timestamp.

Public repository reference (opens in a new tab) ↗
Built with

Confirmed in the repository that renders this page. Planned tools stay in the case study and are not shown as logos.

02The intelligence problem

Competitive knowledge changes. Static battlecards do not.

Before

  • Competitor notes scattered across deals
  • Decks that go stale after the meeting
  • Claims with no source and no date
  • The useful detail stuck with one seller
  • The same public page read twice

Designed

  • A profile per provider, with what is not evaluated left blank
  • A short list of public sources, not the whole web
  • The original page and review date kept on the claim
  • Field guidance only after a person approves it
  • One brief another rep can teach
Explore the workflow

03Product experience

From a competitor change to field execution.

Five steps in the browser. Providers are examples. Only TruffleHog has a reviewed public source in this sample. Nothing here monitors a site.

Provider dashboard

Illustrative demo data

Architecture and implementation

04System architecture

How the intelligence system would work.

Solid pills are the field habit or this sample. Dashed pills are planned. This repository does not use Firecrawl, Exa, a GitHub API client, or a model.

Source collection

Field briefs were written from public pages and deal notes. This site does not collect those sources.

  • Official websites

    Professional field system

    Read by hand for briefs. Not crawled here.

  • Product documentation

    Planned

    Planned input. Not connected.

  • Release notes

    Planned

    Planned input. Not connected.

  • Public GitHub repositories

    In this demo

    One cited URL. No GitHub API client.

Change intelligence

The walkthrough shows a hand-written pair of sentences. Nothing is scheduled, snapshotted, or classified by software.

  • Scheduled monitoring

    Planned

    Not built.

  • Source snapshots

    Planned

    Not stored.

  • Change detection

    In this demo

    Illustrative pair only. Not a diff.

  • Classification

    In this demo

    One category, chosen by hand.

  • Source attribution

    In this demo

    The public URL stays on the claim.

Human review

Recommendations do not approve themselves. A model is not called.

  • Evidence verification

    Professional field system

    Briefs used with teams were reviewed by a person. Those files are not in this repo.

  • Impact analysis

    In this demo

    A written hypothesis you can mark reviewed.

  • Approved findings

    In this demo

    One teaching claim on this page.

  • Recommendation review

    Planned

    A review queue is not built.

Field activation

Battlecards were documents. Alerts, CRM context, and change history are later.

  • Competitive profiles

    Professional field system

    Briefs and playbooks used with teams. Not this app.

  • Battlecards

    In this demo

    The sample brief in the walkthrough.

  • Alerts

    Planned

    Not built.

  • Field feedback

    In this demo

    A form that stays in the browser.

  • Change history

    Planned

    Not stored.

Design decisions and tradeoffs

05Product decisions

Designing for trustworthy intelligence.

Evidence before interpretation

A claim keeps the original source and the review date. A sentence without those two is not ready for the field.

A person approves the guidance

Change detection can point at a diff. It cannot approve what a seller is allowed to say.

A short list before broad coverage

Start with a few providers and sources that can be checked. An empty cell stays empty.

Technical notes

Planned records. Competitor, Claim, Change, Impact, Recommendation, Deal context.

MVP question. Does a shared brief change how a deal is run more than a one-off deck?

Out of scope. Scraping the entire internet, and automated public attack content.

06Outcomes and roadmap

Measuring intelligence quality and field adoption.

Proposed success criteria. Nothing below has been measured in this repository.

System reliability

  • Source monitoring coverage
  • Change detection latency
  • Evidence completeness

Proposed. Not measured.

Intelligence quality

  • Time to human review
  • Percentage of findings approved
  • Battlecard freshness

Proposed. Not measured.

Field adoption

  • Brief usage
  • Field feedback submissions
  • Competitive opportunity usage

Proposed. Not measured.

  1. Professional field system

    • Structured competitor profiles
    • Source-backed battlecards
    • Reusable field briefs

  2. Next

    • Scheduled source snapshots
    • Change detection
    • Human-reviewed updates

  3. Later

    • Field alerts
    • CRM opportunity context
    • Product feedback integration
    • Historical change analytics

Explore related work

Back to all projects