Convert technical discovery into a solution-fit, gap, and assumption register
Map each validated requirement to standard capability, configuration, integration, customization, partner dependency, unknown, or product gap before proposal scope hardens.
What you will have
A governed solution-fit register with requirement links, evidence, assumptions, dependencies, validation owners, scope impact, and buyer-confirmation status.
Setup time
8-12 hours
Time saved
10-16 hours per opportunity
Estimated cost
$120 to $750 per month
Tools used
4 tools
Why this works
Solution risk becomes visible when every requirement is classified against current evidence and the team distinguishes standard capability from configuration, integration, customization, partner dependency, unknown, and genuine gap. The workflow prevents proposal language from converting assumptions into promises and assigns each unresolved item to a validation owner before commercial scope is approved.
Step-by-step workflow
Preview the workflow
The first 2 steps are open. Pro unlocks the remaining steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and implementation details.
1
Define fit classifications and approval authority
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Airtable and Google Drive to set definitions for standard, configured, integrated, customized, partner-delivered, workaround, unknown, gap, and out-of-scope plus approval owners. Create or update the exact fields `fit_model_id`, `fit_class`, `definition`, `evidence_required`, `approval_role`, `scope_effect`, `pricing_effect`, `delivery_effect`, `review_cadence`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that each fit class has a required evidence level and no seller can approve customization or product-gap commitments alone, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by testing ambiguous historical examples against definitions and authority rules; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is solution architecture, product, delivery, and sales leadership approving taxonomy; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record.
Output
An approved solution-fit taxonomy and authority matrix.
AirtableGoogle Drive
Pro tip
Use “unknown” aggressively; it is safer than prematurely labeling an item standard or a gap.
2
Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill
45-60 min
45-60 min
Use Claude and Google Drive to package product boundaries, fit rules, field dictionary, approved documentation index, examples, tests, and changelog in a reusable Skill. Create or update the exact fields `skill_name`, `folder_path`, `version`, `owner`, `backup_owner`, `instructions_file`, `field_dictionary`, `documentation_index`, `test_suite`, `changelog`, retaining the native account, opportunity, contact, site, program, requirement, and source IDs instead of matching on display names alone. Apply the operating rule that the folder contains `SKILL.md`, instructions, field dictionary, approved evidence index, tests, examples, and changelog with stable versioning, and write every proposed change to a dated change log rather than replacing the prior approved value. Validate the work by running regression tests on standard, integration, customization, unknown, and gap examples; assign each warning or exception an owner, severity, due date, and evidence link, and hold records that fail the check. The completion gate is the Skill owner and product or architecture approver releasing the version; document the rollback or fallback path if the source is unavailable, the connector fails, or the buyer disputes the record. Run this template in Claude within the approved solution-fit Claude Skill and opportunity Project after attaching the source records named for this step; store the returned JSON beside the source register before any downstream action. Maintain the Claude Project with `instructions.md`, `field-dictionary.json`, `source-register.csv`, `review-rubric.md`, `approved-examples.md`, and `changelog.md`; name releases `vYYYY.MM`, assign a primary and backup owner, refresh source exports before each operating review, and review permissions and maintenance quarterly.
Output
A reusable solution-fit Skill with versioning, tests, and maintenance ownership.
ClaudeGoogle Drive
Pro tip
Update the Skill when product capability or delivery policy changes, not when one seller wants a favorable classification.
Prompt template
ROLE
You are the governed sales-execution analyst supporting a sales engineer or solution architect. You work inside the “Convert technical discovery into a solution-fit, gap, and assumption register” operating system, where source traceability, stable CRM identifiers, buyer-safe language, and human authority are more important than producing a polished but unsupported answer.
OBJECTIVE
Complete workflow step 2, “Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill,” and produce this operational outcome: A reusable solution-fit Skill with versioning, tests, and maintenance ownership. Execute only this step; do not silently broaden the task, fabricate buyer facts, or make external changes.
INPUTS
1. APPROVED SOURCE RECORDS: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_source_records}}
2. FIELD DICTIONARY AND ALLOWED VALUES: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_field_dictionary}}
3. ACCOUNT, OPPORTUNITY, OR PROGRAM CONTEXT: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_deal_context}}
4. OPERATING RULES, PERMISSIONS, AND APPROVAL MATRIX: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_operating_rules}}
5. PRIOR APPROVED VERSION OR CURRENT STATE: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_prior_state}}
6. DEADLINES, OWNERS, AND REVIEW CADENCE: {{create_the_versioned_solution_fit_claude_skill_approval_context}}
WORK TO PERFORM
1. Perform the exact job described by “Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill” using the supplied IDs and field names.
2. Separate observed facts, direct buyer statements, operator-entered decisions, calculations, and model inferences.
3. Preserve account_id, opportunity_id, contact_id, site_id, program_id, requirement_id, source_id, owner, and effective_date whenever supplied; do not merge records merely because names look similar.
4. Populate the requested fields, identify missing values, and flag contradictions, stale evidence, duplicate entities, unsupported claims, permission issues, and dependencies.
5. Return records that can be copied into the declared system of record without renaming identifiers, flattening one-to-many relationships, or overwriting an approved value.
6. Provide a compact change summary, exception queue, approval request, and next-action list with owner and due date.
7. Apply the step-specific instructions: package product boundaries, fit rules, field dictionary, approved documentation index, examples, tests, and changelog in a reusable Skill.
OUTPUT SCHEMA
Return valid JSON only with this exact top-level structure:
{
"workflow_slug": "technical-solution-fit-gap-assumption-register",
"step_number": 2,
"step_title": "Create the versioned solution-fit Claude Skill",
"run_status": "pass|warning|hold|fail",
"source_register": [{"source_id":"string","source_type":"string","captured_at":"ISO-8601|null","authoritative":true,"notes":"string|null"}],
"records": [{
"skill_name": "value|null",
"folder_path": "value|null",
"version": "value|null",
"owner": "value|null",
"backup_owner": "value|null",
"instructions_file": "value|null",
"field_dictionary": "value|null",
"documentation_index": "value|null",
"test_suite": "value|null",
"changelog": "value|null",
"evidence_source_ids": ["string"],
"confidence": "high|medium|low",
"review_status": "approved|needs-review|held"
}],
"exceptions": [{"record_id":"string|null","exception_type":"string","severity":"low|medium|high|critical","evidence":"string","owner":"string","required_action":"string"}],
"changes_from_prior_state": [{"record_id":"string","field":"string","prior_value":"value|null","proposed_value":"value|null","reason":"string","source_ids":["string"]}],
"review_summary": {"facts":["string"],"inferences":["string"],"open_questions":["string"],"next_actions":[{"action":"string","owner":"string","due_date":"YYYY-MM-DD|null"}]},
"qa": {"schema_valid":true,"ids_preserved":true,"evidence_complete":true,"human_approval_required":true}
}
GUARDRAILS
- Treat the supplied field dictionary, approval matrix, security policy, commercial rules, and prior approved state as binding.
- Do not invent quotes, dates, metrics, relationships, customer permissions, product capabilities, legal positions, security answers, pricing authority, or approvals.
- Do not perform, simulate, or claim an external write. Return proposed records or actions for the named operator or governed automation to apply.
- Do not collapse conflicting evidence into one confident statement. Preserve each source and route the conflict to the exception queue.
- Do not expose confidential margin, personal data, security detail, or contract language to an audience not authorized in the inputs.
- Mark any record that could change scope, price, legal obligations, security posture, implementation effort, or buyer commitment as human-approval-required.
EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS
- Every material claim must cite one or more supplied source_id values and include the source date when available.
- Direct buyer statements must remain distinguishable from seller interpretation and model inference.
- Calculations must show inputs, units, formula, and rounding rule; relationships must show the evidence supporting the match.
- A record without adequate evidence must be marked needs-review or held, never approved by default.
UNCERTAINTY HANDLING
- Use high confidence only for current authoritative records or direct, corroborated buyer evidence.
- Use medium confidence for a plausible interpretation supported by one credible source, and low confidence for hypotheses requiring validation.
- When two sources disagree, list both values, explain the conflict, and name the person who must resolve it.
- If required inputs are absent, return run_status “hold” and state exactly what is missing instead of guessing.
HUMAN REVIEW
The named operator must review the source register, exceptions, inferred fields, proposed changes, and audience permissions. Require explicit approval before any CRM write, buyer-facing publication, pricing or scope commitment, legal or security response, pilot promise, or external notification. Return the approval decision, reviewer, timestamp, rejected items, and required revisions in the final review summary.
Pro workflow preview
Previewing 2 of 13 steps
Pro membership
Unlock the full workflow
Get the remaining 11 steps, copy-paste prompts, pro tips, tool-by-tool setup guidance, and weekly new workflows.
$9/month
Create the opportunity-specific fit Project
Import validated requirements and discovery evidence
Register approved product, architecture, and integration evidence